Diabete melito pós transplante em pacientes transplantados renais tratados com ciclosporina

Resumo não disponíve

Prevalence and risk factors for stroke in a population of Southern Brazil

Stroke is the leading cause of death in many countries of Latin America. Population studies are necessary in this region. Objectives: To evaluate the prevalence of stroke and its risk factors in a population of vulnerable communities of southern Brazil. Methods: Population-based crosssectional study with systematic sampling. Individuals aged 20 and over were included (n=3,391). Individuals with previous diagnosis of stroke or identified by a validate stroke questionnaire were compared with those without stroke in many variables. Results: 285 individuals (8.4%) had previous stroke. The group without stroke showed greater average of years of study than the group with stroke (p≪0.001). Multivariable analysis identified as risk factors for stroke (p≪0.05): age from 40 to 59, age from 60 to 79, widowhood, present smoking, previous smoking, hypertension and ischemic heart disease. Conclusion: The findings in this population indicate the need of preventive cost-effective public health policies in Brazil

Prevalence and risk factors for stroke in a population of Southern Brazil Prevalência e fatores de risco para AVC numa população do sul do Brasil

Stroke is the leading cause of death in many countries of Latin America. Population studies are necessary in this region. Objectives: To evaluate the prevalence of stroke and its risk factors in a population of vulnerable communities of southern Brazil. Methods: Population-based crosssectional study with systematic sampling. Individuals aged 20 and over were included (n=3,391). Individuals with previous diagnosis of stroke or identified by a validate stroke questionnaire were compared with those without stroke in many variables. Results: 285 individuals (8.4%) had previous stroke. The group without stroke showed greater average of years of study than the group with stroke (p&#8810;0.001). Multivariable analysis identified as risk factors for stroke (p&#8810;0.05): age from 40 to 59, age from 60 to 79, widowhood, present smoking, previous smoking, hypertension and ischemic heart disease. Conclusion: The findings in this population indicate the need of preventive cost-effective public health policies in Brazil.<br>O acidente vascular cerebral (AVC) &#233; a principal causa de morte em muitos pa&#237;ses da Am&#233;rica Latina. Objetivos: Avaliar preval&#234;ncia e fatores de risco para AVC em popula&#231;&#227;o de comunidades vulner&#225;veis no sul do Brasil. M&#233;todos: Estudo transversal de base populacional com amostragem sistem&#225;tica. Foram inclu&#237;dos os indiv&#237;duos a partir de 20 anos de idade (n=3.391). Indiv&#237;duos com pr&#233;vio diagn&#243;stico de AVC ou identificados por question&#225;rio validado para AVC foram comparados &#224;queles sem AVC em diversas vari&#225;veis. Resultados: 285 indiv&#237;duos (8,4%) referiram AVC pr&#233;vio. O grupo sem AVC teve maior m&#233;dia de anos de estudo que o grupo com AVC (p&#8810;0,001). Foram identificados como fatores de risco para AVC (p&#8810;0,05): idade de 40 a 59 anos, idade de 60 a 79 anos, viuvez, tabagismo no presente, tabagismo no passado, hipertens&#227;o arterial sist&#234;mica e doen&#231;a isqu&#234;mica do cora&#231;&#227;o. Conclus&#227;o: S&#227;o necess&#225;rias no Brasil pol&#237;ticas de sa&#250;de p&#250;blica preventivas e custo-efetivas

Implementation strategies in emergency management of children: A scoping review.

BackgroundImplementation strategies are vital for the uptake of evidence to improve health, healthcare delivery, and decision-making. Medical or mental emergencies may be life-threatening, especially in children, due to their unique physiological needs when presenting in the emergency departments (EDs). Thus, practice change in EDs attending to children requires evidence-informed considerations regarding the best approaches to implementing research evidence. We aimed to identify and map the characteristics of implementation strategies used in the emergency management of children.MethodsWe conducted a scoping review using Arksey and O'Malley's framework. We searched four databases [Medline (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), Cochrane Central (Wiley) and CINAHL (Ebsco)] from inception to May 2019, for implementation studies in children (≤21 years) in emergency settings. Two pairs of reviewers independently selected studies for inclusion and extracted the data. We performed a descriptive analysis of the included studies.ResultsWe included 87 studies from a total of 9,607 retrieved citations. Most of the studies were before and after study design (n = 68, 61%) conducted in North America (n = 63, 70%); less than one-tenth of the included studies (n = 7, 8%) were randomized controlled trials (RCTs). About one-third of the included studies used a single strategy to improve the uptake of research evidence. Dissemination strategies were more commonly utilized (n = 77, 89%) compared to other implementation strategies; process (n = 47, 54%), integration (n = 49, 56%), and capacity building and scale-up strategies (n = 13, 15%). Studies that adopted capacity building and scale-up as part of the strategies were most effective (100%) compared to dissemination (90%), process (88%) and integration (85%).ConclusionsStudies on implementation strategies in emergency management of children have mostly been non-randomized studies. This review suggests that 'dissemination' is the most common strategy used, and 'capacity building and scale-up' are the most effective strategies. Higher-quality evidence from randomized-controlled trials is needed to accurately assess the effectiveness of implementation strategies in emergency management of children

Inter-rater reliability and concurrent validity of ROBINS-I: protocol for a cross-sectional study

