Systematic review of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of rapid point-of-care tests for the detection of genital chlamydia infection in women and men.

Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Systematic review of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness, and economic evaluation, of denosumab for the treatment of bone metastases from solid tumours

Peer reviewedPublisher PD

The diagnostic accuracy and cost-effectiveness of magnetic resonance spectroscopy and enhanced magnetic resonance imaging techniques in aiding the localisation of prostate abnormalities for biopsy : a systematic review and economic evaluation

Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of imatinib dose escalation for the treatment of unresectable and/or metastatic gastrointestinal stromal tumours that have progressed on treatment at a dose of 400 mg/day : a systematic review and economic evaluation

Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Elucigene FH20 and LIPOchip for the diagnosis of familial hypercholesterolaemia : a systematic review and economic evaluation

PMID: 22469073 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] Free full textPeer reviewedPublisher PD

The U.S.-Russia Joint Threat Assessment of Nuclear Terrorism

Nuclear terrorism is a real and urgent threat. Given the potentially catastrophic consequences, even a small probability of terrorists getting and detonating a nuclear bomb is enough to justify urgent action to reduce the risk. Al-Qaeda and North Caucasus terrorist groups have both made statements indicating that they seek nuclear weapons and have attempted to acquire them; these groups are presented together as a case study to assess nuclear terrorism as a present and future threat. (The only other terrorist group known to have systematically sought to get nuclear weapons was the Japanese cult group Aum Shinrikyo.) This study makes the case that it is plausible that a technically sophisticated group could make, deliver, and detonate a crude nuclear bomb if it could obtain sufficient fissile material. The study offers recommendations for actions to reduce this danger

Systematic review of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of oesophageal Doppler monitoring in critically ill and high-risk surgical patients

Objectives: To assess the effectiveness and costeffectiveness of oesophageal Doppler monitoring (ODM) compared with conventional clinical assessment and other methods of monitoring cardiovascular function. Data sources: Electronic databases and relevant websites from 1990 to May 2007 were searched. Review methods: This review was based on a systematic review conducted by the US Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), supplemented by evidence from any additional studies identified. Comparator interventions for effectiveness were standard care, pulmonary artery catheters (PACs), pulse contour analysis monitoring and lithium or thermodilution cardiac monitoring. Data were extracted on mortality, length of stay overall and in critical care, complications and quality of life. The economic assessment evaluated strategies involving ODM compared with standard care, PACs, pulse contour analysis monitoring and lithium or thermodilution cardiac monitoring. Results: The AHRQ report contained eight RCTs and was judged to be of high quality overall. Four comparisons were reported: ODM plus central venous pressure (CVP) monitoring plus conventional assessment vs CVP monitoring plus conventional assessment during surgery; ODM plus conventional assessment vs CVP monitoring plus conventional assessment during surgery; ODM plus conventional assessment vs conventional assessment during surgery; and ODM plus CVP monitoring plus conventional assessment vs CVP monitoring plus conventional assessment postoperatively. Five studies compared ODM plus CVP monitoring plus conventional assessment with CVP monitoring plus conventional assessment during surgery. There were fewer deaths [Peto odds ratio (OR) 0.13, 95% CI 0.02–0.96], fewer major complications (Peto OR 0.12, 95% CI 0.04–0.31), fewer total complications (fixed-effects OR 0.43, 95% CI 0.26–0.71) and shorter length of stay (pooled estimate not presented, 95% CI –2.21 to –0.57) in the ODM group. The results of the meta analysis of mortality should be treated with caution owing to the low number of events and low overall number of patients in the combined totals. Three studies compared ODM plus conventional assessment with conventional assessment during surgery. There was no evidence of a difference in mortality (fixed-effects OR 0.81, 95% CI 0.23–2.77). Length of hospital stay was shorter in all three studies in the ODM group. Two studies compared ODM plus CVP monitoring plus conventional assessment vs CVP monitoring plus conventional assessment in critically ill patients. The patient groups were quite different (cardiac surgery and major trauma) and neither study, nor a meta-analysis, showed a statistically significant difference in mortality (fixed-effects OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.41–1.70). Fewer patients in the ODM group experienced complications (OR 0.49, 95% CI 0.30–0.81) and both studies reported a statistically significant shorter median length of hospital stay in that group. No economic evaluations that met the inclusion criteria were identified from the existing literature so a series of balance sheets was constructed. The results show that ODM strategies are likely to be cost-effective. Conclusions: More formal economic evaluation would allow better use of the available data. All identified studies were conducted in unconscious patients. However, further research is needed to evaluate new ODM probes that may be tolerated by awake patients. Given the paucity of the existing economic evidence base, any further primary research should include an economic evaluation or should provide data suitable for use in an economic model.The Health Services Research Unit and the Health Economics Research Unit are both core funded by the Chief Scientist Office of the Scottish Government Health Directorate.Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Chapter 3: Choosing the Important Outcomes for a Systematic Review of a Medical Test

