A systematic review of patient and health system characteristics associated with late referral in chronic kidney disease

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>To identify patient and health system characteristics associated with late referral of patients with chronic kidney disease to nephrologists.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>MEDLINE, CENTRAL, and CINAHL were searched using the appropriate MESH terms in March 2007. Two reviewers individually and in duplicate reviewed the abstracts of 256 articles and selected 18 observational studies for inclusion. The reasons for late referral were categorized into patient or health system characteristics. Data extraction and content appraisal were done using a prespecified protocol.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Older age, the existence of multiple comorbidities, race other than Caucasian, lack of insurance, lower socioeconomic status and educational levels were patient characteristics associated with late referral of patients with chronic kidney disease. Lack of referring physician knowledge about the appropriate timing of referral, absence of communication between referring physicians and nephrologists, and dialysis care delivered at tertiary medical centers were health system characteristics associated with late referral of patients with chronic kidney disease. Most studies identified multiple factors associated with late referral, although the relative importance and the combined effect of these factors were not systematically evaluated.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>A combination of patient and health system characteristics is associated with late referral of patients with chronic kidney disease. Overall, being older, belonging to a minority group, being less educated, being uninsured, suffering from multiple comorbidities, and the lack of communication between primary care physicians and nephrologists contribute to late referral of patients with chronic kidney disease. Both primary care physicians and nephrologists need to engage in multisectoral collaborative efforts that ensure patient education and enhance physician awareness to improve the care of patients with chronic kidney disease.</p

Functional outcome of computer-assisted spinal pedicle screw placement: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 23 studies including 5,992 pedicle screws

A number of studies have shown increased accuracy of pedicle screw placement in spine with the help of computer-assisted navigation. The literature is lacking in regard to functional benefit derived from this technique. The aim of this systematic review was to look at the functional outcomes following computer-assisted pedicle screw placement in spine. A ‘Dialog Datastar’ search was used using optimized search strategy covering the period from 1950 to July 2009; 23 papers were finally included which met our inclusion criteria. We report on a total of 1,288 patients with 5,992 pedicle screws. The comparison of neurological complications in two groups demonstrated an odds ratio of 0.25 (95% CI 0.06, 1.14) in favour of using navigation for pedicle screw insertion (p = 0.07). Comparative trials demonstrated a significant advantage in terms of accuracy of navigation over conventional pedicle screw insertion with a relative risk of 1.12 (95% CI 1.09, 1.15) (p < 0.00001). Navigation does not show statistically significant benefit in reducing neurological complications and there was insufficient data in the literature to infer a conclusion in terms of fusion rate, pain relief and health outcome scores

A framework for organizing and selecting quantitative approaches for benefit-harm assessment

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Several quantitative approaches for benefit-harm assessment of health care interventions exist but it is unclear how the approaches differ. Our aim was to review existing quantitative approaches for benefit-harm assessment and to develop an organizing framework that clarifies differences and aids selection of quantitative approaches for a particular benefit-harm assessment.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We performed a review of the literature to identify quantitative approaches for benefit-harm assessment. Our team, consisting of clinicians, epidemiologists, and statisticians, discussed the approaches and identified their key characteristics. We developed a framework that helps investigators select quantitative approaches for benefit-harm assessment that are appropriate for a particular decisionmaking context.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Our framework for selecting quantitative approaches requires a concise definition of the treatment comparison and population of interest, identification of key benefit and harm outcomes, and determination of the need for a measure that puts all outcomes on a single scale (which we call a benefit and harm comparison metric). We identified 16 quantitative approaches for benefit-harm assessment. These approaches can be categorized into those that consider single or multiple key benefit and harm outcomes, and those that use a benefit-harm comparison metric or not. Most approaches use aggregate data and can be used in the context of single studies or systematic reviews. Although the majority of approaches provides a benefit and harm comparison metric, only four approaches provide measures of uncertainty around the benefit and harm comparison metric (such as a 95 percent confidence interval). None of the approaches considers the actual joint distribution of benefit and harm outcomes, but one approach considers competing risks when calculating profile-specific event rates. Nine approaches explicitly allow incorporating patient preferences.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The choice of quantitative approaches depends on the specific question and goal of the benefit-harm assessment as well as on the nature and availability of data. In some situations, investigators may identify only one appropriate approach. In situations where the question and available data justify more than one approach, investigators may want to use multiple approaches and compare the consistency of results. When more evidence on relative advantages of approaches accumulates from such comparisons, it will be possible to make more specific recommendations on the choice of approaches.</p