Propagandas de medicamentos psicoativos: Análise das informações científicas

Objective: According to the World Health Organization, medicinal drug promotion should be reliable, accurate, truthful, informative, balanced, up-to-date and capable of substantiation. The objective of the present study was to review psychoactive drug advertisements to physicians as for information consistency with the related references and accessibility of the cited references. Methods: Data was collected in the city of Araraquara, Southeastern Brazil, in 2005. There were collected and reviewed 152 drug advertisements, a total of 304 references. References were requested directly from pharmaceutical companies' customer services and searched in UNESP (Ibict, Athenas) and BIREME (SciELO, PubMed, free-access indexed journals) library network and CAPES journals. Advertisement statements were checked against references using content analysis. Results: Of all references cited in the advertisements studied, 66.7% were accessed. Of 639 promotional statements identified, 346 (54%) were analyzed. The analysis showed that 67.7% of promotional statements in the advertisements were consistent with their references, while the remaining was either partially consistent or inconsistent. Of the material analyzed, an average 2.5 (1-28) references was cited per advertisement. In the text body, there were identified 639 pieces of information clearly associated with at least one cited reference (average 3.5 pieces of information per advertisement). Conclusion: The study results evidenced difficult access to the references. Messages on efficacy, safety and cost, among others, are not always supported by scientific studies. There is a need for regulation changes and effective monitoring of drug promotional materials.

Oral drugs for hypertensive urgencies: systematic review and meta-analysis

CONTEXTO E OBJETIVO: Urgências hipertensivas são definidas como elevações graves na pressão arterial sem evidência de danos agudos ou progressivos a órgãos-alvo. A necessidade de tratamento é considerada urgente, mas permite um controle gradual, utilizando-se drogas orais ou sublinguais. Se o aumento na pressão arterial não está associado a risco de vida ou danos a órgãos alvo, o controle pressórico deve ser feito lentamente durante 24 horas. em relação às urgências hipertensivas, não é conhecida qual a classe de drogas anti-hipertensivas que promove os melhores resultados e há controvérsia em relação a quando e quais as drogas devem ser utilizadas nestas situações. O objetivo desta revisão foi avaliar a efetividade e a segurança de drogas orais para urgências hipertensivas. METODOS: Esta revisão sistemática da literatura foi desenvolvida no Centro Cochrane do Brasil, e na Disciplina de Medicina de Urgência e Medicina Baseada em Evidências da Universidade Federal de São Paulo (UNIFESP) - Escola Paulista de Medicina (Unifesp-EPM), de acordo com a metodologia da Colaboração Cochrane. RESULTADOS: Os 16 ensaios clínicos aleatórios selecionados incluíram 769 participantes e demonstraram um efeito superior dos inibidores da enzima conversora de angiotensina no tratamento da urgência hipertensiva, avaliada em 223 participantes. Os efeitos adversos mais frequentes para os bloqueadores de canal de cálcio foram cefaleia (35/206), rubor (17/172) e alterações do ritmo cardíaco (14/189); para os inibidores da enzima conversora de angiotensina, o efeito colateral mais frequente foi disgeusia (25/38). CONCLUSÕES: Há evidências importantes a favor do uso de inibidores da enzima conversora da angiotensina para o tratamento de urgências hipertensivas, quando comparados aos bloqueadores dos canais de cálcio, devido a maior efetividade e à menor frequência de efeitos adversos, como cefaléia e rubor facial.

Effect of ambulatory versus hospital treatment for gestational diabetes or hyperglycemia on infant mortality rates: a systematic review

CONTEXTO E OBJETIVO:Gestações complicadas pelo diabetes estão associadas com aumento das complicações neonatais e maternas. A complicação mais grave materna é o risco de desenvolver diabetes tipo 2 após 10-12 anos do parto. Para o controle rigoroso da glicose no sangue, as mulheres grávidas são tratadas de forma ambulatorial ou com internações hospitalares. O objetivo deste estudo é avaliar a efetividade do tratamento ambulatorial versus hospitalização em gestações complicadas por diabetes ou hiperglicemia.TIPO DE ESTUDO E LOCAL:Revisão sistemática conduzida em hospital universitário público.MÉTODOS:Uma revisão sistemática da literatura foi realizada e as principais bases de dados eletrônicas foram pesquisadas. A data da pesquisa mais recente foi 4 de setembro de 2011. Dois autores selecionaram independentemente os ensaios clínicos relevantes, avaliaram a qualidade metodológica e extraíram os dados.RESULTADOS:Apenas três estudos foram selecionados, com tamanho de amostra pequeno. Não houve diferença estatisticamente significativa entre o tratamento ambulatorial versus hospitalização em relação à mortalidade em nenhuma das subcategorias analisadas: mortes perinatais e neonatais, (risco relativo [RR] 0,65; 95% de intervalo de confiança [IC] 0,11-3,84, P = 0,63); morte neonatal (RR 0,29, IC 95% 0,01-6,07, P = 0,43), e óbitos infantis (RR 0,29, IC 95% 0,01-6,07, P = 0,43).CONCLUSÕES:Com base em estudos com risco de viés alto ou moderado, esta revisão demonstrou que não há diferença estatisticamente significante entre o tratamento ambulatorial comparado com o hospitalar na redução das taxas de mortalidade em gestações complicadas por diabetes ou hiperglicemia. Esta revisão sistemática também sugere a necessidade de mais ensaios clínicos randomizados sobre o assunto.

