Home About us Contact
|
Home About us Contact | ||
|
|
||
Study Eligibility (study + eligibility)
Selected AbstractsEffectiveness of topical skin care provided in aged care facilitiesINTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EVIDENCE BASED HEALTHCARE, Issue 4 2005Brent Hodgkinson MSc GradCertPH GradCertEcon(Health) Executive summary Background, The 2001 Australian census revealed that adults aged 65 years and over constituted 12.6% of the population, up from 12.1% in 1996. It is projected that this figure will rise to 21% or 5.1 million Australians by 2031. In 1998, 6% (134 000) of adults in Australia aged 65 years and over were residing in nursing homes or hostels and this number is also expected to rise. As skin ages, there is a decreased turnover and replacement of epidermal skin cells, a thinning subcutaneous fat layer and a reduced production of protective oils. These changes can affect the normal functions of the skin such as its role as a barrier to irritants and pathogens, temperature and water regulation. Generally, placement in a long-term care facility indicates an inability of the older person to perform all of the activities of daily living such as skin care. Therefore, skin care management protocols should be available to reduce the likelihood of skin irritation and breakdown and ultimately promote comfort of the older person. Objectives, The objective of this review was to determine the best available evidence for the effectiveness and safety of topical skin care regimens for older adults residing in long-term aged care facilities. The primary outcome was the incidence of adverse skin conditions with patient satisfaction considered as a secondary outcome. Search strategy, A literature search was performed using the following databases: PubMed (NLM) (1966,4/2003), Embase (1966,4/2003), CINAHL (1966,4/2003), Current Contents (1993,4/2003), Cochrane Library (1966,2/2003), Web of Science (1995,12/2002), Science Citation Index Expanded and ProceedingsFirst (1993,12/2002). Health Technology Assessment websites were also searched. No language restrictions were applied. Selection criteria, Systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials, randomised and non-randomised controlled trials evaluating any non-medical intervention or program that aimed to maintain or improve the integrity of skin in older adults were considered for inclusion. Participants were 65 years of age or over and residing in an aged care facility, hospital or long-term care in the community. Studies were excluded if they evaluated pressure-relieving techniques for the prevention of skin breakdown. Data collection and analysis, Two independent reviewers assessed study eligibility for inclusion. Study design and quality were tabulated and relative risks, odds ratios, mean differences and associated 95% confidence intervals were calculated from individual comparative studies containing count data. Results, The resulting evidence of the effectiveness of topical skin care interventions was variable and dependent upon the skin condition outcome being assessed. The strongest evidence for maintenance of skin condition in incontinent patients found that disposable bodyworn incontinence protection reduced the odds of deterioration of skin condition compared with non-disposable bodyworns. The best evidence for non-pressure relieving topical skin care interventions on pressure sore formation found the no-rinse cleanser Clinisan to be more effective than soap and water at maintaining healthy skin (no ulcers) in elderly incontinent patients in long-term care. The quality of studies examining the effectiveness of topical skin care interventions on the incidence of skin tears was very poor and inconclusive. Topical skin care for prevention of dermatitis found that Sudocrem could reduce the redness of skin compared with zinc cream if applied regularly after each pad change, but not the number of lesions. Topical skin care on dry skin found the Bag Bath/Travel Bath no-rinse skin care cleanser to be more effective at preventing overall skin dryness and most specifically flaking and scaling when compared with the traditional soap and water washing method in residents of a long-term care facility. Information on the safety of topical skin care interventions is lacking. Therefore, because of the lack of evidence, no recommendation on the safety on any intervention included in this review can be made. [source] Effect of hospitalist attending physicians on trainee educational experiences: A systematic review,JOURNAL OF HOSPITAL MEDICINE, Issue 8 2009Pradeep Natarajan MD Abstract BACKGROUND: Trainees receive much of their inpatient education from hospitalists. PURPOSE: To characterize the effects of hospitalists on trainee education. