Home About us Contact
|
Home About us Contact | ||
|
|
||
Full Report (full + report)
Selected AbstractsFetal bradycardia due to intrathecal opioids for labour analgesia: a systematic reviewBJOG : AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS & GYNAECOLOGY, Issue 3 2002Chahé Mardirosoff Objective To evaluate fetal and maternal adverse effects of intrathecal opioid analgesia during labour. Data sources A systematic search was performed, in Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Library, bibliographies, and personal contact with authors, in any language, up to February 2001. Study selection Full reports on randomised comparisons of any analgesia with intrathecal opioid (experimental group) with any non-intrathecal opioid regimen (control group) during labour. Data extraction Dichotomous data from 24 trials (3513 women). Results With intrathecal opioids, there was a significant increase in the risk of fetal bradycardia: odds ratio 1.8 (95% confidence interval 1.0 to 3.1), number-needed-to-harm 28. The risk of caesarean section due to fetal heart rate abnormalities was similar (6.0%versus 7.8%). The incidence of pruritus was significantly higher with intrathecal opioids: relative risk 29.6 (95% CI 13.6 to 64.6), number-needed-to-harm 1.7. Conclusions Intrathecal opioids for labour increase the risk of fetal bradycardia and maternal pruritus. The risk of subsequent caesarean section is not increased. [source] Crafting Museum Experiences in Light of Research on Learning: Implications of the National Research Council's Report on Informal Science EducationCURATOR THE MUSEUM JOURNAL, Issue 2 2010Andrew Shouse The report is a synthesis of some 2,000 studies and evaluations of learning in non-school settings such as museums. Here we focus on three specific topics discussed in the full report, which we see as particularly important for museum professionals. These are: a framework for developing and studying science learning experiences; cultural diversity as an integral resource for learning; and assessment of learning. Many museums include "learning" among their goals and many researchers concern themselves with how museums and other settings can be organized to support learning. Yet this wealth of research is rarely brought into focus and offered as guidance to the museum community. [source] The meta-analysis of the Italian studies on short-term effects of air pollution (MISA): old and new issues on the interpretation of the statistical evidencesENVIRONMETRICS, Issue 3 2007Pierantonio Bellini Abstract The second meta-analysis of the Italian studies on short-term health effects of air pollution, known as MISA-2, was based on daily time series of indicators of both pollution and of health outcomes. It covered 15 cities during 1996,2002 for a total population of approximately nine millions. Health outcomes included mortality for natural causes, for respiratory diseases and for cardiovascular conditions, as well as hospital admissions for respiratory, cardiac and cerebrovascular diseases. Pollutants considered in univariate analyses were sulphur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxide (NO2), carbon monoxide (CO), suspended particulate matter (SPM) measuring less than 10,µm diameter (PM10) and ozone (O3, limited to the summer period). Results, including risk estimates, have been largely confirmatory of findings obtained in previous large meta-analytic studies carried out in North America and in Europe. A full report in Italian is available. The present contribution summarises the results of MISA-2 and addresses three major issues regarding their interpretation: robustness of the causal inferential process, the role of specific air pollutants and the reliability of risk estimates. The former issue is stressed according to Bradford Hill's criteria and the conclusion is reached that at least for the association of air pollution with an increase in mortality the evidence for causality is strong. Assessing the role of each air pollutant is problematic: there is some evidence that the effects of PM10 are partly confounded by other pollutants, but PM10 may not be the best indicator of the role of air SPM (routine measures of PM2.5 have not been introduced in Italy). As for risk estimates, the per cent increase in risk of mortality for unit increase in PM10 concentration, measured in MISA-2, is remarkably similar to estimates in other studies and there is indication for linearity of the dose,response relationship. Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [source] Association between pacifier use and breast-feeding, sudden infant death syndrome, infection and dental malocclusionINTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EVIDENCE BASED HEALTHCARE, Issue 6 2005Ann Callaghan RN RM BNurs(Hons) Executive summary Objective, To critically review all literature related to pacifier use for full-term healthy infants and young children. The specific review questions addressed are: What is the evidence of adverse and/or positive outcomes of pacifier use in infancy and childhood in relation to each of the following subtopics: ,breast-feeding; ,sudden infant death syndrome; ,infection; ,dental malocclusion. Inclusion criteria, Specific criteria were used to determine which studies would be included in the review: (i) the types of participants; (ii) the types of research design; and (iii) the types of outcome measures. To be included a study has to meet all criteria. Types of participants,The participants included in the review were healthy term infants and healthy children up to the age of 16 years. Studies that focused on preterm infants, and infants and young children with serious illness or congenital malformations were excluded. However, some total population studies did include these children. Types of research design, It became evident early in the review process that very few randomised controlled trials had been conducted. A decision was made to include observational epidemiological designs, specifically prospective cohort studies and, in the case of sudden infant death syndrome research, case,control studies. Purely descriptive and cross-sectional studies were excluded, as were qualitative studies and all other forms of evidence. A number of criteria have been proposed to establish causation in the scientific and medical literature. These key criteria were applied in the review process and are described as follows: (i) consistency and unbiasedness of