In this chapter of the Evidence-based Practice Centers Methods Guide for Medical Tests, we describe how the decision to use a medical test generates a broad range of outcomes and that each of these outcomes should be considered for inclusion in a systematic review. Awareness of these varied outcomes affects how a decision maker balances the benefits and risks of the test; therefore, a systematic review should present the evidence on these diverse outcomes. The key outcome categories include clinical management outcomes and direct health effects; emotional, social, cognitive, and behavioral responses to testing; legal and ethical outcomes, and costs. We describe the challenges of incorporating these outcomes in a systematic review, suggest a framework for generating potential outcomes for inclusion, and describe the role of stakeholders in choosing the outcomes for study. Finally, we give examples of systematic reviews that either included a range of outcomes or that might have done so. The following are the key messages in this chapter: Consider both the outcomes that are relevant to the process of testing and those that are relevant to the results of the test.Consider inclusion of outcomes in all five domains: clinical management effects, direct test effects; emotional, social, cognitive and behavioral effects; legal and ethical effects, and costs.Consider to which group the outcomes of testing are most relevant.Given resource limitations, prioritize which outcomes to include. This decision depends on the needs of the stakeholder(s), who should be assisted in prioritizing the outcomes for inclusion

Measures for assessing practice change in medical practitioners

BACKGROUND: There are increasing numbers of randomised trials and systematic reviews examining the efficacy of interventions designed to bring about a change in clinical practice. The findings of this research are being used to guide strategies to increase the uptake of evidence into clinical practice. Knowledge of the outcomes measured by these trials is vital not only for the interpretation and application of the work done to date, but also to inform future research in this expanding area of endeavour and to assist in collation of results in systematic reviews and meta-analyses. METHODS: The objective of this review was to identify methods used to measure change in the clinical practices of health professionals following an intervention aimed at increasing the uptake of evidence into practice. All published trials included in a recent, comprehensive Health Technology Assessment of interventions to implement clinical practice guidelines and change clinical practice (n = 228) formed the sample for this study. Using a standardised data extraction form, one reviewer (SH), extracted the relevant information from the methods and/or results sections of the trials. RESULTS: Measures of a change of health practitioner behaviour were the most common, with 88.8% of trials using these as outcome measures. Measures that assessed change at a patient level, either actual measures of change or surrogate measures of change, were used in 28.8% and 36.7% of studies (respectively). Health practitioners' knowledge and attitudes were assessed in 22.8% of the studies and changes at an organisational level were assessed in 17.6%. CONCLUSION: Most trials of interventions aimed at changing clinical practice measured the effect of the intervention at the level of the practitioner, i.e. did the practitioner change what they do, or has their knowledge of and/or attitude toward that practice changed? Less than one-third of the trials measured, whether or not any change in practice, resulted in a change in the ultimate end-point of patient health status

Measuring co-authorship and networking-adjusted scientific impact

Appraisal of the scientific impact of researchers, teams and institutions with productivity and citation metrics has major repercussions. Funding and promotion of individuals and survival of teams and institutions depend on publications and citations. In this competitive environment, the number of authors per paper is increasing and apparently some co-authors don't satisfy authorship criteria. Listing of individual contributions is still sporadic and also open to manipulation. Metrics are needed to measure the networking intensity for a single scientist or group of scientists accounting for patterns of co-authorship. Here, I define I1 for a single scientist as the number of authors who appear in at least I1 papers of the specific scientist. For a group of scientists or institution, In is defined as the number of authors who appear in at least In papers that bear the affiliation of the group or institution. I1 depends on the number of papers authored Np. The power exponent R of the relationship between I1 and Np categorizes scientists as solitary (R>2.5), nuclear (R=2.25-2.5), networked (R=2-2.25), extensively networked (R=1.75-2) or collaborators (R<1.75). R may be used to adjust for co-authorship networking the citation impact of a scientist. In similarly provides a simple measure of the effective networking size to adjust the citation impact of groups or institutions. Empirical data are provided for single scientists and institutions for the proposed metrics. Cautious adoption of adjustments for co-authorship and networking in scientific appraisals may offer incentives for more accountable co-authorship behaviour in published articles.Comment: 25 pages, 5 figure