Home About us Contact
|
Home About us Contact | ||
|
|
||
Weighted Mean Difference (weighted + mean_difference)
Selected AbstractsThe clinical effectiveness of length of bed rest for patients recovering from trans-femoral diagnostic cardiac catheterisationINTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EVIDENCE BASED HEALTHCARE, Issue 4 2008Sek Ying Chair RN MBA PhD Background, Cardiac catheterisation plays a vital role in the diagnosis and evaluation of cardiac conditions. The goal of management of patients after cardiac catheterisation is to reduce the risk of development of any local or prolonged vascular complications, in particular bleeding and haematoma formation at the puncture site. Bed rest and immobilisation of the affected leg are recommended practices to ensure adequate haemostasis at the femoral arterial puncture site and prevent complications. Objectives, The objective of this review was to present the best available evidence for the optimal length of bed rest after trans-femoral diagnostic cardiac catheterisation. The main outcome of interest was the incidence of bleeding and haematoma formation following varying periods of bed rest. Search strategy, We searched the following databases: CINAHL, Medline, Cochrane Library, Current Contents, EBSCO, Web of Science, Embase, British Nursing Index, Controlled clinical trials database, Google Scholar. Reference lists of relevant articles and conference proceedings were searched. We also contacted key organisations and researchers in the field. Selection criteria, All randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials that compared the effects of different lengths of bed rest following trans-femoral diagnostic cardiac catheterisation on patient outcomes were considered for inclusion in the review. Data collection and analysis, Eligibility of the trials for inclusion in the review, details of eligible trials and the methodological quality of the trials were assessed independently by two reviewers. Odds ratios (OR) for dichotomous data and a weighted mean difference for continuous data were calculated with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Where synthesis was inappropriate, trials were considered separately. Main results, Eighteen trials involving a total of 4294 participants were included in the review. One trial included three treatment groups. In seven trials among 747 people there was no significant difference in the incidence of bleeding following six or less than 6 h of bed rest (OR 1.47; 95% CI 0.60, 3.64). Likewise, there was no significant difference in the incidence of bleeding following bed rest at other time periods. In eight trials involving 2272 patients there was no significant difference in the incidence of haematoma formation following 6 or less than 6 h of bed rest (OR 0.82; 95% CI 0.59, 1.16). Significantly fewer patients randomised to less than 6 h of bed rest complained of back pain. The odds of developing back pain at 4 (OR 24.60; 95% CI 1.29, 469) and 24 h (OR 2.47; 95% CI 1.16, 5.23) following coronary catheterisation was significantly higher among patients randomised to 6 compared with 3 h of bed rest. Authors' conclusions, There is evidence of no benefit relating to bleeding and haematoma formation in patients who have more than 3 h of bed rest following trans-femoral diagnostic cardiac catheterisation. However, there is evidence of benefit relating to decreased incidence and severity of back pain and cost-effectiveness following 3 h of bed rest. There is suggestive but inconclusive evidence of a benefit from bed rest for 2 h following trans-femoral cardiac catheterisation. Clinicians should consider a balance between avoiding increased risk of haematoma formation following 2,2.5 h of bed rest and circumventing back pain following more than 4 h of bed rest. [source] Effectiveness of brief structured interventions on risk factor modification for patients with coronary heart disease: a systematic reviewINTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EVIDENCE BASED HEALTHCARE, Issue 4 2007Ritin Fernandez RN MN (Critical care) PhD Candidate Abstract Background, The physical and psychosocial benefits of participation in cardiac rehabilitation following a coronary event have well been established. Despite these benefits there is strong evidence that participation in traditional cardiac rehabilitation programs remains low. Various models of cardiac rehabilitation have been implemented including the use of brief structured interventions to enable modification of coronary risk factors. Objectives, The objective of this review was to determine the effect of brief structured interventions on risk factor modification in patients with coronary heart disease. Search strategy, A literature search was performed using the following databases MEDLINE (1966,2006), CINAHL (1982,2006), EMBASE (1980,current) and up to the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (Issue 2, 2006 of Cochrane Library). In addition, the reference lists of relevant trials and conference proceedings were also scrutinised. Company representatives, experts and investigators were contacted to elicit further information. Selection criteria, All randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials that compared the effects of brief structured interventions on risk factor modification in patients with coronary heart disease were considered for inclusion in the review. Data collection and analysis, Eligibility of the trials for inclusion in the review, details of eligible trials and the methodological quality of the trials were assessed independently by two reviewers. Relative risks for dichotomous data and a weighted mean difference for continuous data were calculated with 95% confidence intervals. Where synthesis was inappropriate, trials were considered separately. Main results, Seventeen trials involving a total of 4725 participants were included in the final review: three trials compared the effects of brief structured interventions on diet modification; seven on smoking cessation; and seven on multiple risk factors. Two trials involving 76 patients compared brief structured intervention versus usual care for dietary modification. Although there was a tendency for more participants in the intervention arm to lose weight at the 12-week follow up and achieve target cholesterol levels at the 6-month follow up, these results were not statistically significant. Only one small trial involving 36 patients compared brief structured intervention and extensive intervention for dietary modification and demonstrated a significant reduction in the percentage of energy obtained from fat and saturated fat intake among participants receiving extensive intervention. However, no difference in fish, fruit and vegetable intake between the groups was evident. Six trials involving 2020 patients compared brief structured intervention versus usual care for smoking cessation. There was no difference in the smoking cessation rates at the 3- and 6-week follow up, however, there was evidence of a benefit of brief structured interventions for smoking cessation at the 3-, 6- and 12-month follow up. In