Challenges associated with x-ray imaging of stretcher-bound patients

Patients often arrive at imaging departments on stretchers, and in certain circumstances they must remain on the stretcher for the imaging examination to reduce the likelihood of exacerbating injuries. Imaging stretcher-bound patients can be challenging, with many physical and technical variables to consider. These challenges occur because of differences between imaging a patient on a tabletop and imaging a patient on a stretcher. This article reviews the issues associated with imaging stretcher- bound patients, including the unavailability of the automatic exposure control, different grids used, geometric factors, and variability in stretcher design

A prospective, randomized, pragmatic, health outcomes trial evaluating the incorporation of hylan G-F 20 into the treatment paradigm for patients with knee osteoarthritis (Part 2 of 2): economic results

AbstractObjective Viscosupplementation with hylan G-F 20 has recently become registered for treatment of patients with osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee in most parts of the world. The cost effectiveness and cost utility of this new therapeutic modality were determined as part of a Canadian prospective, randomized, 1-year, open-label, multicentered trial.Design A total of 255 patients were randomized to ‘Appropriate care with hylan G-F 20’ (AC+H) or ‘Appropriate care without hylan G-F 20’ (AC). Costs (1999 Canadian dollars) were collected from the societal viewpoint and included all costs related to OA of the knee and OA in all joints. Patients completed a number of outcomes questionnaires including the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) and the Health Utilities Index Mark 3 (HUI3). Data were collected at clinic visits (baseline, 12 months) and by telephone (1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, and 12 months).Results The AC+H group over the year had higher costs ($2125–$1415=$710, P< 0.05), more patients improved (69$2505/patient improved. The incremental cost–utility ratio was $10000/QALY gained. Sensitivity analyses and a second cost perspective gave similar results.Conclusion The cost–utility ratio is below the suggested Canadian adoption threshold. The results provide strong evidence for adoption of treatment with hylan G-F 20 in the patients and settings studied in the trial. Copyright 2002 OsteoArthritis Research Society International. Published by Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved

Does Consideration and Assessment of Effects on Health Equity Affect the Conclusions of Systematic Reviews? A Methodology Study

INTRODUCTION: Tackling health inequities both within and between countries remains high on the agenda of international organizations including the World Health Organization and local, regional and national governments. Systematic reviews can be a useful tool to assess effects on equity in health status because they include studies conducted in a variety of settings and populations. This study aims to describe the extent to which the impacts of health interventions on equity in health status are considered in systematic reviews, describe methods used, and assess the implications of their equity related findings for policy, practice and research. METHODS: We conducted a methodology study of equity assessment in systematic reviews. Two independent reviewers extracted information on the reporting and analysis of impacts of health interventions on equity in health status in a group of 300 systematic reviews collected from all systematic reviews indexed in one month of MEDLINE, using a pre-tested data collection form. Any differences in data extraction were resolved by discussion. RESULTS: Of the 300 systematic reviews, 224 assessed the effectiveness of interventions on health outcomes. Of these 224 reviews, 29 systematic reviews assessed effects on equity in health status using subgroup analysis or targeted analyses of vulnerable populations. Of these, seven conducted subgroup analyses related to health equity which were reported in insufficient detail to judge their credibility. Of these 29 reviews, 18 described implications for policy and practice based on assessment of effects on health equity. CONCLUSION: The quality and completeness of reporting should be enhanced as a priority, because without this policymakers and practitioners will continue lack the evidence base they need to inform decision-making about health inequity. Furthermore, there is a need to develop methods to systematically consider impacts on equity in health status that is currently lacking in systematic reviews

