An evidence based approach for the provision of resin-bonded bridgework

Resin bonded bridgework (RBB) is a technique often overlooked by practitioners despite a large amount of evidence supporting the technique. In Cork University Dental School an evidence-based, standardised approach for the delivery of RBB by undergraduate students has been developed over the past 10 years. The aim of this study was to evaluate the success of this standardised approach on the delivery of RBB by students. 222 bridges were reviewed which had been delivered over a 6 year time period between 2002 and 2007. A success rate of 84.1% was achieved with a mean survival time of 41 months. This study illustrates that predictable and highly successful RBB can be delivered by inexperienced clinicians using an evidence-based, standardised approach.

Empowering Human Services Organizations to Embrace Evidence-informed Practice: International Best Practices

Human service organizations are increasingly using knowledge as a mechanism for implementing change. Knowledge emerging from many sources that may include academic publications, grey literature, and service user and practitioner wisdom contributes toward informing best practice. The question is: how do we harness this knowledge to make practice more effective? This paper synthesizes the lessons learned from eight international organizations that have made a commitment to knowledge mobilization as an important priority in their mission and operation. The paper provides a conceptual model, tools and resources to help human services organizations create strategies for building, enhancing or sustaining their knowledge mobilization efforts. The paper describes a flexible blueprint for human service organizations to leverage knowledge mobilization efforts at all levels of service delivery.

Surgical strategies for coexisting glaucoma and cataract: an evidence-based update.

OBJECTIVE:

To assess short- and long-term control of intraocular pressure (IOP) with different surgical treatment strategies for coexisting cataract and glaucoma.

DESIGN:

Systematic literature review and analysis.

METHOD:

We performed a search of the published literature to identify all eligible articles pertaining to the surgical management of coexisting cataract and glaucoma in adults. One investigator abstracted the content of each article onto a custom-designed form. A second investigator corroborated the findings. The evidence supporting different approaches was graded by consensus as good, fair, weak, or insufficient.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:

Short-term (24 hours or fewer) and long-term (more than 24 hours) IOP control.

RESULTS:

The evidence was good that long-term IOP is lowered more by combined glaucoma and cataract operations than by cataract operations alone. On average, the IOP was 3 to 4 mmHg lower in the combined groups with fewer medications required. The evidence was weak that extracapsular cataract extraction (ECCE) alone results in short-term increase in IOP and was insufficient to determine the short-term impact of phacoemulsification cataract extraction (PECE) on IOP in glaucoma patients. The evidence was weak that short-term IOP control was better with ECCE or PECE combined with an incisional glaucoma procedure compared with ECCE or PECE alone. The evidence was also weak (but consistent) that long-term IOP is lowered by 2 to 4 mmHg after ECCE or PECE. Finally, there was weak evidence that combined PECE and trabeculectomy produces slightly worse long-term IOP control than trabeculectomy alone, and there was fair evidence that the same is true for ECCE combined with trabeculectomy.

CONCLUSIONS:

There is strong evidence for better long-term control of IOP with combined glaucoma and cataract operations compared with cataract surgery alone. For other issues regarding surgical treatment strategies for cataract and glaucoma, the available evidence is limited or conflicting.

Effect of technique on intraocular pressure after combined cataract and glaucoma surgery: An evidence-based review.

TOPIC:

To analyze the literature pertaining to the techniques used in combined cataract and glaucoma surgery, including the technique of cataract extraction, the timing of the surgery (staged procedure versus combined procedure), the anatomic location of the operation, and the use of antifibrosis agents.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE:

Cataract and glaucoma are both common conditions and are often present in the same patient. There is no agreement concerning the optimal surgical management of these disorders when they coexist.

METHODS/LITERATURE REVIEWED:

Electronic searches of English language articles published since 1964 were conducted in Pub MED and CENTRAL, the Cochrane Collaboration's database. These were augmented by a hand search of six ophthalmology journals and the reference lists of a sample of studies included in the literature review. Evidence grades (A, strong; B, moderate; C, weak; I, insufficient) were assigned to the evidence that involved a direct comparison of alternative techniques.

RESULTS:

The preponderance of evidence from the literature suggests a small (2-4 mmHg) benefit from the use of mitomycin-C (MMC), but not 5-fluorouracil (5-FU), in combined cataract and glaucoma surgery (evidence grade B). Two-site surgery provides slightly lower (1-3 mmHg) intraocular pressure (IOP) than one-site surgery (evidence grade C), and IOP is lowered more (1-3 mmHg) by phacoemulsification than by nuclear expression in combined procedures (evidence grade C). There is insufficient evidence to conclude either that staged or combined procedures give better results or that alternative glaucoma procedures are superior to trabeculectomy in combined procedures.

CONCLUSIONS:

In the literature on surgical techniques and adjuvants used in the management of coexisting cataract and glaucoma, the strongest evidence of efficacy exists for using MMC, separating the incisions for cataract and glaucoma surgery, and removing the nucleus by phacoemulsification.

