Using electronic medical records analysis to investigate the effectiveness of lifestyle programs in real-world primary care is challenging: a case study in diabetes mellitus

The increasing prevalence of diabetes suggests a gap between real world and controlled trial effectiveness of lifestyle interventions, but real-world investigations are rare. Electronic medical registration facilitates research on real-world effectiveness, although such investigations may require specific methodology and statistics. We investigated the effects of real-world primary care for patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).status: publishe

Cochlear implantation in patients with chronic otitis media: 7 years’ experience in Maastricht

The purpose of this paper is to propose management options for cochlear implantation in chronic otitis media (COM) based on our 7-year experience. Thirteen patients with COM who were candidates for cochlear implantation were identified. COM was divided in an inactive and an active form based on clinical and radiological findings. One major complications and one minor complication were identified in the study group. In case of an active infection or in case of a unstable cavity we advise cochlear implantation as a staged procedure. A single stage procedure is recommended in case of patients with COM presenting with a dry perforation or a stable cavity

Effect of lifestyle intervention for people with diabetes or prediabetes in real-world primary care: propensity score analysis

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Many lifestyle interventions for patients with prediabetes or type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) have been investigated in randomised clinical trial settings. However, the translation of these programmes into primary care seems challenging and the prevalence of T2DM is increasing. Therefore, there is an urgent need for lifestyle programmes, developed and shown to be effective in real-world primary care. We evaluated a lifestyle programme, commissioned by the Dutch government, for patients with prediabetes or type 2 diabetes in primary care.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We performed a retrospective comparative medical records analysis using propensity score matching. Patients with prediabetes or T2DM were selected from ten primary healthcare centres. Patients who received the lifestyle intervention (n = 186) were compared with a matched group of patients who received usual care (n = 2632). Data were extracted from the electronic primary care records. Propensity score matching was used to control for confounding by indication. Outcome measures were exercise level, BMI, HbA1c, fasting glucose, systolic and diastolic blood pressure, total cholesterol, HDL and LDL cholesterol and triglycerides and the follow-up period was one year.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>There was no significant difference at follow-up in any outcome measure between either group. The reduction at one year follow-up of HbA1c and fasting glucose was positive in the intervention group compared with controls, although not statistically significant (-0.12%, <it>P </it>= 0.07 and -0.17 mmol/l, <it>P </it>= 0.08 respectively).</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>The effects of the lifestyle programme in real-world primary care for patients with prediabetes or T2DM were small and not statistically significant. The attention of governments for lifestyle interventions is important, but from the available literature and the results of this study, it must be concluded that improving lifestyle in real-world primary care is still challenging.</p

Pragmatic vs. explanatory: An adaptation of the PRECIS tool helps to judge the applicability of systematic reviews for daily practice

OBJECTIVE: The Pragmatic-Explanatory Continuum Indicator Summary (PRECIS) tool was designed to classify randomized clinical trials (RCT) as being more pragmatic or explanatory. We modified the PRECIS tool (called PRECIS-Review tool [PR-tool]) to grade individual trials and systematic reviews of trials. This should help policy makers, clinicians, researchers, and guideline developers to judge the applicability of individual trials and systematic reviews. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: To illustrate the usefulness and applicability of the PR-tool, we applied it to two systematic reviews. Each included RCT was scored on the 10 PRECIS domains on a scale of 1-5. After this scoring, a 10-domain average for each individual trial and for the systematic review a single domain average and an overall average was calculated. RESULTS: One review was more pragmatic with an average score of 3.7 (range, 2.9-4.6) on our PR-tool, whereas the other review was more explanatory with an average score of 1.9 (range, 1.1-3.3). The results also suggest that the included studies within each systematic review were rather uniform in their approach, although some domains seemed more prone to heterogeneity. CONCLUSION: The PR-tool provides a useful estimate that gives insight by estimating quantitatively how pragmatic each RCT in the review is, which methodological domains are pragmatic or explanatory, and how pragmatic the review is