Effectiveness and safety of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and opioid treatment for knee and hip osteoarthritis: network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE: To assess the effectiveness and safety of different preparations and doses of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), opioids, and paracetamol for knee and hip osteoarthritis pain and physical function to enable effective and safe use of these drugs at their lowest possible dose. DESIGN: Systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised trials. DATA SOURCES: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Medline, Embase, regulatory agency websites, and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception to 28 June 2021. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: Randomised trials published in English with ≥100 patients per group that evaluated NSAIDs, opioids, or paracetamol (acetaminophen) to treat osteoarthritis. OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The prespecified primary outcome was pain. Physical function and safety outcomes were also assessed. REVIEW METHODS: Two reviewers independently extracted outcomes data and evaluated the risk of bias of included trials. Bayesian random effects models were used for network meta-analysis of all analyses. Effect estimates are comparisons between active treatments and oral placebo. RESULTS: 192 trials comprising 102 829 participants examined 90 different active preparations or doses (68 for NSAIDs, 19 for opioids, and three for paracetamol). Five oral preparations (diclofenac 150 mg/day, etoricoxib 60 and 90 mg/day, and rofecoxib 25 and 50 mg/day) had ≥99% probability of more pronounced treatment effects than the minimal clinically relevant reduction in pain. Topical diclofenac (70-81 and 140-160 mg/day) had ≥92.3% probability, and all opioids had ≤53% probability of more pronounced treatment effects than the minimal clinically relevant reduction in pain. 18.5%, 0%, and 83.3% of the oral NSAIDs, topical NSAIDs, and opioids, respectively, had an increased risk of dropouts due to adverse events. 29.8%, 0%, and 89.5% of oral NSAIDs, topical NSAIDs, and opioids, respectively, had an increased risk of any adverse event. Oxymorphone 80 mg/day had the highest risk of dropouts due to adverse events (51%) and any adverse event (88%). CONCLUSIONS: Etoricoxib 60 mg/day and diclofenac 150 mg/day seem to be the most effective oral NSAIDs for pain and function in patients with osteoarthritis. However, these treatments are probably not appropriate for patients with comorbidities or for long term use because of the slight increase in the risk of adverse events. Additionally, an increased risk of dropping out due to adverse events was found for diclofenac 150 mg/day. Topical diclofenac 70-81 mg/day seems to be effective and generally safer because of reduced systemic exposure and lower dose, and should be considered as first line pharmacological treatment for knee osteoarthritis. The clinical benefit of opioid treatment, regardless of preparation or dose, does not outweigh the harm it might cause in patients with osteoarthritis. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO number CRD42020213656

Assessing evidence of interventions addressing inequity among migrant populations: a two-stage systematic review

Background: Everyone has the right to achieve the standard of health and well-being. Migrants are considered as vulnerable populations due to the lack of access to health services and financial protection in health. Several interventions have been developed to improve migrant population health, but little is known about whether these interventions have considered the issue of equity as part of their outcome measurement. Objective: To assess the evidence of health interventions in addressing inequity among migrants. Methods: We adopted a two-stage searching approach to ensure the feasibility of this review. First, reviews of interventions for migrants were searched from five databases: PubMed, Cochrane, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and EMBASE until June 2017. Second, full articles included in the identified reviews were retrieved. Primary studies included in the identified reviews were then evaluated as to whether they met the following criteria: experimental studies which include equity aspects as part of their outcome measurement, based on equity attributes defined by PROGRESS-Plus factors (place of residence, race/ethnicity, occupation, gender, religion, education, socio-economic status, social capital, and others). We analysed the information extracted from the selected articles based on the PRISMA-Equity guidelines and the PROGRESSPlus factors. Results: Forty-nine reviews involving 1145 primary studies met the first-stage inclusion criteria. After exclusion of 764 studies, the remaining 381 experimental studies were assessed. Thirteen out of 381 experimental studies (3.41%) were found to include equity attributes as part of their outcome measurement. However, although some associations were found none of the included studies demonstrated the effect of the intervention on reducing inequity. All studies were conducted in high-income countries. The interventions included individual directed, community education and peer navigator-related interventions. Conclusions: Current evidence reveals that there is a paucity of studies assessing equity attributes of health interventions developed for migrant populations. This indicates that equity has not been receiving attention in these studies of migrant populations. More attention to equity-focused outcome assessment is needed to help policy-makers to consider all relevant outcomes for sound decision making concerning migrants

Instrument Selection Using the OMERACT Filter 2.1: The OMERACT Methodology.

Objective: Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) Filter 2.1 revised the process used for core outcome measurement set selection to add rigour and transparency in decision making. This paper describes OMERACT’s methodology for instrument selection. Methods: We presented instrument selection processes, tools, and reporting templates at OMERACT 2018, introducing the concept of “3 pillars, 4 questions, 7 measurement properties, 1 answer”. Truth, Discrimination and Feasibility are the three original OMERACT pillars. Based on these, we developed four signaling questions. We introduced the Summary of Measurement Properties (SOMP) table which summarizes the seven measurement properties: Truth (domain match, construct validity), Discrimination (test-retest reliability, longitudinal construct validity (responsiveness), clinical trial discrimination, thresholds of meaning), and Feasibility. These properties address a set of standards which, when met, answer the one question: Is there enough evidence to support the use of this instrument in clinical research of the benefits and harms of treatments in the population and study setting described? The OMERACT Filter 2.1 was piloted on two instruments by the Psoriatic Arthritis Working Group Results: The methodology was reviewed in a full plenary session and facilitated breakout groups. Tools to facilitate retention of the process (i.e., “The OMERACT Way”) were provided. The two instruments were presented and the recommendation of the working group was endorsed in the first OMERACT Filter 2.1 Instrument Selection votes. Conclusion: Instrument Selection using OMERACT Filter 2.1 is feasible and is now being implemented