1000 resultados para SYSTEMATIC NOTES


Relevância:

20.00% 20.00%

Publicador:

Resumo:

Collection : Les archives de la Révolution française ; 6.2.34

Relevância:

20.00% 20.00%

Publicador:

Resumo:

Collection : Nouvelle collection moliéresque ; 14

Relevância:

20.00% 20.00%

Publicador:

Resumo:

BACKGROUND: Secondary prevention programs for patients experiencing an acute coronary syndrome have been shown to be effective in the outpatient setting. The efficacy of in-hospital prevention interventions administered soon after acute cardiac events is unclear. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine whether in-hospital, patient-level interventions targeting multiple cardiovascular risk factors reduce all-cause mortality after an acute coronary syndrome. METHODS AND RESULTS: Using a prespecified search strategy, we included controlled clinical trials and before-after studies of secondary prevention interventions with at least a patient-level component (ie, education, counseling, or patient-specific order sets) initiated in hospital with outcomes of mortality, readmission, or reinfarction rates in acute coronary syndrome patients. We classified the interventions as patient-level interventions with or without associated healthcare provider-level interventions and/or system-level interventions. Twenty-six studies met our inclusion criteria. The summary estimate of 14 studies revealed a relative risk of all-cause mortality of 0.79 (95% CI, 0.69 to 0.92; n=37,585) at 1 year. However, the apparent benefit depended on study design and level of intervention. The before-after studies suggested reduced mortality (relative risk [RR], 0.77; 95% CI, 0.66 to 0.90; n=3680 deaths), whereas the RR was 0.96 (95% CI, 0.64 to 1.44; n=99 deaths) among the controlled clinical trials. Only interventions including a provider- or system-level intervention suggested reduced mortality compared with patient-level-only interventions. CONCLUSIONS: The evidence for in-hospital, patient-level interventions for secondary prevention is promising but not definitive because only before-after studies suggest a significant reduction in mortality. Future research should formally test which components of interventions provide the greatest benefit.

Relevância:

20.00% 20.00%

Publicador:

Resumo:

BACKGROUND: Methodological research has found that non-published studies often have different results than those that are published, a phenomenon known as publication bias. When results are not published, or are published selectively based on the direction or the strength of the findings, healthcare professionals and consumers of healthcare cannot base their decision-making on the full body of current evidence. METHODS: As part of the OPEN project (http://www.open-project.eu) we will conduct a systematic review with the following objectives:1. To determine the proportion and/or rate of non-publication of studies by systematically reviewing methodological research projects that followed up a cohort of studies that a. received research ethics committee (REC) approval,b. were registered in trial registries, orc. were presented as abstracts at conferences.2. To assess the association of study characteristics (for example, direction and/or strength of findings) with likelihood of full publication.To identify reports of relevant methodological research projects we will conduct electronic database searches, check reference lists, and contact experts. Published and unpublished projects will be included. The inclusion criteria are as follows:a. RECs: methodological research projects that examined the subsequent proportion and/or rate of publication of studies that received approval from RECs;b. Trial registries: methodological research projects that examine the subsequent proportion and/or rate of publication of studies registered in trial registries;c. Conference abstracts: methodological research projects that examine the subsequent proportion and/or rate of full publication of studies which were initially presented at conferences as abstracts.Primary outcomes: Proportion/rate of published studies; time to full publication (mean/median; cumulative publication rate by time).Secondary outcomes: Association of study characteristics with full publication.The different questions (a, b, and c) will be investigated separately. Data synthesis will involve a combination of descriptive and statistical summaries of the included methodological research projects. DISCUSSION: Results are expected to be publicly available in mid 2013.

Relevância:

20.00% 20.00%

Publicador:

Resumo:

Objective:This review assesses the presentation,management, and outcome of delayed postpancreatectomy hemorrhage (PPH) and suggests a novel algorithm as possible standard of care.Methods: An electronic search of Medline and Embase databases from January 1990 to February 2010 was undertaken. A random-effect meta-analysis for success rate and mortality of laparotomy vs. interventional radiology after delayed PPH was performed.Results: Fifteen studies including 248 patients with delayed PPH were included. Its incidence was 3?3%. A sentinel bleed heralding a delayed PPH was observed in 45% of cases. Pancreatic leaks or intraabdominal abscesses were found in 62%. Interventional radiology was attempted in 41%, and laparotomy was undertaken in 49%. On meta-analysis comparing laparotomy vs. interventional radiology, no significant difference could be observed in term of complete hemostasis (76% vs. 80%; P = 0?35). A statistically significant difference favored interventional radiology vs. laparotomy in term of mortality (22% vs. 47%; P = 0?02).Conclusion: Proper and early management of postoperative complications, such as pancreatic leak and intraabdominal abscess, minimizes the risk of delayed PPH. Sentinel bleeding needs to be thoroughly investigated. If a pseudoaneurysm is detected, it has to be treated by interventional angiography, in order to prevent a further delayed PPH. Early angiography and embolization or stenting is safe and should be the procedure of choice. Surgery remains a therapeutic option if no interventional radiology is available, or patients cannot be resuscitated for an interventional treatment.