The methodological quality of systematic reviews comparing temporomandibular joint disorder surgical and non-surgical treatment

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Temporomandibular joint disorders (TMJD) are multifactor, complex clinical problems affecting approximately 60–70% of the general population, with considerable controversy about the most effective treatment. For example, reports claim success rates of 70% and 83% for non-surgical and surgical treatment, whereas other reports claim success rates of 40% to 70% for self-improvement without treatment. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to (1) identify systematic reviews comparing temporomandibular joint disorder surgical and non-surgical treatment, (2) evaluate their methodological quality, and (3) evaluate the evidence grade within the systematic reviews.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A search strategy was developed and implemented for MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, LILACS, and Brazilian Dentistry Bibliography databases. Inclusion criteria were: systematic reviews (± meta-analysis) comparing surgical and non-surgical TMJD treatment, published in English, Spanish, Portuguese, Italian, or German between the years 1966 and 2007(up to July). Exclusion criteria were: <it>in vitro </it>or animal studies; narrative reviews or editorials or editorial letters; and articles published in other languages. Two investigators independently selected and evaluated systematic reviews. Three different instruments (AMSTAR, OQAQ and CASP) were used to evaluate methodological quality, and the results averaged. The GRADE instrument was used to evaluate the evidence grade within the reviews.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The search strategy identified 211 reports; of which 2 were systematic reviews meeting inclusion criteria. The first review met 23.5 ± 6.0% and the second met 77.5 ± 12.8% of the methodological quality criteria (mean ± sd). In these systematic reviews between 9 and 15% of the trials were graded as high quality, and 2 and 8% of the total number of patients were involved in these studies.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The results indicate that in spite of the widespread impact of TMJD, and the multitude of potential interventions, clinicians have expended sparse attention to systematically implementing clinical trial methodology that would improve validity and reliability of outcome measures. With some 20 years of knowledge of evidence-based healthcare, the meager attention to these issues begins to raise ethical issues about TMJD trial conduct and clinical care.</p

Autologous haematopoietic stem cell transplantation for treatment of multiple sclerosis

Autologous haematopoietic stem cell transplantation (AHSCT) is a multistep procedure that enables destruction of the immune system and its reconstitution from haematopoietic stem cells. Originally developed for the treatment of haematological malignancies, the procedure has been adapted for the treatment of severe immune-mediated disorders. Results from ~20 years of research make a compelling case for selective use of AHSCT in patients with highly active multiple sclerosis (MS), and for controlled trials. Immunological studies support the notion that AHSCT causes qualitative immune resetting, and have provided insight into the mechanisms that might underlie the powerful treatment effects that last well beyond recovery of immune cell numbers. Indeed, studies have demonstrated that AHSCT can entirely suppress MS disease activity for 4–5 years in 70–80% of patients, a rate that is higher than those achieved with any other therapies for MS. Treatment-related mortality, which was 3.6% in studies before 2005, has decreased to 0.3% in studies since 2005. Current evidence indicates that the patients who are most likely to benefit from and tolerate AHSCT are young, ambulatory and have inflammatory MS activity. Clinical trials are required to rigorously test the efficacy, safety and cost-effectiveness of AHSCT against highly active MS drugs

Patient Safety in Internal Medicine

AbstractHospital Internal Medicine (IM) is the branch of medicine that deals with the diagnosis and non-surgical treatment of diseases, providing the comprehensive care in the office and in the hospital, managing both common and complex illnesses of adolescents, adults, and the elderly. IM is a key ward for Health National Services. In Italy, for example, about 17.3% of acute patients are discharged from the IM departments. After the epidemiological transition to chronic/degenerative diseases, patients admitted to hospital are often poly-pathological and so requiring a global approach as in IM. As such transition was not associated—with rare exceptions—to hospital re-organization of beds and workforce, IM wards are often overcrowded, burdened by off-wards patients and subjected to high turnover and discharge pressure. All these factors contribute to amplify some traditional clinical risks for patients and health operators. The aim of our review is to describe several potential errors and their prevention strategies, which should be implemented by physicians, nurses, and other healthcare professionals working in IM wards

The Top Patient Safety Strategies That Can Be Encouraged for Adoption Now

Over the past 12 years, since the publication of the Institute of Medicine's report, “To Err is Human: Building a Safer Health System,” improving patient safety has been the focus of considerable public and professional interest. Although such efforts required changes in policies; education; workforce; and health care financing, organization, and delivery, the most important gap has arguably been in research. Specifically, to improve patient safety we needed to identify hazards, determine how to measure them accurately, and identify solutions that work to reduce patient harm. A 2001 report commissioned by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, “Making Health Care Safer: A Critical Analysis of Patient Safety Practices” (1), helped identify some early evidence-based safety practices, but it also highlighted an enormous gap between what was known and what needed to be known

The Top Patient Safety Strategies That Can Be Encouraged for Adoption Now

Over the past 12 years, since the publication of the Institute of Medicine's report, “To Err is Human: Building a Safer Health System,” improving patient safety has been the focus of considerable public and professional interest. Although such efforts required changes in policies; education; workforce; and health care financing, organization, and delivery, the most important gap has arguably been in research. Specifically, to improve patient safety we needed to identify hazards, determine how to measure them accurately, and identify solutions that work to reduce patient harm. A 2001 report commissioned by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, “Making Health Care Safer: A Critical Analysis of Patient Safety Practices” (1), helped identify some early evidence-based safety practices, but it also highlighted an enormous gap between what was known and what needed to be known