Anorectal Malformations: Finding the Pathway out of the Labyrinth.

Anorectal malformations (ARMs) are a complex group of congenital anomalies involving the distal anus and rectum, as well as the urinary and genital tracts in a significant number of cases. Most ARMs result from abnormal development of the urorectal septum in early fetal life. In most cases, the anus is not perforated and the distal enteric component ends blindly (atresia) or as a fistula into the urinary tract, genital tract, or perineum. ARMs are also present in a great number of syndromes and associations of congenital anomalies. The classification of ARMs is mainly based on the position of the rectal pouch relative to the puborectal sling, the presence or absence of fistulas, and the types and locations of the fistulas. All of this information is crucial in determining the most appropriate surgical approach for each case. Imaging studies play a key role in evaluation and classification of ARMs. In neonates, clinical and radiologic examinations in the first 3 days of life help determine the type of ARM and the need for early colostomy. In older children, preoperative pelvic magnetic resonance imaging is the most efficient diagnostic method for evaluating the size, morphology, and grade of development of the sphincteric musculature.

Archivo digital de imágenes diagnósticas enfocado a tórax y abdomen de Fundación Cardioinfantil – instituto de cardiología

El desarrollo del archivo docente de imágenes diagnósticas, permite compartir y difundir el conocimiento de la colección de casos e imágenes radiológicas con rapidez y facilidad al personal de la Clínica Fundación Cardio-Infantil – Instituto de Cardiología, a través por portal web “e-cardio”, contribuyendo en la formación académica del personal médico, técnico y administrativo.

Caracterización de las variantes anatómicas de las venas pulmonares en pacientes candidatos a aislamiento de venas pulmonares en Colombia

Introducción y objetivos: El conocimiento de la anatomía de las venas pulmonares y de la aurícula izquierda es fundamental para la planeación y prevención de posibles complicaciones durante la ablación de las venas pulmonares, procedimiento realizado para el manejo de la fibrilación auricular. Este estudio pretende caracterizar la anatomía (tamaño y forma) de las venas pulmonares y determinar las variantes anatómicas más comunes de las mismas. Métodos: Se analizaron 277 estudios de angioresonancia tridimensional y tomografía computarizada realizados previo al procedimiento de aislamiento de venas pulmonares. Se evaluaron los diámetros de la aurícula izquierda, de los ostia de las venas pulmonares y se determinaron la presencia de venas pulmonares comunes, accesorias y ramificaciones tempranas. Resultados: 75% de nuestros pacientes presentaron la anatomía normal de dos venas pulmonares derechas y dos izquierdas. En un 10,1% de los casos se encontraron venas supernumerarias y en un 11,2% se encontró un tronco común. En un 61% de los pacientes se encontraron ramas ostiales, las cuales en un 39,4% de los casos se presentaron en la vena pulmonar inferior derecha. Conclusiones: La evaluación de la morfología de la aurícula derecha y las venas pulmonares por medio de angioresonancia o tomografía computarizada, es necesaria para la realización de ablación por radiofrecuencia dada la alta frecuencia de variantes anatómicas y presencia de ramas ostiales.

Financial Year Book of the Daily Commercial News

Title varies: 18? -1906, Annual Review

Experiencia y porcentaje de complicaciones de las derivaciones portosistémicas intrahepáticas transyugulares en la Fundación Cardioinfantil

La derivación portosistémica intrahepática transyugular (TIPS) es una técnica importante en el manejo de las complicaciones de la hipertensión portal, en especial en aquellos pacientes candidatos a trasplante hepático. Se trata de un estudio observacional analítico, sin riesgo, en el cual se emplearon técnicas y métodos de investigación documental retrospectivo, y no se realizó ningún tipo de intervención sobre las variables fisiológicas, psicológicas y sociales de la población incluida. Se realizó la descripción demográfica de los pacientes, características clínicas, hallazgos imageneológicos y aspectos técnicos asociados al procedimiento de los pacientes con hipertensión portal que han sido manejados con TIPS en la Fundación CardioInfantil desde Enero 1 de 2007 hasta Junio 30 de 2016. Se incluyeron 54 pacientes de los cuales el 66,7% no presentaron complicaciones inmediatas, tenidas en cuenta desde la terminación del procedimiento y hasta las siguientes 24 horas; sin embargo, 16,9% debutaron con encefalopatía durante este periodo. De las complicaciones tardías, la más frecuente fue la ascitis con un 66,7%, con una mortalidad de 20,4% de los cuales, el 45% de estos fue por shock séptico y falla orgánica secundaria. Aunque el porcentaje de complicaciones asociadas al procedimiento fue alto en nuestros pacientes, se encuentra dentro de los valores reportados en la literatura. Los resultados presentados son un punto de partida para la evaluación del procedimiento en nuestra población y permiten implementar estrategias de mejora que conlleven a incidir de manera positiva en el porcentaje de complicaciones y mortalidad derivadas del procedimiento.

