International comparison of the German evidence-based S3-guidelines on the diagnosis and multimodal treatment of early and locally advanced gastric cancer, including adenocarcinoma of the lower esophagus.

BACKGROUND: Clinical guidelines are essential in implementing and maintaining nationwide stage-specific diagnostic and therapeutic standards. In 2011, the first German expert consensus guideline defined the evidence for diagnosis and treatment of early and locally advanced esophagogastric cancers. Here, we compare this guideline with other national guidelines as well as current literature. METHODS: The German S3-guideline used an approved development process with de novo literature research, international guideline adaptation, or good clinical practice. Other recent evidence-based national guidelines and current references were compared with German recommendations. RESULTS: In the German S3 and other Western guidelines, adenocarcinomas of the esophagogastric junction (AEG) are classified according to formerly defined AEG I-III subgroups due to the high surgical impact. To stage local disease, computed tomography of the chest and abdomen and endosonography are reinforced. In contrast, laparoscopy is optional for staging. Mucosal cancers (T1a) should be endoscopically resected "en-bloc" to allow complete histological evaluation of lateral and basal margins. For locally advanced cancers of the stomach or esophagogastric junction (≥T3N+), preferred treatment is preoperative and postoperative chemotherapy. Preoperative radiochemotherapy is an evidence-based alternative for large AEG type I-II tumors (≥T3N+). Additionally, some experts recommend treating T2 tumors with a similar approach, mainly because pretherapeutic staging is often considered to be unreliable. CONCLUSIONS: The German S3 guideline represents an up-to-date European position with regard to diagnosis, staging, and treatment recommendations for patients with locally advanced esophagogastric cancer. Effects of perioperative chemotherapy versus chemoradiotherapy are still to be investigated for adenocarcinoma of the cardia and the lower esophagus.

Evidence-Based Practice in PubMed: Are Shared Filters Useful to Health Sciences Academic Users?

Objectives In April 2010, the Université de Montréal’s Health Sciences Library has implemented shared filters in its institutional PubMed account. Most of these filters are designed to highlight resources for evidence-based practice, such as Clinical Queries, Systematic Reviews and Evidence-based Synopsis. We now want to measure how those filters are perceived and used by our users. Methods For one month, data was gathered through an online questionnaire proposed to users of Université de Montréal’s PubMed account. A print version was also distributed to participants in information literacy workshops given by the health sciences librarians. Respondents were restricted to users affiliated to Université de Montréal’s faculties of Medicine, Dentistry, Veterinary Sciences, Nursing and Pharmacy. Basic user information such as year/program of study or department affiliation was also collected. The questionnaire allowed users to identify the filters they use, assess the relevance of filters, and also suggest new ones. Results Survey results showed that the shared filters of Université de Montreal’s PubMed account were found useful by the majority of respondents. Filters allowing rapid access to secondary resources ranked among the most relevant (Reviews, Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Practice Guidelines and Clinical Evidence). For Clinical Study Queries, Randomized Controlled Trial (Therapy/Narrow) was considered the most useful. Some new shared filters have been suggested by respondents. Finally, 18% of the respondents indicated that they did not quite understand the relevance of filters. Conclusion Based on the survey results, shared filters considered most useful will be kept, some will be enhanced and others removed so that suggested ones could be added. The fact that some respondents did not understand well the relevance of filters could potentially be addressed through our PubMed workshops, online library guides or by renaming some filters in a more meaningful way.

Beyond the Pro and Contra of Evidence-Based Practice: Reflections on a Recurring Dilemma at the Core of Social Work

Currently, social work is witnessing a quite polarized debate about what should be the basis for good practice. Simply stated, the different attempts to define the required basis for effective and accountable interventions in social work practice can be grouped in two paradigmatic positions, which seem to be in strong opposition to each other. On the one hand the highly influential evidence based practice movement highlights the necessity to base practice interventions on proven effectiveness from empirical research. Despite some variations, such as between narrow conceptions of evidence based practice (see e.g. McNeece/Thyer, 2004) and broader approaches to it (see e.g. Gambrill, 1999, 2001, 2008), the evidence based practice movement embodies a positivist orientation and more explicitly scientific aspirations of social work by using positivistic empirical strategies. Critics of the evidence based practice movement argue that its narrow epistemological assumptions are not appropriate for the understanding of social phenomena and that evidence based guidelines to practice are insufficient to deal with the extremely complex activities social work practice requires in different and always somewhat unique practice situations (Webb, 2001; Gray & Mc Donald, 2006; Otto, Polutta &Ziegler, 2009). Furthermore critics of evidence based practice argue that it privileges an uncritical and a-political positivism which seems highly problematic in the current climate of welfare state reforms, in which the question ‘what works’ is highly politicized and the legitimacy of professional social work practice is being challenged maybe more than ever before (Kessl, 2009). Both opponents and proponents of evidence based practice argue on the epistemological, the methodological and the ethical level to sustain their point of view and raise fundamental questions about the real nature of social work practice, so that one could get the impression that social work is really at the crossroads between two very different conceptions of social work practice and its further professional development (Stepney, 2009). However, this article is not going to merely rehearse the pro and contra of different positions that are being invoked in the debate about evidence based practice. Instead it aims to go further by identifying the dilemmas underlying these positions which - so it is argued – re-emerge in the debate about evidence based practice, but which are older than this debate. They concern the fundamental ambivalence modern professionalization processes in social work were subjected to from their very beginnings.

