ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomized studies of interventions

Non-randomised studies of the effects of interventions are critical to many areas of healthcare evaluation, but their results may be biased. It is therefore important to understand and appraise their strengths and weaknesses. We developed ROBINS-I ("Risk Of Bias In Non-randomised Studies-of Interventions"), a new tool for evaluating risk of bias in estimates of the comparative effectiveness (harm or benefit) of interventions from studies that did not use randomisation to allocate units (individuals or clusters of individuals) to comparison groups. The tool will be particularly useful to those undertaking systematic reviews that include non-randomised studies

Primary care management of diabetes in a low/middle income country: A multi-method, qualitative study of barriers and facilitators to care

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The management of patients with diabetes mellitus is complex. Some research has been done in developed countries to attempt to determine the factors that influence quality of care of patients with diabetes: Factors thus far postulated are usually categorised into patient, clinician and organisational factors. Our study sought to discover the main barriers and facilitators to care in the management of diabetes in primary care in a low/middle income country.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A qualitative study, based on reflexive ethnography using participant observation, semi-structured interviews of clinicians (10) and group interviews with paramedical staff (4) and patients (12) in three purposively sampled health centres, along with informal observation and discussions at over 50 other health centres throughout Tunisia. A content analysis of the data was performed.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Over 400 potential barriers or facilitators to care of patients with diabetes in primary care in Tunisia emerged. Overall, the most common cited factor was the availability of medication at the health centre. Other frequently observed organisational factors were the existence of chronic disease clinics and clinicians workload. The most commonly mentioned health professional factor was doctor motivation. Frequently cited patient factors were financial issues, patient education and compliance and attendance issues. There were notable differences in the priority given to the various factors by the researcher, physicians, paramedical staff and the patients.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>We have discovered a large number of potential barriers and facilitators to care that may potentially be influencing the care of patients with diabetes within primary care in Tunisia, a low/middle income country. An appreciation and understanding of these factors is essential in order to develop culturally appropriate interventions to improve the care of people with diabetes.</p

Female Pattern Hair Loss

CONTEXT: Female pattern hair loss (FPHL) also known as female androgenetic alopecia is a common condition afflicting millions of women that can be cosmetically disrupting. Prompt diagnosis and treatment are essential for obtaining optimal outcome. This review addresses the clinical presentation of female pattern hair loss, its differential diagnosis and treatment modalities. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: A) Diffuse thinning of the crown region with preservation of the frontal hairline (Ludwig’s type) B) The “Christmas tree pattern” where the thinning is wider in the frontal scalp giving the alopecic area a triangular shaped figure resembling a christmas tree. C) Thinning associated with bitemporal recession (Hamilton type). Generally, FPHL is not associated with elevated androgens. Less commonly females with FPHL may have other skin or general signs of hyperandrogenism such as hirsutism, acne, irregular menses, infertility, galactorrhea and insulin resistance. The most common endocrinological abnormality associated with FPHL is polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS). RESULTS: The most important diseases to consider in the differential diagnosis of FPHL include Chronic Telogen Effluvium (CTE), Permanent Alopecia after Chemotherapy (PAC), Alopecia Areata Incognito (AAI) and Frontal Fibrosing Alopecia (FFA). This review describes criteria for distinguishing these conditions from FPHL. CONCLUSIONS: The only approved treatment for FPHL, which is 2% topical Minoxidil, should be applied at the dosage of 1ml twice day for a minimum period of 12 months. This review will discuss off-label alternative modalities of treatment including 5-alfa reductase inhibitors, antiandrogens, estrogens, prostaglandin analogs, lasers, light treatments and hair transplantation