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, Database of Reviews of Effectiveness (DARE), National Health Service (NHS) Economic Evaluation Database (EED), Health Technology Assessment (HTA), and the Cochrane Collaboration Database (last searched October 2008) databases using the term "hospitalist", and meeting abstracts from the Society of Hospital Medicine (SHM) (2002-2007), Society of General Internal Medicine (SGIM) (2001-2007), and Pediatric Academic Societies (PAS) (2000-2007). STUDY SELECTION: Original English language research studies meeting all of the following: involvement of hospitalists; comparison to nonhospitalist attendings; evaluation of trainee knowledge, skills, or attitudes. 711 articles were reviewed, 32 retrieved, and 6 included; 7,062 meeting abstracts were reviewed, 9 retrieved, and 2 included. DATA EXTRACTION: Two authors reviewed articles to determine study eligibility. Three authors independently reviewed included articles to abstract data elements and classify study quality. DATA SYNTHESIS: Seven studies were quasirandomized one was a noncontemporaneous comparison. All citations only measured trainee attitudes. In all studies comparing hospitalists to nonhospitalists, trainees were more satisfied with hospitalists overall, and with other aspects of their teaching, but ratings were high for both groups. One of 2 studies that distinguished nonhospitalist general internists from specialists showed that trainees preferred hospitalists, but the other did not demonstrate a hospitalist advantage over general internists. CONCLUSIONS: Trainees are more satisfied with inpatient education from hospitalists. Whether the increased satisfaction translates to improved learning is unclear. Journal of Hospital Medicine 2009;4:490,498. © 2009 Society of Hospital Medicine. [source] Effects of rapid response systems on clinical outcomes: Systematic review and meta-analysisJOURNAL OF HOSPITAL MEDICINE, Issue 6 2007Sumant R. Ranji MD Abstract BACKGROUND A rapid response system (RRS) consists of providers who immediately assess and treat unstable hospitalized patients. Examples include medical emergency teams and rapid response teams. Early reports of major improvements in patient outcomes led to widespread utilization of RRSs, despite the negative results of a subsequent cluster-randomized trial. PURPOSE To evaluate the effects of RRSs on clinical outcomes through a systematic literature review. DATA SOURCES MEDLINE, BIOSIS, and CINAHL searches through August 2006, review of conference proceedings and article bibliographies. STUDY SELECTION Randomized and nonrandomized controlled trials, interrupted time series, and before-after studies reporting effects of an RRS on inpatient mortality, cardiopulmonary arrests, or unscheduled ICU admissions. DATA EXTRACTION Two authors independently determined study eligibility, abstracted data, and classified study quality. DATA SYNTHESIS Thirteen studies met inclusion criteria: 1 cluster-randomized controlled trial (RCT), 1 interrupted time series, and 11 before-after studies. The RCT showed no effects on any clinical outcome. Before-after studies showed reductions in inpatient mortality (RR = 0.82, 95% CI: 0.74-0.91) and cardiac arrest (RR = 0.73, 95% CI: 0.65-0.83). However, these studies were of poor methodological quality, and control hospitals in the RCT reported reductions in mortality and cardiac arrest rates comparable to those in the before-after studies. CONCLUSIONS Published studies of RRSs have not found consistent improvement in clinical outcomes and have been of poor methodological quality. The positive results of before-after trials likely reflects secular trends and biased outcome ascertainment, as the improved outcomes they reported were of similar magnitude to those of the control group in the RCT. The effectiveness of the RRS concept remains unproven. Journal of Hospital Medicine 2007;2:422,432. © 2007 Society of Hospital Medicine. [source] The Future of Incidental Findings: Should They be Viewed as Benefits?THE JOURNAL OF LAW, MEDICINE & ETHICS, Issue 2 2008Lisa S. Parker This paper argues against considering incidental fndings (IFs) as potential benefts of research when assessing the social value of proposed research, determining the appropriateness of a study's risk/beneft ratio, and identifying and disclosing the risks and benefts of participation during informed consent. The possibility of generating IFs should be disclosed during informed consent as neither a risk nor beneft, but as a possible outcome collateral to participation. Whether specifc IFs will be disclosed when identifed is a separate question whose answer is material to determining whether IFs constitute a risk or a potential indirect beneft of participation. Finally, three types of IF should be distinguished and treated diferently during informed consent: those that will be routinely generated (e.g., results of testing to determine study eligibility), those that can reasonably be characterized in terms of their nature and frequency of generation (e.g., misattributed parentage), and those of unpredictable nature and frequency that can be characterized only in general terms. Research protocols should provide a rationale for sharing or not sharing IFs of these three types with participants. Regulatory review of such plans should not, however, be confused with regarding IFs as potential benefts when assessing the study's risk/beneft ratio or merit. [source] | ||||||||||