findings; (ii) strength of association; (iii) temporal sequence; (iv) dose,response relationship; (v) specificity; (vi) coherence with biological background and previous knowledge; (vii) biological plausibility; and (viii) experimental evidence. Studies that did not meet the requirement of appropriate temporal sequencing of events and studies that did not present an estimate of the strength of association were not included in the final review. Types of outcome measures,Our specific interest was pacifier use related to: ,breast-feeding; ,sudden infant death syndrome; ,infection; ,dental malocclusion. Studies that examined pacifier use related to procedural pain relief were excluded. Studies that examined the relationship between pacifier use and gastro-oesophageal reflux were also excluded as this information has been recently presented as a systematic review. Search strategy, The review comprised published and unpublished research literature. The search was restricted to reports published in English, Spanish and German. The time period covered research published from January 1960 to October 2003. A protocol developed by New Zealand Health Technology Assessment was used to guide the search process. The search comprised bibliographic databases, citation searching, other evidence-based and guidelines sites, government documents, books and reports, professional websites, national associations, hand search, contacting national/international experts and general internet searching. Assessment of quality, All studies identified during the database search were assessed for relevance to the review based on the information provided in the title, abstract and descriptor/MeSH terms, and a full report was retrieved for all studies that met the inclusion criteria. Studies identified from reference list searches were assessed for relevance based on the study title. Keywords included: dummy, dummies, pacifier(s), soother(s), comforter(s), non-nutritive sucking, infant, child, infant care. Initially, studies were reviewed for inclusion by pairs of principal investigators. Authorship of articles was not concealed from the reviewers. Next, the methodological quality of included articles was assessed independently by groups of three or more principal investigators and clinicians using a checklist. All 20 studies that were accepted met minimum set criteria, but few passed without some methodological concern. Data extraction, To meet the requirements of the Joanna Briggs Institute, reasons for acceptance and non-acceptance at each phase were clearly documented. An assessment protocol and report form was developed for each of the three phases of review. The first form was created to record investigators' evaluations of studies included in the initial review. Those studies that failed to meet strict inclusion criteria were excluded at this point. A second form was designed to facilitate an in-depth critique of epidemiological study methodology. The checklist was pilot tested and adjustments were made before reviewers were trained in its use. When reviewers could not agree on an assessment, it was passed to additional reviewers and discussed until a consensus was reached. At this stage, studies other than cohort, case,control and randomised controlled trials were excluded. Issues of clarification were also addressed at this point. The final phase was that of integration. This phase, undertaken by the principal investigators, was assisted by the production of data extraction tables. Through a process of trial and error, a framework was formulated that adequately summarised the key elements of the studies. This information was tabulated under the following headings: authors/setting, design, exposure/outcome, confounders controlled, analysis and main findings. Results, With regard to the breast-feeding outcome, 10 studies met the inclusion criteria, comprising two randomised controlled trials and eight cohort studies. The research was conducted between 1995 and 2003 in a wide variety of settings involving research participants from diverse socioeconomic and cultural backgrounds. Information regarding exposure and outcome status, and potential confounding factors was obtained from: antenatal and postnatal records; interviews before discharge from obstetric/midwifery care; post-discharge interviews; and post-discharge postal and telephone surveys. Both the level of contact and the frequency of contact with the informant, the child's mother, differed widely. Pacifier use was defined and measured inconsistently, possibly because few studies were initiated expressly to investigate its relationship with breast-feeding. Completeness of follow-up was addressed, but missing data were not uniformly identified and explained. When comparisons were made between participants and non-participants there was some evidence of differential loss and a bias towards families in higher socioeconomic groups. Multivariate analysis was undertaken in the majority of studies, with some including a large number of sociodemographic, obstetric and infant covariates and others including just maternal age and education. As might be expected given the inconsistency of definition and measurement, the relationship between pacifier use and breast-feeding was expressed in many different ways and a meta-analysis was not appropriate. In summary, only one study did not report a negative association between pacifier use and breast-feeding duration or exclusivity. Results indicate an increase in risk for a reduced overall duration of breast-feeding from 20% to almost threefold. The data suggest that very infrequent use may not have any overall negative impact on breast-feeding outcomes. Six sudden infant death syndrome case,control studies met the criteria for inclusion. The research was conducted with information gathered between 1984 and 1999 in Norway, UK, New Zealand, the Netherlands and USA. Exposure information was obtained from a variety of sources including: hospital and antenatal records, death scene investigation, and interview and questionnaire. Information for cases was sought within 2 days after death, within 2,4 weeks after death and in one study between 3 and 11 years after death. Information for controls was sought from as early as 4 days of a nominated sudden infant death syndrome case, to between 1 and 7 weeks from the case date, and again in one study some 3,11 years later. In the majority of the studies case ascertainment was determined by