Prévalence des maladies infectieuses au Centre hospitalier universitaire vaudois [Prevalence of infectious diseases at the Vaud University Hospital Center].

The prevalence of infectious diseases at our hospital (Centre hospitalier universitaire vaudois, Lausanne [CHUV], 900 beds) was studied retrospectively over a two years period (1980-1981). The medical diagnosis of 30203 patients recorded in the computerized medical archives, representing 93% of the patients admitted during the period of observation, was reviewed. To assess the reliability of the computerized data, quality control was carried out through detailed analysis of all the histologically proven appendicitis recorded during 1981. 88% of the histologically proven appendicitis were registered in the computer and the diagnosis was specific in 87% of cases. An infectious disease was the primary reason for admission in 12.8% of the patients (3873) during the study period. Altogether, 20.2% of patients presented with an infection during their hospital stay. Because of the retrospective nature of the study it was not possible to determine whether these additional infections were nosocomially acquired. The organ systems most frequently infected were the respiratory tract (28.5% of all infections), the digestive tract (20.5%), the skin and osteoarticular system (16%) and the urogenital tract (11.6%). An infection was the primary reason for admission of 40.2% of the patients hospitalized in the dermatology service, of 19.7% of patients admitted in internal medicine, of 15-17% of the patients admitted in pediatrics, ENT and general surgery, and of 1-2% of the patients admitted in neurosurgery and radiotherapy. These observations highlight the continuing importance of infectious diseases in a modern hospital, in spite of high socio-economic levels, stringent hygiene and epidemiologic measures, and modern antibiotic availability.

Detecting, quantifying and adjusting for publication bias in meta-analyses: protocol of a systematic review on methods.

BACKGROUND: Health professionals and policymakers aspire to make healthcare decisions based on the entire relevant research evidence. This, however, can rarely be achieved because a considerable amount of research findings are not published, especially in case of 'negative' results - a phenomenon widely recognized as publication bias. Different methods of detecting, quantifying and adjusting for publication bias in meta-analyses have been described in the literature, such as graphical approaches and formal statistical tests to detect publication bias, and statistical approaches to modify effect sizes to adjust a pooled estimate when the presence of publication bias is suspected. An up-to-date systematic review of the existing methods is lacking. METHODS/DESIGN: The objectives of this systematic review are as follows:âeuro¢ To systematically review methodological articles which focus on non-publication of studies and to describe methods of detecting and/or quantifying and/or adjusting for publication bias in meta-analyses.âeuro¢ To appraise strengths and weaknesses of methods, the resources they require, and the conditions under which the method could be used, based on findings of included studies.We will systematically search Web of Science, Medline, and the Cochrane Library for methodological articles that describe at least one method of detecting and/or quantifying and/or adjusting for publication bias in meta-analyses. A dedicated data extraction form is developed and pilot-tested. Working in teams of two, we will independently extract relevant information from each eligible article. As this will be a qualitative systematic review, data reporting will involve a descriptive summary. DISCUSSION: Results are expected to be publicly available in mid 2013. This systematic review together with the results of other systematic reviews of the OPEN project (To Overcome Failure to Publish Negative Findings) will serve as a basis for the development of future policies and guidelines regarding the assessment and handling of publication bias in meta-analyses.

De la clinique à la recherche dans un centre de thérapie de couple et de famille

Cet article présente une recherche menée dans le cadre d'une consultation ambulatoire pour couples et familles. Les multiples niveaux impliqués dans une thérapie de couple ou de famille constituent une difficulté pour définir les variables pertinentes permettant d'évaluer l'efficacité d'une intervention thérapeutique systémique. Le but de notre recherche est d'évaluer l'efficacité à court et moyen terme d'une intervention systémique brève (ISB), qui consiste en un suivi thérapeutique de six séances maximum, en évaluant son impact au niveau de: (1) la symptomatologie individuelle; (2) la satisfaction conjugale; (3) la qualité des relations parentale et co-parentale et (4) le fonctionnement familial global. Les différents niveaux sont évalués par des auto-questionnaires avant et après l'ISB ainsi qu'après trois mois de catamnèse. L'alliance thérapeutique est également mesurée par auto-questionnaire (WAI) après chaque séance. Les premiers résultats sur un échantillon pilote de N = 10 couples/familles montrent, d'une part, une efficacité globale de l'ISB pour la plupart des variables mesurées, et, d'autre part, une efficacité plus grande pour les femmes que pour les hommes. Aucun effet thérapeutique n'est observé pour la symptomatologie individuelle des hommes et pour le fonctionnement familial global, suggérant que l'impact de l'ISB diffère selon les niveaux mesurés. L'importance de l'alliance thérapeutique pour la réussite thérapeutique est également confirmée.

Defining publication bias: protocol for a systematic review of highly cited articles and proposal for a new framework.

BACKGROUND: Selective publication of studies, which is commonly called publication bias, is widely recognized. Over the years a new nomenclature for other types of bias related to non-publication or distortion related to the dissemination of research findings has been developed. However, several of these different biases are often still summarized by the term 'publication bias'. METHODS/DESIGN: As part of the OPEN Project (To Overcome failure to Publish nEgative fiNdings) we will conduct a systematic review with the following objectives:- To systematically review highly cited articles that focus on non-publication of studies and to present the various definitions of biases related to the dissemination of research findings contained in the articles identified.- To develop and discuss a new framework on nomenclature of various aspects of distortion in the dissemination process that leads to public availability of research findings in an international group of experts in the context of the OPEN Project.We will systematically search Web of Knowledge for highly cited articles that provide a definition of biases related to the dissemination of research findings. A specifically designed data extraction form will be developed and pilot-tested. Working in teams of two, we will independently extract relevant information from each eligible article.For the development of a new framework we will construct an initial table listing different levels and different hazards en route to making research findings public. An international group of experts will iteratively review the table and reflect on its content until no new insights emerge and consensus has been reached. DISCUSSION: Results are expected to be publicly available in mid-2013. This systematic review together with the results of other systematic reviews of the OPEN project will serve as a basis for the development of future policies and guidelines regarding the assessment and prevention of publication bias.

Systematic review of evidence and consensus on diverticulitis: an analysis of national and international guidelines.

AIM: The study aimed to analyse the currently available national and international guidelines for areas of consensus and contrasting recommendations in the treatment of diverticulitis and thereby to design questions for future research. METHOD: MEDLINE, EMBASE and PubMed were systematically searched for guidelines on diverticular disease and diverticulitis. Inclusion was confined to papers in English and those < 10 years old. The included topics were classified as consensus or controversy between guidelines, and the highest level of evidence was scored as sufficient (Oxford Centre of Evidence-Based Medicine Level of Evidence of 3a or higher) or insufficient. RESULTS: Six guidelines were included and all topics with recommendations were compared. Overall, in 13 topics consensus was reached and 10 topics were regarded as controversial. In five topics, consensus was reached without sufficient evidence and in three topics there was no evidence and no consensus. Clinical staging, the need for intraluminal imaging, dietary restriction, duration of antibiotic treatment, the protocol for abscess treatment, the need for elective surgery in subgroups of patients, the need for surgery after abscess treatment and the level of the proximal resection margin all lack consensus or evidence. CONCLUSION: Evidence on the diagnosis and treatment of diverticular disease and diverticulitis ranged from nonexistent to strong, regardless of consensus. The most relevant research questions were identified and proposed as topics for future research.