Publication trends of shared decision making in 15 high impact medical journals: a full-text review with bibliometric analysis.

BACKGROUND: Shared Decision Making (SDM) is increasingly advocated as a model for medical decision making. However, there is still low use of SDM in clinical practice. High impact factor journals might represent an efficient way for its dissemination. We aimed to identify and characterize publication trends of SDM in 15 high impact medical journals. METHODS: We selected the 15 general and internal medicine journals with the highest impact factor publishing original articles, letters and editorials. We retrieved publications from 1996 to 2011 through the full-text search function on each journal website and abstracted bibliometric data. We included publications of any type containing the phrase "shared decision making" or five other variants in their abstract or full text. These were referred to as SDM publications. A polynomial Poisson regression model with logarithmic link function was used to assess the evolution across the period of the number of SDM publications according to publication characteristics. RESULTS: We identified 1285 SDM publications out of 229,179 publications in 15 journals from 1996 to 2011. The absolute number of SDM publications by journal ranged from 2 to 273 over 16 years. SDM publications increased both in absolute and relative numbers per year, from 46 (0.32% relative to all publications from the 15 journals) in 1996 to 165 (1.17%) in 2011. This growth was exponential (P < 0.01). We found fewer research publications (465, 36.2% of all SDM publications) than non-research publications, which included non-systematic reviews, letters, and editorials. The increase of research publications across time was linear. Full-text search retrieved ten times more SDM publications than a similar PubMed search (1285 vs. 119 respectively). CONCLUSION: This review in full-text showed that SDM publications increased exponentially in major medical journals from 1996 to 2011. This growth might reflect an increased dissemination of the SDM concept to the medical community.

Systematic review of the empirical evidence of study publication bias and outcome reporting bias - an updated review.

BACKGROUND: The increased use of meta-analysis in systematic reviews of healthcare interventions has highlighted several types of bias that can arise during the completion of a randomised controlled trial. Study publication bias and outcome reporting bias have been recognised as a potential threat to the validity of meta-analysis and can make the readily available evidence unreliable for decision making. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: In this update, we review and summarise the evidence from cohort studies that have assessed study publication bias or outcome reporting bias in randomised controlled trials. Twenty studies were eligible of which four were newly identified in this update. Only two followed the cohort all the way through from protocol approval to information regarding publication of outcomes. Fifteen of the studies investigated study publication bias and five investigated outcome reporting bias. Three studies have found that statistically significant outcomes had a higher odds of being fully reported compared to non-significant outcomes (range of odds ratios: 2.2 to 4.7). In comparing trial publications to protocols, we found that 40-62% of studies had at least one primary outcome that was changed, introduced, or omitted. We decided not to undertake meta-analysis due to the differences between studies. CONCLUSIONS: This update does not change the conclusions of the review in which 16 studies were included. Direct empirical evidence for the existence of study publication bias and outcome reporting bias is shown. There is strong evidence of an association between significant results and publication; studies that report positive or significant results are more likely to be published and outcomes that are statistically significant have higher odds of being fully reported. Publications have been found to be inconsistent with their protocols. Researchers need to be aware of the problems of both types of bias and efforts should be concentrated on improving the reporting of trials.

Protocol for a systematic review on the extent of non-publication of research studies and associated study characteristics.

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.

Publication bias in animal research: a systematic review protocol.

BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of pre-clinical studies, in vivo animal experiments in particular, can influence clinical care. Publication bias is one of the major threats of validity in systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Previous empirical studies suggested that systematic reviews and meta-analyses have become more prevalent until 2010 and found evidence for compromised methodological rigor with a trend towards improvement. We aim to comprehensively summarize and update the evidence base on systematic reviews and meta-analyses of animal studies, their methodological quality and assessment of publication bias in particular. METHODS/DESIGN: The objectives of this systematic review are as follows: âeuro¢To investigate the epidemiology of published systematic reviews of animal studies until present. âeuro¢To examine methodological features of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of animal studies with special attention to the assessment of publication bias. âeuro¢To investigate the influence of systematic reviews of animal studies on clinical research by examining citations of the systematic reviews by clinical studies. Eligible studies for this systematic review constitute systematic reviews and meta-analyses that summarize in vivo animal experiments with the purpose of reviewing animal evidence to inform human health. We will exclude genome-wide association studies and animal experiments with the main purpose to learn more about fundamental biology, physical functioning or behavior. In addition to the inclusion of systematic reviews and meta-analyses identified by other empirical studies, we will systematically search Ovid Medline, Embase, ToxNet, and ScienceDirect from 2009 to January 2013 for further eligible studies without language restrictions. Two reviewers working independently will assess titles, abstracts, and full texts for eligibility and extract relevant data from included studies. Data reporting will involve a descriptive summary of meta-analyses and systematic reviews. DISCUSSION: Results are expected to be publicly available later in 2013 and may form the basis for recommendations to improve the quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of animal studies and their use with respect to clinical care.

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.