post-mortem. Pacifier use was again defined and measured somewhat inconsistently. All studies controlled for confounding factors by matching and/or using multivariate analysis. Generally, antenatal and postnatal factors, as well as infant care practices, and maternal, family and socioeconomic issues were considered. All five studies reporting multivariate results found significantly fewer sudden infant death syndrome cases used a pacifier compared with controls. That is, pacifier use was associated with a reduced incidence of sudden infant death syndrome. These results indicate that the risk of sudden infant death syndrome for infants who did not use a pacifier in the last or reference sleep was at least twice, and possibly five times, that of infants who did use a pacifier. Three studies reported a moderately sized positive association between pacifier use and a variety of infections. Conversely, one study found no positive association between pacifier use at 15 months of age and a range of infections experienced between the ages of 6 and 18 months. Given the limited number of studies available and the variability of results, no meaningful conclusions could be drawn. Five cohort studies and one case,control study focused on the relationship between pacifier use and dental malocclusion. Not one of these studies reported a measure of association, such as an estimate of relative risk. It was therefore not possible to include these studies in the final review. Implications for practice, It is intended that this review be used as the basis of a ,best practice guideline', to make health professionals aware of the research evidence concerning these health and developmental consequences of pacifier use, because parents need clear information on which they can base child care decisions. With regard to the association between pacifier use and infection and dental malocclusion it was found that, due to the paucity of epidemiological studies, no meaningful conclusion can be drawn. There is clearly a need for more epidemiological research with regard to these two outcomes. The evidence for a relationship between pacifier use and sudden infant death syndrome is consistent, while the exact mechanism of the effect is not well understood. As to breast-feeding, research evidence shows that pacifier use in infancy is associated with a shorter duration and non-exclusivity. It is plausible that pacifier use causes babies to breast-feed less, but a causal relationship has not been irrefutably proven. Because breast-feeding confers an important advantage on all children and the incidence of sudden infant death syndrome is very low, it is recommended that health professionals generally advise parents against pacifier use, while taking into account individual circumstances. [source] Effectiveness of nurse-led cardiac clinics in adult patients with a diagnosis of coronary heart diseaseINTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EVIDENCE BASED HEALTHCARE, Issue 1 2005Tamara Page RN BN HyperbaricNursCert GradDipNSc(HighDep) MNSc Executive summary Background, Coronary heart disease is the major cause of illness and death in Western countries and this is likely to increase as the average age of the population rises. Consumers with established coronary heart disease are at the highest risk of experiencing further coronary events. Lifestyle measures can contribute significantly to a reduction in cardiovascular mortality in established coronary heart disease. Improved management of cardiac risk factors by providing education and referrals as required has been suggested as one way of maintaining quality care in patients with established coronary heart disease. There is a need to ascertain whether or not nurse-led clinics would be an effective adjunct for patients with coronary heart disease to supplement general practitioner advice and care. Objectives, The objective of this review was to present the best available evidence related to nurse-led cardiac clinics. Inclusion criteria, This review considered any randomised controlled trials that evaluated cardiac nurse-led clinics. In the absence of randomised controlled trials, other research designs such as non-randomised controlled trials and before and after studies were considered for inclusion. Participants were adults (18 years and older) with new or existing coronary heart disease. The interventions of interest to the review included education, assessment, consultation, referral and administrative structures. Outcomes measured included adverse event rates, readmissions, admissions, clinical and cost effectiveness, consumer satisfaction and compliance with therapy. Results, Based on the search terms used, 80 papers were initially identified and reviewed for inclusion; full reports of 24 of these papers were retrieved. There were no papers included that addressed cost effectiveness or adverse events; and none addressed the outcome of referrals. A critical appraisal of the 24 remaining papers identified a total of six randomised controlled trials that met the inclusion criteria. Two studies addressed nurse-led clinics for patients diagnosed with angina, one looked at medication administration and the other looked at educational plans. A further four studies compared secondary preventative care with a nurse-led clinic and general practitioner clinic. One specifically compared usual care versus shared care introduced by nurses for patients awaiting coronary artery bypass grafting. Of the remaining three studies, two have been combined in the results section, as they are an interim report and a final report of the same study. Because of inconsistencies in reporting styles and outcome measurements, meta-analysis could not be performed on all outcomes. However, a narrative summary of each study and comparisons of specific outcomes assessed from within each study has been developed. Although not all outcomes obtained statistical significance, nurse-led clinics were at least as effective as general practitioner clinics for most outcomes. Recommendations, The following recommendations are made: ,The use of nurse-led clinics is recommended for patients with coronary heart disease (Level II). ,Utilise nurse-led clinics to increase clinic attendance and follow-up rates (Level II). ,Nurse-led clinics are recommended for patients who require lifestyle changes to decrease their risk of adverse outcomes associated with coronary heart disease (Level II). [source] | ||||||||||