Evaluation of a national evidence-based health care course via teleconference in a developing country

Rationale, aims and objectives Continuing health education is essential but challenged. in 2006, the Brazilian Cochrane Center, in collaboration with the Ministry of Health, launched a mass teaching initiative in evidence-based health care (EBH) for public-sector professionals via teleconferencing. This 152-hour, interactive EBH course has enrolled over 4500 professionals. This study aimed to assess the acquisition EBH knowledge and skills, as well as the attitudes and perceptions of a sample of students enrolled in the 2009 course via teleconferencing.Methods This prospective cohort study analyzed three aspects of this 152-hour EBH course that recruited 1040 volunteer participants, all public health sector employees working in 131 different hospitals or health agencies. Pre- and post-course tests using a modified version of the Berlin questionnaire with 20 multiple-choice questions were used to examine knowledge acquisition in a sample of 297 students. Tests were completed upon registration and at course completion. the research projects submitted by 872 participants were evaluated to assess skill acquisition. Answers to an anonymous survey assessed the attitudes and perceptions of 914 participants.Results There was a significant increase in knowledge from baseline to course completion (mean scores 8.2 +/- 3.3 versus 13.7 +/- 3.0, P < 0.001). Over 90% of the research projects were judged to be of adequate quality (appropriate rationale for the study, well-formulated research question and feasible execution); over 95% of the participants were satisfied with the course.Conclusion the Brazilian EBH course via teleconference improved the knowledge and skills of public-sector health professionals and was approved by the vast majority of students.

Orthodontic and orthopaedic treatment for anterior open bite in children

BackgroundAnterior open bite occurs when there is a lack of vertical overlap of the upper and lower incisors. the aetiology is multifactorial including: oral habits, unfavourable growth patterns, enlarged lymphatic tissue with mouth breathing. Several treatments have been proposed to correct this malocclusion, but interventions are not supported by strong scientific evidence.ObjectivesThe aim of this systematic review was to evaluate orthodontic and orthopaedic treatments to correct anterior open bite in children.Search methodsThe following databases were searched: the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register (to 14 February 2014); the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL)(The Cochrane Library 2014, Issue 1); MEDLINE via OVID (1946 to 14 February 2014); EMBASE via OVID (1980 to 14 February 2014); LILACS via BIREME Virtual Health Library (1982 to 14 February 2014); BBO via BIREME Virtual Health Library (1980 to 14 February 2014); and SciELO (1997 to 14 February 2014). We searched for ongoing trials via ClinicalTrials.gov (to 14 February 2014). Chinese journals were handsearched and the bibliographies of papers were retrieved.Selection criteriaAll randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials of orthodontic or orthopaedic treatments or both to correct anterior open bite in children.Data collection and analysisTwo review authors independently assessed the eligibility of all reports identified.Risk ratios (RRs) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for dichotomous data. the continuous data were expressed as described by the author.Main resultsThree randomised controlled trials were included comparing: effects of Frankel's function regulator-4 (FR-4) with lip-seal training versus no treatment; repelling-magnet splints versus bite-blocks; and palatal crib associated with high-pull chincup versus no treatment.The study comparing repelling-magnet splints versus bite-blocks could not be analysed because the authors interrupted the treatment earlier than planned due to side effects in four of ten patients.FR-4 associated with lip-seal training (RR = 0.02 (95% CI 0.00 to 0.38)) and removable palatal crib associated with high-pull chincup (RR = 0.23 (95% CI 0.11 to 0.48)) were able to correct anterior open bite.No study described: randomisation process, sample size calculation, there was not blinding in the cephalometric analysis and the two studies evaluated two interventions at the same time. These results should be therefore viewed with caution.Authors' conclusionsThere is weak evidence that the interventions FR-4 with lip-seal training and palatal crib associated with high-pull chincup are able to correct anterior open bite. Given that the trials included have potential bias, these results must be viewed with caution. Recommendations for clinical practice cannot be made based only on the results of these trials. More randomised controlled trials are needed to elucidate the interventions for treating anterior open bite.

Anthropometry of the Breast Region: How to Measure?

Breast region measurements are important for research, but they may also become significant in the legal field as a quantitative tool for preoperative and postoperative evaluation. Direct anthropometric measurements can be taken in clinical practice. the aim of this study was to compare direct breast anthropometric measurements taken with a tape measure and a compass.Forty women, aged 18-60 years, were evaluated. They had 14 anatomical landmarks marked on the breast region and arms. the union of these points formed eight linear segments and one angle for each side of the body. the volunteers were evaluated by direct anthropometry in a standardized way, using a tape measure and a compass.Differences were found between the tape measure and the compass measurements for all segments analyzed (p > 0.05).Measurements obtained by tape measure and compass are not identical. Therefore, once the measurement tool is chosen, it should be used for the pre- and postoperative measurements in a standardized way.This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. for a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266.