507 research outputs found

    Criteria for developing, assessing and selecting candidate EQ-5D bolt-ons.

    Full text link
    PURPOSE: 'Bolt-on' dimensions are additional items added to multi-attribute utility instruments (MAUIs) such as EQ-5D that measure constructs not included in the core descriptive system. The use of bolt-ons has been proposed to improve the content validity and responsiveness of the descriptive system in certain settings and health conditions. EQ-5D bolt-ons serve a particular purpose and thus satisfy a certain set of criteria. The aim of this paper is to propose a set of criteria to guide the development, assessment and selection of candidate bolt-on descriptors. METHODS: Criteria were developed using an iterative approach. First, existing criteria were identified from the literature including those used to guide the development of MAUIs, the COSMIN checklist and reviews of existing bolt-ons. Second, processes used to develop bolt-ons based on qualitative and quantitative approaches were considered. The information from these two stages was formalised into draft development and selection criteria. These were reviewed by the project team and iteratively refined. RESULTS: Overall, 23 criteria for the development, assessment and selection of candidate bolt-ons were formulated. Development criteria focused on issues relating to i) structure, ii) language, and iii) consistency with the existing EQ-5D dimension structure. Assessment and selection criteria focused on face and content validity and classical psychometric indicators. CONCLUSION: The criteria generated can be used to guide the development of bolt-ons across different health areas. They can also be used to assess existing bolt-ons, and inform their inclusion in studies and patient groups where the EQ-5D may lack content validity

    Anaphylaxis

    Get PDF
    Anaphylaxis is an acute, potentially fatal systemic reaction with varied mechanisms and clinical presentations. Although prompt recognition and treatment of anaphylaxis are imperative, both patients and healthcare professionals often fail to recognize and diagnose early signs and symptoms of the condition. Clinical manifestations vary widely, however, the most common signs are cutaneous symptoms, including angioedema, urticaria, erythema and pruritus. Immediate intramuscular administration of epinephrine into the lateral thigh is first-line therapy, even if the diagnosis is uncertain. The mainstays of long-term management include specialist assessment, avoidance measures, and the provision of an epinephrine auto-injector and an individualized anaphylaxis action plan. This article provides an overview of the causes, clinical features, diagnosis and acute and long-term management of this serious allergic reaction

    Clinical practice. Diagnosis and treatment of cow’s milk allergy

    Get PDF
    Introduction Cow's milk allergy (CMA) is thought to affect 2-3% of infants. The signs and symptoms are nonspecific and may be difficult to objectify, and as the diagnosis requires cow's milk elimination followed by challenge, often, children are considered cow's milk allergic without proven diagnosis. Diagnosis Because of the consequences, a correct diagnosis of CMA is pivotal. Open challenges tend to overestimate the number of children with CMA. The only reliable way to diagnose CMA is by double-blind, placebo-controlled challenge (DBPCFC). Therapy At present, the only proven treatment consists of elimination of cow's milk protein from the child's diet and the introduction of formulas based on extensively hydrolysed whey protein or casein; amino acid-based formula is rarely indicated. The majority of children will regain tolerance to cow's milk within the first 5 years of life. Conclusions Open challenges can be used to reject CMA, but for adequate diagnosis, DBPCFC is mandatory. In most children, CMA can be adequately treated with extensively hydrolysed whey protein or casein formulas

    Pain assessment for people with dementia: a systematic review of systematic reviews of pain assessment tools.

    Get PDF
    BACKGROUND: There is evidence of under-detection and poor management of pain in patients with dementia, in both long-term and acute care. Accurate assessment of pain in people with dementia is challenging and pain assessment tools have received considerable attention over the years, with an increasing number of tools made available. Systematic reviews on the evidence of their validity and utility mostly compare different sets of tools. This review of systematic reviews analyses and summarises evidence concerning the psychometric properties and clinical utility of pain assessment tools in adults with dementia or cognitive impairment. METHODS: We searched for systematic reviews of pain assessment tools providing evidence of reliability, validity and clinical utility. Two reviewers independently assessed each review and extracted data from them, with a third reviewer mediating when consensus was not reached. Analysis of the data was carried out collaboratively. The reviews were synthesised using a narrative synthesis approach. RESULTS: We retrieved 441 potentially eligible reviews, 23 met the criteria for inclusion and 8 provided data for extraction. Each review evaluated between 8 and 13 tools, in aggregate providing evidence on a total of 28 tools. The quality of the reviews varied and the reporting often lacked sufficient methodological detail for quality assessment. The 28 tools appear to have been studied in a variety of settings and with varied types of patients. The reviews identified several methodological limitations across the original studies. The lack of a 'gold standard' significantly hinders the evaluation of tools' validity. Most importantly, the samples were small providing limited evidence for use of any of the tools across settings or populations. CONCLUSIONS: There are a considerable number of pain assessment tools available for use with the elderly cognitive impaired population. However there is limited evidence about their reliability, validity and clinical utility. On the basis of this review no one tool can be recommended given the existing evidence

    Methodology in conducting a systematic review of systematic reviews of healthcare interventions