Abstract Background The Cochrane Bias Methods Group recently developed the “Risk of Bias (ROB) in Non-randomized Studies of Interventions” (ROBINS-I) tool to assess ROB for non-randomized studies of interventions (NRSI). It is important to establish consistency in its application and interpretation across review teams. In addition, it is important to understand if specialized training and guidance will improve the reliability of the results of the assessments. Therefore, the objective of this cross-sectional study is to establish the inter-rater reliability (IRR), inter-consensus reliability (ICR), and concurrent validity of ROBINS-I. Furthermore, as this is a relatively new tool, it is important to understand the barriers to using this tool (e.g., time to conduct assessments and reach consensus—evaluator burden). Methods Reviewers from four participating centers will appraise the ROB of a sample of NRSI publications using the ROBINS-I tool in two stages. For IRR and ICR, two pairs of reviewers will assess the ROB for each NRSI publication. In the first stage, reviewers will assess the ROB without any formal guidance. In the second stage, reviewers will be provided customized training and guidance. At each stage, each pair of reviewers will resolve conflicts and arrive at a consensus. To calculate the IRR and ICR, we will use Gwet’s AC1 statistic. For concurrent validity, reviewers will appraise a sample of NRSI publications using both the New-castle Ottawa Scale (NOS) and ROBINS-I. We will analyze the concordance between the two tools for similar domains and for the overall judgments using Kendall’s tau coefficient. To measure the evaluator burden, we will assess the time taken to apply the ROBINS-I (without and with guidance), and the NOS. To assess the impact of customized training and guidance on the evaluator burden, we will use the generalized linear models. We will use Microsoft Excel and SAS 9.4 to manage and analyze study data, respectively. Discussion The quality of evidence from systematic reviews that include NRS depends partly on the study-level ROB assessments. The findings of this study will contribute to an improved understanding of the ROBINS-I tool and how best to use it

Inter-rater reliability and validity of risk of bias instrument for non-randomized studies of exposures: a study protocol

Abstract Background A new tool, “risk of bias (ROB) instrument for non-randomized studies of exposures (ROB-NRSE),” was recently developed. It is important to establish consistency in its application and interpretation across review teams. In addition, it is important to understand if specialized training and guidance will improve the reliability in the results of the assessments. Therefore, the objective of this cross-sectional study is to establish the inter-rater reliability (IRR), inter-consensus reliability (ICR), and concurrent validity of the new ROB-NRSE tool. Furthermore, as this is a relatively new tool, it is important to understand the barriers to using this tool (e.g., time to conduct assessments and reach consensus—evaluator burden). Methods Reviewers from four participating centers will apprise the ROB of a sample of NRSE publications using ROB-NRSE tool in two stages. For IRR and ICR, two pairs of reviewers will assess the ROB for each NRSE publication. In the first stage, reviewers will assess the ROB without any formal guidance. In the second stage, reviewers will be provided customized training and guidance. At each stage, each pair of reviewers will resolve conflicts and arrive at a consensus. To calculate the IRR and ICR, we will use Gwet’s AC1 statistic. For concurrent validity, reviewers will appraise a sample of NRSE publications using both the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) and ROB-NRSE tool. We will analyze the concordance between the two tools for similar domains and for the overall judgments using Kendall’s tau coefficient. To measure evaluator burden, we will assess the time taken to apply ROB-NRSE tool (without and with guidance), and the NOS. To assess the impact of customized training and guidance on the evaluator burden, we will use the generalized linear models. We will use Microsoft Excel and SAS 9.4, to manage and analyze study data, respectively. Discussion The quality of evidence from systematic reviews that include NRSE depends partly on the study-level ROB assessments. The findings of this study will contribute to an improved understanding of ROB-NRSE and how best to use it

Interventions and strategies involving primary healthcare professionals to manage emergency department overcrowding: a scoping review

Objectives To conduct a scoping review to identify and summarise the existing literature on interventions involving primary healthcare professionals to manage emergency department (ED) overcrowding.Design A scoping review.Data sources A comprehensive database search of Medline (Ovid), EMBASE (Ovid), Cochrane Library (Wiley) and CINAHL (EBSCO) databases was conducted (inception until January 2020) using peer-reviewed search strategies, complemented by a search of grey literature sources.Eligibility criteria Interventions and strategies involving primary healthcare professionals (PHCPs: general practitioners (GPs), nurse practitioners (NPs) or nurses with expanded role) to manage ED overcrowding.Methods We engaged and collaborated, with 13 patient partners during the design and conduct stages of this review. We conducted this review using the JBI guidelines. Two reviewers independently selected studies and extracted data. We conducted descriptive analysis of the included studies (frequencies and percentages).Results From 23 947 records identified, we included 268 studies published between 1981 and 2020. The majority (58%) of studies were conducted in North America and were predominantly cohort studies (42%). The reported interventions were either ‘within ED’ (48%) interventions (eg, PHCP-led ED triage or fast track) or ‘outside ED’ interventions (52%) (eg, after-hours GP clinic and GP cooperatives). PHCPs involved in the interventions were: GP (32%), NP (26%), nurses with expanded role (16%) and combinations of the PHCPs (42%). The ‘within ED’ and ‘outside ED’ interventions reported outcomes on patient flow and ED utilisation, respectively.Conclusions We identified many interventions involving PHCPs that predominantly reported a positive impact on ED utilisation/patient flow metrics. Future research needs to focus on conducting well-designed randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and systematic reviews to evaluate the effectiveness of specific interventions involving PHCPs to critically appraise and summarise evidence on this topic