Jo Langdon reviews Ephemeral Waters by Kate Middleton

Review of Kate Middleton's book-length poem, Ephemeral Waters, Giramondo, 2013.

Trends in co-authorship in the Australian Group of Eight law reviews

This paper examines trends in co-authorship in the Group of Eight (Go8) law reviews over the period 1975 to 2010. Several conclusions emerge. First, co-authorship occurs less in legal scholarship than in other disciplines. Second, co-authorship in Australian legal scholarship is less than in legal scholarship in the United States. Third, in terms of gender differences, males collaborate more than females. Fourth, academics at the leading law schools provide a disproportionate number of co-authored articles in the Go8 law reviews. Fifth, there is a positive correlation between co-authorship and publishing in the top Australian law journals. Between a quarter and a third of those who co-authored three or more articles in the Go8 law reviews were also those who published the most in the top Australian law journals over the period 1990–2010.

Cassandra Atherton reviews Anne Elvey

 Review of Kin by Anne Elvey

Interventions to improve cultural competency in healthcare: a systematic review of reviews

Cultural competency is a recognized and popular approach to improving the provision of health care to racial/ethnic minority groups in the community with the aim of reducing racial/ethnic health disparities. The aim of this systematic review of reviews is to gather and synthesize existing reviews of studies in the field to form a comprehensive understanding of the current evidence base that can guide future interventions and research in the area.

Systematic reviews: a social work perspective

Systematic reviews are gaining prominence and recognition as being an important methodological approach to dealing with ever growing amounts of research data, and recent years have seen the development of guidelines for both the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews. Initially systematic reviews came to prominence as a method for synthesising data emerging from Randomised Control Trials (RCTs) but increasingly the term “systematic review” is being used in regards to reviews of studies of a wide range of research designs. However, among Australian social workers, utilisation and conduct of systematic reviews has been limited. This paper will explore the question of what a systematic review is, introduce some of the key issues in undertaking such a review, and explore the implications of the emergence of systematic reviews from a social work perspective.

The epidemiology of sepsis during rapid response team reviews in a teaching hospital

In a three-month retrospective study, we assessed the proportion of rapid response team (RRT) calls associated with systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) and sepsis. We also documented the site of infection (whether it was community- or hospital-acquired), antibiotic modifications after the call and in-hospital outcomes. Amongst 358 RRT calls, two or more SIRS criteria were present in 277 (77.4%). Amongst the 277 RRT calls with SIRS criteria, 159 (57.4%) fulfilled sepsis criteria in the 24 hours before and 12 hours after the call. There were 118 of 277 (42.6%) calls with SIRS criteria but no evidence of sepsis and 62 of 277 (22.3%) calls associated with both criteria for sepsis as well as an alternative cause for SIRS. Hence, 159 (44.4%) of all 358 RRT calls over the three-month study period fulfilled criteria for sepsis and in 97 (159-62) (27.1%) of the 358 calls, there were criteria for sepsis without other causes for SIRS criteria. The most common sites of infection were respiratory tract (86), abdominal cavity (38), urinary tract (26) and bloodstream (26). Infection was hospital-acquired in 91 (57.2%) and community-acquired in 67 (42.1%) cases, respectively. Patients were on antibiotics in 127 of 159 (79.9%) cases before the RRT call and antibiotics were added or modified in 76 of 159 (47.8%) cases after RRT review. The hospital length-of-stay of patients who received an RRT call associated with sepsis was longer than those who did not (16.0 [8.0 to 28.5] versus 10 days [6.0 to 18.0]; P=0.002).

Systematic reviews showed insufficient evidence for clinical practice in 2004: What about in 2011? the next appeal for the evidence-based medicine age

Rationale and aim The aims of the Cochrane systematic reviews are to make readily available and up-to-date information for clinical practice, offering consistent evidence and straightforward recommendations. In 2004, we evaluated the conclusions from Cochrane systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials in terms of their recommendations for clinical practice and found that 47.83% of them had insufficient evidence for use in clinical practice. We proposed to reanalyze the reviews to evaluate whether this percentage had significantly decreased. Methods A cross-sectional study of systematic reviews published in the Cochrane Library (Issue 7, 2011) was conducted. We randomly selected reviews across all 52 Cochrane Collaborative Review Groups. Results We analyzed 1128 completed systematic reviews. Of these, 45.30% concluded that the interventions studied were likely to be beneficial, of which only 2.04% recommended no further research. In total, 45.04% of the reviews reported that the evidence did not support either benefit or harm, of which 0.8% did not recommend further studies and 44.24% recommended additional studies; the latter has decreased from our previous study with a difference of 3.59%. Conclusion Only a small number of the Cochrane collaboration's systematic reviews support clinical interventions with no need for additional research. A larger number of high-quality randomized clinical trials are necessary to change the 'insufficient evidence' scenario for clinical practice illustrated by the Cochrane database. It is recommended that we should produce higher-quality primary studies in active collaboration and consultation with global scholars and societies so that this can represent a major component of methodological advance in this context. © 2012 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.