Alveolar ridge preservation reduces the need for ancillary bone augmentation in the context of implant therapy.

BACKGROUND There is limited information on the need for bone augmentation in the context of delayed implant placement whether alveolar ridge preservation (ARP) is previously performed or not. The primary aim of this retrospective cohort study was to evaluate the efficacy of ARP therapy after tooth extraction compared with unassisted socket healing (USH) in reducing the need for ancillary bone augmentation before or at the time of implant placement. METHODS Adult subjects that underwent non-molar single tooth extraction with or without simultaneous ARP therapy were included in this study. Cone beam computed tomography scans obtained before tooth extraction and after a variable healing period were used to record the baseline facial bone thickness and to virtually plan implant placement according to a standard method. A logistic regression model was used to evaluate the effect of facial alveolar bone thickness upon tooth extraction and baseline therapy (USH or ARP) on the need for additional bone augmentation, adjusting for several covariates (i.e., age, sex, baseline KMW, and tooth type). RESULTS One hundred and forty subjects that were equally distributed between both baseline therapy groups constituted the study population. Implant placement was deemed virtually feasible in all study sites. Simultaneous bone augmentation was considered necessary in 60% and 11.4% of the sites in the USH and ARP group, respectively. Most of these sites (64.2% in the USH group and 87.5% in the ARP group) exhibited a thin facial bone phenotype (<1 mm) at baseline. Logistic regression revealed that the odds of not needing ancillary bone augmentation were 17.8 times higher in sites that received ARP therapy. Furthermore, the need for additional bone augmentation was reduced 7.7 times for every 1 mm increase in facial bone thickness, regardless of baseline therapy. CONCLUSIONS Based on a digital analysis, ARP therapy, compared with USH, and thick facial alveolar bone largely reduce the need for ancillary bone augmentation at the time of implant placement in non-molar sites

Bibliometrics of systematic reviews : analysis of citation rates and journal impact factors

Background: Systematic reviews are important for informing clinical practice and health policy. The aim of this study was to examine the bibliometrics of systematic reviews and to determine the amount of variance in citations predicted by the journal impact factor (JIF) alone and combined with several other characteristics. Methods: We conducted a bibliometric analysis of 1,261 systematic reviews published in 2008 and the citations to them in the Scopus database from 2008 to June 2012. Potential predictors of the citation impact of the reviews were examined using descriptive, univariate and multiple regression analysis. Results: The mean number of citations per review over four years was 26.5 (SD +/-29.9) or 6.6 citations per review per year. The mean JIF of the journals in which the reviews were published was 4.3 (SD +/-4.2). We found that 17% of the reviews accounted for 50% of the total citations and 1.6% of the reviews were not cited. The number of authors was correlated with the number of citations (r = 0.215, P =5.16) received citations in the bottom quartile (eight or fewer), whereas 9% of reviews published in the lowest JIF quartile (<=2.06) received citations in the top quartile (34 or more). Six percent of reviews in journals with no JIF were also in the first quartile of citations. Conclusions: The JIF predicted over half of the variation in citations to the systematic reviews. However, the distribution of citations was markedly skewed. Some reviews in journals with low JIFs were well-cited and others in higher JIF journals received relatively few citations; hence the JIF did not accurately represent the number of citations to individual systematic reviews

Measuring and explaining mortality in Dutch hospitals; The Hospital Standardized Mortality Rate between 2003 and 2005

Background. Indicators of hospital quality, such as hospital standardized mortality ratios (HSMR), have been used increasingly to assess and improve hospital quality. Our aim has been to describe and explain variation in new HSMRs for the Netherlands. Methods. HSMRs were estimated using data from the complete population of discharged patients during 2003 to 2005. We used binary logistic regression to indirectly standardize for differences in case-mix. Out of a total of 101 hospitals 89 hospitals remained in our explanatory analysis. In this analysis we explored the association between HSMRs and determinants that can and cannot be influenced by hospitals. For this analysis we used a two-level hierarchical linear regression model to explain variation in yearly HSMRs. Results. The average HSMR decreased yearly with more than eight

Orthodontics in the era of big data analytics

Peer Reviewedhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/149344/1/ocr12279_am.pdfhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/149344/2/ocr12279.pd

Health-related quality of life after treatment for bladder cancer in England

Background Little is known about quality of life after bladder cancer treatment. This common cancer is managed using treatments that can affect urinary, sexual and bowel function. Methods To understand quality of life and inform future care, the Department of Health (England) surveyed adults surviving bladder cancer 1–5 years after diagnosis. Questions related to disease status, co-existing conditions, generic health (EQ-5D), cancer-generic (Social Difficulties Inventory) and cancer-specific outcomes (Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy—Bladder). Results In total, 673 (54%) patients responded; including 500 (74%) men and 539 (80%) with co-existing conditions. Most respondents received endoscopic treatment (60%), while 92 (14%) and 99 (15%) received radical cystectomy or radiotherapy, respectively. Questionnaire completion rates varied (51–97%). Treatment groups reported ≥1 problem using EQ-5D generic domains (59–74%). Usual activities was the most common concern. Urinary frequency was common after endoscopy (34–37%) and radiotherapy (44–50%). Certain populations were more likely to report generic, cancer-generic and cancer-specific problems; notably those with co-existing long-term conditions and those treated with radiotherapy. Conclusion The study demonstrates the importance of assessing patient-reported outcomes in this population. There is a need for larger, more in-depth studies to fully understand the challenges patients with bladder cancer face

Could chiropractors screen for adverse drug events in the community? Survey of US chiropractors

Abstract Background The "Put Prevention into Practice" campaign of the US Public Health Service (USPHS) was launched with the dissemination of the Clinician's Handbook of Preventive Services that recommended standards of clinical care for various prevention activities, including preventive clinical strategies to reduce the risk of adverse drug events. We explored whether nonprescribing clinicians such as chiropractors may contribute to advancing drug safety initiatives by identifying potential adverse drug events in their chiropractic patients, and by bringing suspected adverse drug events to the attention of the prescribing clinicians. Methods Mail survey of US chiropractors about their detection of potential adverse drug events in their chiropractic patients. Results Over half of responding chiropractors (62%) reported having identified a suspected adverse drug event occurring in one of their chiropractic patients. The severity of suspected drug-related events detected ranged from mild to severe. Conclusions Chiropractors or other nonprescribing clinicians may be in a position to detect potential adverse drug events in the community. These detection and reporting mechanisms should be standardized and policies related to clinical case management of suspected adverse drug events occurring in their patients should be developed