Survival of atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) sealants and restorations: a meta-analysis

The purpose of this study is to perform a systematic investigation plus meta-analysis into survival of atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) sealants and restorations using high-viscosity glass ionomers and to compare the results with those from the 2005 ART meta-analysis. Until February 2010, four databases were searched. Two hundred four publications were found, and 66 reported on ART restorations or sealant survival. Based on five exclusion criteria, two independent reviewers selected the 29 publications that accounted for the meta-analysis. Confidence intervals (CI) and or standard errors were calculated and the heterogeneity variance of the survival rates was estimated. Location (school/clinic) was an independent variable. The survival rates of single-surface and multiple-surface ART restorations in primary teeth over the first 2 years were 93% (CI, 91–94%) and 62% (CI, 51–73%), respectively; for single-surface ART restorations in permanent teeth over the first 3 and 5 years it was 85% (CI, 77–91%) and 80% (CI, 76–83%), respectively and for multiple-surface ART restorations in permanent teeth over 1 year it was 86% (CI, 59–98%). The mean annual dentine lesion incidence rate, in pits and fissures previously sealed using ART, over the first 3 years was 1%. No location effect and no differences between the 2005 and 2010 survival rates of ART restorations and sealants were observed. The short-term survival rates of single-surface ART restorations in primary and permanent teeth, and the caries-preventive effect of ART sealants were high. Clinical relevance: ART can safely be used in single-surface cavities in both primary and permanent teeth. ART sealants have a high caries preventive effect

The MOBILIZE Boston Study: Design and methods of a prospective cohort study of novel risk factors for falls in an older population

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Falls are the sixth leading cause of death in elderly people in the U.S. Despite progress in understanding risk factors for falls, many suspected risk factors have not been adequately studied. Putative risk factors for falls such as pain, reductions in cerebral blood flow, somatosensory deficits, and foot disorders are poorly understood, in part because they pose measurement challenges, particularly for large observational studies.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>The MOBILIZE Boston Study (MBS), an NIA-funded Program Project, is a prospective cohort study of a unique set of risk factors for falls in seniors in the Boston area. Using a door-to-door population-based recruitment, we have enrolled 765 persons aged 70 and older. The baseline assessment was conducted in 2 segments: a 3-hour home interview followed within 4 weeks by a 3-hour clinic examination. Measures included pain, cerebral hemodynamics, and foot disorders as well as established fall risk factors. For the falls follow-up, participants return fall calendar postcards to the research center at the end of each month. Reports of falls are followed-up with a telephone interview to assess circumstances and consequences of each fall. A second assessment is performed 18 months following baseline.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Of the 2382 who met all eligibility criteria at the door, 1616 (67.8%) agreed to participate and were referred to the research center for further screening. The primary reason for ineligibility was inability to communicate in English. Results from the first 600 participants showed that participants are largely representative of seniors in the Boston area in terms of age, sex, race and Hispanic ethnicity. The average age of study participants was 77.9 years (s.d. 5.5) and nearly two-thirds were women. The study cohort was 78% white and 17% black. Many participants (39%) reported having fallen at least once in the year before baseline.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Our results demonstrate the feasibility of conducting comprehensive assessments, including rigorous physiologic measurements, in a diverse population of older adults to study non-traditional risk factors for falls and disability. The MBS will provide an important new data resource for examining novel risk factors for falls and mobility problems in the older population.</p

Predictors of Medication Self-management Skill in a Low-literacy Population

BACKGROUND: Patients' ability to manage medications is critical to chronic disease control. Also known as medication management capacity (MMC), it includes the ability to correctly identify medications and describe how they should be taken. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effects of low literacy, medication regimen complexity, and sociodemographic characteristics on MMC. DESIGN: Cross-sectional analysis of enrollment data from participants in a randomized trial. PARTICIPANTS: Patients with coronary heart disease in an inner-city clinic. MEASUREMENTS: Medication management capacity was measured with the Drug Regimen Unassisted Grading Scale (DRUGS), which scores subjects' ability to identify, open, describe the dose, and describe the timing of their medications. DRUGS overall and component scores were compared by literacy, Mini Mental State Exam score, regimen complexity (number of prescription medications), and sociodemographic characteristics. RESULTS: Most of the 152 participants were elderly (mean age 65.4 years), women (54.6%), and African American (94.1%). Approximately half (50.7%) had inadequate literacy skills, and 28.9% had marginal skills. In univariate analysis, MMC was significantly associated with literacy (P<.001), and this effect was driven by the ability to identify medications. In multivariable models, patients with inadequate literacy skills had 10 to 18 times the odds of being unable to identify all of their medications, compared with those with adequate literacy skills (P<.05). CONCLUSIONS: Adults with inadequate literacy skills have less ability to identify their medications. Techniques are needed to better educate low-literacy patients about their medications, as a potential strategy to enhance adherence