the only trial that and compared brief structured intervention and extensive intervention for smoking cessation in 254 participants there was no clear difference of a likelihood of smoking cessation between the two groups. In the seven trials that compared brief structured intervention and usual care for multiple risk factor modification there was evidence of a benefit of the intervention on behavioural changes such as fat intake, weight loss and consequently on reduction in the body mass index, smoking cessation and physical activity among the participants. The findings concerning the effect on blood pressure, blood glucose levels and the lipid profile, however, remain inconclusive. Conclusions, There is suggestive but inconclusive evidence from the trials of a benefit in the use of brief interventions for risk factor modification in patients with coronary heart disease. This review, however, supports the concept that brief interventions for patients with coronary heart disease can have beneficial effects on risk factor modification and consequently on progression of coronary heart disease. Further trials using larger sample sizes need to be undertaken to demonstrate the benefits of brief structured intervention targeted at the modification of single or multiple risk factors. [source] Doxazosin for treating lower urinary tract symptoms compatible with benign prostatic obstruction: a systematic review of efficacy and adverse effectsBJU INTERNATIONAL, Issue 9 2004Roderick MacDonald The first paper in this section is a systematic review of the efficacy and adverse effects of doxazosin for treating LUTS compatible with benign prostatic obstruction. The criteria for inclusion were met by 13 studies involving 6033 men. The authors found evidence that doxazosin was effective and well tolerated in patients with LUTS. Combined therapy was superior to doxazosin alone in reducing the risk of clinical progression and other long-term complications of this condition. Authors from the UK reviewed the long-term results they achieved with an endourethral stent for treating BPH; quite a large proportion of patients had either died from unrelated causes or had had the stent removed. They stressed the necessity for careful case selection, but showed that it was a safe treatment for BPH in poor-risk patients. OBJECTIVE To evaluate the efficacy and adverse effects of doxazosin for treating lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) compatible with benign prostatic obstruction (BPO). METHODS Randomized controlled trials were included in the meta-analysis if: the study duration was ,,1 month; the study involved men with symptomatic BPO; and doxazosin was compared with placebo or active controls. Study and patient characteristics and outcome data were extracted in duplicate onto standardized forms using a prospectively developed protocol. RESULTS Thirteen studies involving 6033 men with (mean age 64 years) met the inclusion criteria; 10 were placebo-controlled, including two with combined doxazosin/finasteride therapy and finasteride monotherapy arms. Three trials were a comparison with other ,-blockers. The study duration was 1,54 months. The mean baseline symptom scores and peak urinary flow (PUF) rates were indicative of moderate BPO. Doxazosin gave significant improvements in LUTS, assessed by symptom scores, vs placebo and finasteride in the short- to long-term. Two long-term studies (1 and 4 years) reported mean changes from baseline for the International Prostate Symptom Score of ,,8.3 and ,,6.6 points (,49% and ,,39%) for doxazosin and ,,5.7 and ,,4.9 points (,33% and ,,29%) for placebo, respectively. Doxazosin significantly increased PUF rates vs placebo. In pooled results from three studies, the weighted mean difference in the mean change from baseline vs placebo was 1.6 mL/s (95% confidence interval 1.2,2.1). Efficacy was comparable with other ,1,blockers. In the long-term (>4 years) doxazosin was no better then finasteride in improving PUF. Combined doxazosin and finasteride significantly reduced the risk of overall clinical progression of BPO vs each drug separately in men followed for >4 years. Absolute risk reductions vs placebo were 11.3%, 6.9% and 6.4% for combined therapy, doxazosin and finasteride, respectively (P < 0.001). Improvements in symptom scores and PUF were also significantly greater with combined than monotherapy, and the former reduced the need for invasive treatment for BPO and the risk of long-term urinary retention, although the absolute reductions in risk vs placebo were small (<4%). Dizziness and fatigue were significantly more common with doxazosin than placebo (11% vs 7%, and 6% vs 3%, respectively). Adverse events reported for combined therapy were similar to those with each monotherapy. CONCLUSION The evidence indicates that doxazosin is effective and generally well tolerated for improving LUTS and PUF in men with symptomatic BPO. Combined therapy was better than doxazosin alone in reducing the risk of clinical progression of BPO and other long-term complications related to BPO. [source] A Cost-effectiveness Analysis of Propofol versus Midazolam for Procedural Sedation in the Emergency DepartmentACADEMIC EMERGENCY MEDICINE, Issue 1 2008Corinne Michèle Hohl MD Abstract Objectives:, To determine the incremental cost-effectiveness of using propofol versus midazolam for procedural sedation (PS) in adults in the emergency department (ED). Methods:, The authors conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis from the perspective of the health care provider. The primary outcome was the incremental cost (or savings) to achieve one additional successful sedation with propofol compared to midazolam. A decision model was developed in which the clinical effectiveness and cost of a PS strategy using either agent was estimated. The authors derived estimates of clinical effectiveness and risk of adverse events (AEs) from a systematic review. The cost of each clinical outcome was determined by incorporating the baseline cost of the ED visit, the cost of the drug, the cost of labor of physicians and nurses, the cost and probability of an AE, and the cost and probability of a PS failure. A standard meta-analytic technique was used to calculate the weighted mean difference in recovery times and obtain mean drug doses from patient-level data from a randomized controlled trial. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to examine the uncertainty around the estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratio using Monte Carlo simulation. Results:, Choosing a sedation strategy with propofol resulted in average savings of $17.33 (95% confidence interval [CI] = $24.13 to $10.44) per sedation performed. This resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of ,$597.03 (95% credibility interval ,$6,434.03 to $6,113.57) indicating savings of $597.03 per additional successful sedation performed with propofol. This result was driven by shorter recovery times and was robust to all sensitivity analyses performed. Conclusions:, These results indicate that using propofol for PS in the ED is a cost-saving strategy. [source] | ||||||||||