Safety, effectiveness and economic evaluation of intra-operative radiation therapy: A systematic review

Background: Intra-operative radiation therapy (IORT) is the transfer of a single large radiation dose to the tumor bed during surgery with the final goal of improving regional tumor control. This study aimed to investigate the safety, effectiveness and economic evaluation of intra-operative radiation therapy. Methods: The scientific literature was searched in the main biomedical databases (Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, Cochrane Library and PubMed) up to March 2014. Two independent reviewers selected the papers based on pre-established inclusion criteria, with any disagreements being resolved by consensus. Data were then extracted and summarized in a structured form. Results from studies were analyzed and discussed within a descriptive synthesis. Results: Sixteen studies met the inclusion criteria. It seems that outcomes from using intraoperative radiation therapy can be considered in various kinds of cancers like breast, pancreatic and colorectal cancers. The application of this method may provide significant survival increase only for colorectal cancer, but this increase was not significant for other types of cancer. This technology had low complications; and it is relatively safe. Using intra-operative radiation therapy could potentially be accounted as a cost-effective strategy for controlling and managing breast cancer. Conclusion: According to the existing evidences, that are the highest medical evidences for using intra-operative radiation therapy, one can generally conclude that intra-operative radiation therapy is considered as a relatively safe and cost-effective method for managing early-stage breast cancer and it can significantly increase the survival of patients with colorectal cancer. Also, the results of this study have policy implications with respect to the reimbursement of this technology

Health technology assessment of image-guided radiotherapy (IGRT): A systematic review of current evidence

Background: Image-guided radiotherapy used multiple imaging during the radiation therapy course to improve the precision and accuracy of health care provider's treatment. Objectives: This study aims to assess the safety, effectiveness and economic aspects of image-guided radiation therapy for decision-making about this technology in Iran. Methods: In this study, the most important medical databases such as PubMed and Cochrane Library were searched until November 2014. The systematic reviews, health technology assessment reports and economic evaluation studies were included. The results of included studies were analyzed via the thematic synthesis. Results: Seven articles were included in the study. The results showed that image-guided radiation therapy, regardless of the imaging technique used in it, is associated with no major toxicity and has the potential to reduce the symptoms of poisoning. Using image-guided radiation therapy for prostate cancer resulted in substantial improvement in the quality of the received dose and optimal therapeutic dose of radiation to the targeted tumor while the radiation dose to the surrounding healthy tissues was minimal. Additionally, image-guided radiation therapy facilitated the diagnosis and management of exception deviations, including immediate changes and gross errors, weight loss, significant limbs deformity, systematic changes in the internal organs and changes in respiratory movements. Usage of image-guided radiation therapy for prostate cancer was associated with increased costs. Conclusion: Current available evidence suggests that the image-guided radiation therapy can reduce the amount of radiation to healthy tissue around the tumor and the toxicity associated with it. This can enhance the safe dose of radiation to the tumor and increase the likelihood of destruction of tumor. The current level of evidence required conducting further studies on the costs and effectiveness of this technology compared with conventional technology

Safety, effectiveness and economic aspects of maggot debridement therapy for wound healing

Background: Maggot therapy has recently attracted considerable attention as an emerging debridement technique for wound healing. This study aimed to review the safety, effectiveness and economic evaluations of Maggot Debridement Therapy for wound healing. Methods: To retrieve the relevant evidences, the Cochrane Library (until September 2014) was searched by appropriate keywords, using free text and Mesh. Systematic reviews, HTA reports and economic evaluation studies that compared larval therapy with other debridement therapies, such as hydrogel in patients with various kinds of ulcers in terms of side effects, the wound healing rate, the healing time, and cost per QALY, were included. Results: Five studies met the inclusion criteria which showed that healing with larval therapy happened a little earlier than the usual methods and that pain perception in larval therapy was a little more than usual methods (as by anesthetic conventional methods). However, the quality of life of those patients who received larval therapy was better and they showed a greater tendency to larval therapy as it was relatively safe and had a low rate of side effects. Conclusion: It seems that larval therapy has several advantages such as rapid wound debridement, infection elimination, pain control and ulcer healing. The use of larval therapy has the potential to reduce side effects and decrease the need for amputation

Is scores derived from the most internationally applied patient safety culture assessment tool correct?

Background: Hospital Survey on Patient Safety Culture, known as HSOPS, is an internationally well known and widely used tool for measuring patient safety culture in hospitals. It includes 12 dimensions with positive and negative wording questions. The distribution of these questions in different dimensions is uneven and provides the risk of acquiescence bias. The aim of this study was to assess the questionnaire against this bias. Methods: Three hundred nurses were assigned into study and control groups randomly. Short form of HSOPS was distributed in the control group and totally reversed form of it was given to the study group. Percent positive scores and t-test were applied for data analysis. Statistical analyses were conducted using SPSS Version 16. Results: Finally a total of 272 nurses completed the questionnaire. All dimensions with positive wording items in both groups had higher scores compared with their negative worded format. The first dimension organizational learning and continued improvement which had the only statistically significant difference, got 16.2 less score in the study group comparing the other group. In addition six out of 18 differences in questions were statistically significant. Conclusion: The popular and widely used HSOPS is subject to acquiescence bias. The bias might lead to exaggerate the status of some patient safety culture composites. Balancing the number of positive and negative worded items in each composite could mitigate the mentioned bias and provide a more valid estimation of different elements of patient safety culture