Characteristics, complications, and gaps in evidence-based interventions in rheumatic heart disease: the Global Rheumatic Heart Disease Registry (the REMEDY study)

AIMS: Rheumatic heart disease (RHD) accounts for over a million premature deaths annually; however, there is little contemporary information on presentation, complications, and treatment.

METHODS AND RESULTS: This prospective registry enrolled 3343 patients (median age 28 years, 66.2% female) presenting with RHD at 25 hospitals in 12 African countries, India, and Yemen between January 2010 and November 2012. The majority (63.9%) had moderate-to-severe multivalvular disease complicated by congestive heart failure (33.4%), pulmonary hypertension (28.8%), atrial fibrillation (AF) (21.8%), stroke (7.1%), infective endocarditis (4%), and major bleeding (2.7%). One-quarter of adults and 5.3% of children had decreased left ventricular (LV) systolic function; 23% of adults and 14.1% of children had dilated LVs. Fifty-five percent (n = 1761) of patients were on secondary antibiotic prophylaxis. Oral anti-coagulants were prescribed in 69.5% (n = 946) of patients with mechanical valves (n = 501), AF (n = 397), and high-risk mitral stenosis in sinus rhythm (n = 48). However, only 28.3% (n = 269) had a therapeutic international normalized ratio. Among 1825 women of childbearing age (12-51 years), only 3.6% (n = 65) were on contraception. The utilization of valvuloplasty and valve surgery was higher in upper-middle compared with lower-income countries.

CONCLUSION: Rheumatic heart disease patients were young, predominantly female, and had high prevalence of major cardiovascular complications. There is suboptimal utilization of secondary antibiotic prophylaxis, oral anti-coagulation, and contraception, and variations in the use of percutaneous and surgical interventions by country income level.

Midwifery-led antenatal care models: mapping a systematic review to an evidence-based quality framework to identify key components and characteristics of care

Background: Implementing effective antenatal care models is a key global policy goal. However, the mechanisms of action of these multi-faceted models that would allow widespread implementation are seldom examined and poorly understood. In existing care model analyses there is little distinction between what is done, how it is done, and who does it. A new evidence-informed quality maternal and newborn care (QMNC) framework identifies key characteristics of quality care. This offers the opportunity to identify systematically the characteristics of care delivery that may be generalizable across contexts, thereby enhancing implementation. Our objective was to map the characteristics of antenatal care models tested in Randomised Controlled Trials (RCTs) to a new evidence-based framework for quality maternal and newborn care; thus facilitating the identification of characteristics of effective care.

Methods: A systematic review of RCTs of midwifery-led antenatal care models. Mapping and evaluation of these models’ characteristics to the QMNC framework using data extraction and scoring forms derived from the five framework components. Paired team members independently extracted data and conducted quality assessment using the QMNC framework and standard RCT criteria.

Results: From 13,050 citations initially retrieved we identified 17 RCTs of midwifery-led antenatal care models from Australia (7), the UK (4), China (2), and Sweden, Ireland, Mexico and Canada (1 each). QMNC framework scores ranged from 9 to 25 (possible range 0–32), with most models reporting fewer than half the characteristics associated with quality maternity care. Description of care model characteristics was lacking in many studies, but was better reported for the intervention arms. Organisation of care was the best-described component. Underlying values and philosophy of care were poorly reported.

Conclusions: The QMNC framework facilitates assessment of the characteristics of antenatal care models. It is vital to understand all the characteristics of multi-faceted interventions such as care models; not only what is done but why it is done, by whom, and how this differed from the standard care package. By applying the QMNC framework we have established a foundation for future reports of intervention studies so that the characteristics of individual models can be evaluated, and the impact of any differences appraised.

How can we use systematic reviews to inform clinical practice?

Aims/purpose: Systematic reviews provide the highest quality evidence and inform clinical practice. For patient benefit, it is imperative that nurses keep abreast of evidence-based practice. This presentation highlights where to find systematic reviews and how the information presented can be used to inform care.
Presentation description: Clinical research is increasing at an incredible rate. In the clinical trials database alone, more than 2000 new studies are registered/month and this does not include qualitative studies that do not require registration. Keeping abreast of current evidence can not only be a time consuming process, but can be problematic when studies produce conflicting results. Systematic reviews can be useful for summarizing the increasing amount of knowledge that is gained from scientific papers. In addition, combining individual studies in a meta-analysis increases statistical power, resulting in more precise effect estimates. This presentation draws upon a few systematic reviews relevant to ICU nursing practice, highlights their findings and demonstrates how the information can be used to inform translation of evidence into practice. Additionally, although these reviews include steps to minimize bias, nurses should be aware of some of the biases that may reduce confidence in the findings.
Conclusion: Systematic reviews can be useful tools for informing evidence based practice, although careful interpretation is necessary for understanding their relevance to local practice.