Perceptions of evidence-based practice: A survey of Australian occupational therapists

Evidence-based practice (EBP) requires clinicians to access, appraise and integrate research literature with clinical experience and clients' perspectives. Currently, little is known about occupational therapists' attitudes to EBP, their perception of implementation barriers or their educational needs. A questionnaire reflecting these issues was sent to a proportionate random sample of 1491 members of the national professional occupational therapy association, OT AUSTRALIA. The questionnaire was completed by 649 (44%) participants. Occupational therapists were positive about EBP with most (96%) agreeing that EBP is important to occupational therapy. Although 56% used research to make clinical decisions, more relied on clinical experience (96%), information from continuing education (82%) and colleagues (80%). Lack of time, evidence and skills were identified as the main barriers to the implementation of EBP. Over half (52%) expressed strong interest in EBP skills training, and most (80%) indicated an interest in the availability of brief summaries of evidence. Targeted educational initiatives, resources and systems are needed to support EBP in occupational therapy.

Treatment approaches for clients with a stroke-affected upper limb: Are we following evidence-based practice?

Stroke rehabilitation is an area of practice that many occupational therapists encounter during their career. The literature promotes a wide range of management techniques and support devices for people who have a stroke-affected upper limb, but little is known about the validity of those that occupational therapists actually use in practice. A questionnaire was sent to occupational therapists working in Queensland and northern New South Wales facilities (n = 35), in which adults with a stroke were likely to be treated. Eighteen respondents answered questions about the management techniques and support devices used in their facility, and their perception of the benefit of these devices in the reduction of hemiplegic shoulder pain. Results are discussed with reference to evidence-based practice and indicate an urgent need for the collation and dissemination of the best current evidence available for the management techniques and support devices used in this area, as well as further research to extend this evidence.

Validation of the Portuguese version of the Evidence-Based Practice Questionnaire

OBJECTIVES: To describe the process of translation and linguistic and cultural validation of the Evidence Based Practice Questionnaire for the Portuguese context: Questionário de Eficácia Clínica e Prática Baseada em Evidências (QECPBE). METHOD: A methodological and cross-sectional study was developed. The translation and back translation was performed according to traditional standards. Principal Components Analysis with orthogonal rotation according to the Varimax method was used to verify the QECPBE's psychometric characteristics, followed by confirmatory factor analysis. Internal consistency was determined by Cronbach's alpha. Data were collected between December 2013 and February 2014. RESULTS: 358 nurses delivering care in a hospital facility in North of Portugal participated in the study. QECPBE contains 20 items and three subscales: Practice (α=0.74); Attitudes (α=0.75); Knowledge/Skills and Competencies (α=0.95), presenting an overall internal consistency of α=0.74. The tested model explained 55.86% of the variance and presented good fit: χ2(167)=520.009; p = 0.0001; χ2df=3.114; CFI=0.908; GFI=0.865; PCFI=0.798; PGFI=0.678; RMSEA=0.077 (CI90%=0.07-0.08). CONCLUSION: confirmatory factor analysis revealed the questionnaire is valid and appropriate to be used in the studied context.

La pratique basée sur les résultats probants. Partie 1: Origine, définitions, critiques, obstacles, avantages et impact [Evidence-based practice. Part 1: Origins, definitions, critiques, obstacles, advantages and impact].

The increasing popularity of evidence-based practice (EBP) requires that nurses take a stand regarding this type of practice. This positioning rests on knowledge of EBP, however this notion varies by discipline and many definitions exist even within the nursing discipline. An improved understanding of the basic tenets of this type of practice is thus essential. This first, of a series of two articles describes the origin of EBP as well as various definitions, it also presents the major criticisms raised and takes a look at the impact of the increased tendency towards EBP on professional practice.

La pratique basée sur les résultats probants. Partie 2: Les étapes du processus [Evidence-based practice: Part 2: Steps in the process].

Evidence-based (EBP) aims for a new distribution of power centered on scientific evidence rather than clinical expertise. The present article describes the operational process of EBP by describing the implementation stages of this type of practise. This stage presentation is essential given that there are many conceptions end models of EBP and that some nurses have a limited knowledge of its rules ans implications. Given that number and formulation of the stages varies by author, the process presented here attempts to integrate the different stages reviewed.