    Get PDF
    <p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Hundreds of studies of maternity care interventions have been published, too many for most people involved in providing maternity care to identify and consider when making decisions. It became apparent that systematic reviews of individual studies were required to appraise, summarise and bring together existing studies in a single place. However, decision makers are increasingly faced by a plethora of such reviews and these are likely to be of variable quality and scope, with more than one review of important topics. Systematic reviews (or overviews) of reviews are a logical and appropriate next step, allowing the findings of separate reviews to be compared and contrasted, providing clinical decision makers with the evidence they need.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>The methods used to identify and appraise published and unpublished reviews systematically, drawing on our experiences and good practice in the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews are described. The process of identifying and appraising all published reviews allows researchers to describe the quality of this evidence base, summarise and compare the review's conclusions and discuss the strength of these conclusions.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Methodological challenges and possible solutions are described within the context of (i) sources, (ii) study selection, (iii) quality assessment (i.e. the extent of searching undertaken for the reviews, description of study selection and inclusion criteria, comparability of included studies, assessment of publication bias and assessment of heterogeneity), (iv) presentation of results, and (v) implications for practice and research.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Conducting a systematic review of reviews highlights the usefulness of bringing together a summary of reviews in one place, where there is more than one review on an important topic. The methods described here should help clinicians to review and appraise published reviews systematically, and aid evidence-based clinical decision-making.</p

    Boolean versus ranked querying for biomedical systematic reviews

    Get PDF
    Background: The process of constructing a systematic review, a document that compiles the published evidence pertaining to a specified medical topic, is intensely time-consuming, often taking a team of researchers over a year, with the identification of relevant published research comprising a substantial portion of the effort. The standard paradigm for this information-seeking task is to use Boolean search; however, this leaves the user(s) the requirement of examining every returned result. Further, our experience is that effective Boolean queries for this specific task are extremely difficult to formulate and typically require multiple iterations of refinement before being finalized. Methods: We explore the effectiveness of using ranked retrieval as compared to Boolean querying for the purpose of constructing a systematic review. We conduct a series of experiments involving ranked retrieval, using queries defined methodologically, in an effort to understand the practicalities of incorporating ranked retrieval into the systematic search task. Results: Our results show that ranked retrieval by itself is not viable for this search task requiring high recall. However, we describe a refinement of the standard Boolean search process and show that ranking within a Boolean result set can improve the overall search performance by providing early indication of the quality of the results, thereby speeding up the iterative query-refinement process. Conclusions: Outcomes of experiments suggest that an interactive query-development process using a hybrid ranked and Boolean retrieval system has the potential for significant time-savings over the current search process in the systematic reviewing

    The method of educational assessment affects children’s neural processing and performance: behavioural and fMRI Evidence.

    Get PDF
    Standardised educational assessments are now widespread, yet their development has given comparatively more consideration to what to assess than how to optimally assess students’ competencies. Existing evidence from behavioural studies with children and neuroscience studies with adults suggest that the method of assessment may affect neural processing and performance, but current evidence remains limited. To investigate the impact of assessment methods on neural processing and performance in young children, we used functional magnetic resonance imaging to identify and quantify the neural correlates during performance across a range of current approaches to standardised spelling assessment. Results indicated that children’s test performance declined as the cognitive load of assessment method increased. Activation of neural nodes associated with working memory further suggests that this performance decline may be a consequence of a higher cognitive load, rather than the complexity of the content. These findings provide insights into principles of assessment (re)design, to ensure assessment results are an accurate reflection of students’ true levels of competency

    Non-PEGylated liposomes for convection-enhanced delivery of topotecan and gadodiamide in malignant glioma: initial experience

    Get PDF
    Convection-enhanced delivery (CED) of highly stable PEGylated liposomes encapsulating chemotherapeutic drugs has previously been effective against malignant glioma xenografts. We have developed a novel, convectable non-PEGylated liposomal formulation that can be used to encapsulate both the topoisomerase I inhibitor topotecan (topoCED™) and paramagnetic gadodiamide (gadoCED™), providing an ideal basis for real-time monitoring of drug distribution. Tissue retention of topoCED following single CED administration was significantly improved relative to free topotecan. At a dose of 10 μg (0.5 mg/ml), topoCED had a half-life in brain of approximately 1 day and increased the area under the concentration–time curve (AUC) by 28-fold over free topotecan (153.8 vs. 5.5 μg day/g). The combination of topoCED and gadoCED was found to co-convect well in both naïve rat brain and malignant glioma xenografts (correlation coefficients 0.97–0.99). In a U87MG cell assay, the 50% inhibitory concentration (IC50) of topoCED was approximately 0.8 μM at 48 and 72 h; its concentration–time curves were similar to free topotecan and unaffected by gadoCED. In a U87MG intracranial rat xenograft model, a two-dose CED regimen of topoCED co-infused with gadoCED greatly increased median overall survival at dose levels of 0.5 mg/ml (29.5 days) and 1.0 mg/ml (33.0 days) vs. control (20.0 days; P < 0.0001 for both comparisons). TopoCED at higher concentrations (1.6 mg/ml) co-infused with gadoCED showed no evidence of histopathological changes attributable to either agent. The positive results of tissue pharmacokinetics, co-convection, cytotoxicity, efficacy, and lack of toxicity of topoCED in a clinically meaningful dose range, combined with an ideal matched-liposome paramagnetic agent, gadoCED, implicates further clinical applications of this therapy in the treatment of malignant glioma
    corecore