-
Critical Care (London, England) Nov 2014Although many terminally ill people are admitted to an intensive care unit (ICU) at the end of life, their care is often inadequate because of poor communication by... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Although many terminally ill people are admitted to an intensive care unit (ICU) at the end of life, their care is often inadequate because of poor communication by physicians and lack of patient- and family-centred care. The aim of this systematic literature review was to describe physician-related barriers to adequate communication within the team and with patients and families, as well as barriers to patient- and family-centred decision-making, towards the end of life in the ICU. We base our discussion and evaluation on the quality indicators for end-of-life care in the ICU developed by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Critical Care End-of-Life Peer Workgroup.
METHOD
Four electronic databases (MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and PsycINFO) were searched, using controlled vocabulary and free text words, for potentially relevant records published between 2003 and 2013 in English or Dutch. Studies were included if the authors reported on physician-related and physician-reported barriers to adequate communication and decision-making. Barriers were categorized as being related to physicians' knowledge, physicians' attitudes or physicians' practice. Study quality was assessed using design-specific tools. Evidence for barriers was graded according to the quantity and quality of studies in which the barriers were reported.
RESULTS
Of 2,191 potentially relevant records, 36 studies were withheld for data synthesis. We determined 90 barriers, of which 46 were related to physicians' attitudes, 24 to physicians' knowledge and 20 to physicians' practice. Stronger evidence was found for physicians' lack of communication training and skills, their attitudes towards death in the ICU, their focus on clinical parameters and their lack of confidence in their own judgment of their patient's true condition.
CONCLUSIONS
We conclude that many physician-related barriers hinder adequate communication and shared decision-making in ICUs. Better physician education and palliative care guidelines are needed to enhance knowledge, attitudes and practice regarding end-of-life care. Patient-, family- and health care system-related barriers need to be examined.
Topics: Attitude of Health Personnel; Communication Barriers; Critical Care; Data Collection; Humans; Patient-Centered Care; Physician-Patient Relations; Professional-Family Relations; Terminal Care
PubMed: 25403291
DOI: 10.1186/s13054-014-0604-z -
Systematic Reviews Dec 2014A rigorous and focused systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of individualised homeopathic treatment has not previously been... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
A rigorous and focused systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of individualised homeopathic treatment has not previously been undertaken. We tested the hypothesis that the outcome of an individualised homeopathic treatment approach using homeopathic medicines is distinguishable from that of placebos.
METHODS
The review's methods, including literature search strategy, data extraction, assessment of risk of bias and statistical analysis, were strictly protocol-based. Judgment in seven assessment domains enabled a trial's risk of bias to be designated as low, unclear or high. A trial was judged to comprise 'reliable evidence' if its risk of bias was low or was unclear in one specified domain. 'Effect size' was reported as odds ratio (OR), with arithmetic transformation for continuous data carried out as required; OR > 1 signified an effect favouring homeopathy.
RESULTS
Thirty-two eligible RCTs studied 24 different medical conditions in total. Twelve trials were classed 'uncertain risk of bias', three of which displayed relatively minor uncertainty and were designated reliable evidence; 20 trials were classed 'high risk of bias'. Twenty-two trials had extractable data and were subjected to meta-analysis; OR = 1.53 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.22 to 1.91). For the three trials with reliable evidence, sensitivity analysis revealed OR = 1.98 (95% CI 1.16 to 3.38).
CONCLUSIONS
Medicines prescribed in individualised homeopathy may have small, specific treatment effects. Findings are consistent with sub-group data available in a previous 'global' systematic review. The low or unclear overall quality of the evidence prompts caution in interpreting the findings. New high-quality RCT research is necessary to enable more decisive interpretation.
Topics: Homeopathy; Humans; Precision Medicine; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 25480654
DOI: 10.1186/2046-4053-3-142 -
European Journal of Radiology Open 2022When diagnosing Coronavirus disease 2019(COVID-19), radiologists cannot make an accurate judgments because the image characteristics of COVID-19 and other pneumonia are... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVES
When diagnosing Coronavirus disease 2019(COVID-19), radiologists cannot make an accurate judgments because the image characteristics of COVID-19 and other pneumonia are similar. As machine learning advances, artificial intelligence(AI) models show promise in diagnosing COVID-19 and other pneumonias. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the diagnostic accuracy and methodological quality of the models.
METHODS
We searched PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Embase, preprints from medRxiv and bioRxiv to locate studies published before December 2021, with no language restrictions. And a quality assessment (QUADAS-2), Radiomics Quality Score (RQS) tools and CLAIM checklist were used to assess the quality of each study. We used random-effects models to calculate pooled sensitivity and specificity, I values to assess heterogeneity, and Deeks' test to assess publication bias.
RESULTS
We screened 32 studies from the 2001 retrieved articles for inclusion in the meta-analysis. We included 6737 participants in the test or validation group. The meta-analysis revealed that AI models based on chest imaging distinguishes COVID-19 from other pneumonias: pooled area under the curve (AUC) 0.96 (95 % CI, 0.94-0.98), sensitivity 0.92 (95 % CI, 0.88-0.94), pooled specificity 0.91 (95 % CI, 0.87-0.93). The average RQS score of 13 studies using radiomics was 7.8, accounting for 22 % of the total score. The 19 studies using deep learning methods had an average CLAIM score of 20, slightly less than half (48.24 %) the ideal score of 42.00.
CONCLUSIONS
The AI model for chest imaging could well diagnose COVID-19 and other pneumonias. However, it has not been implemented as a clinical decision-making tool. Future researchers should pay more attention to the quality of research methodology and further improve the generalizability of the developed predictive models.
PubMed: 35996746
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejro.2022.100438 -
The Western Journal of Emergency... May 2018We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to identify predictors of serious clinical outcomes after an acute-care evaluation for syncope. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
INTRODUCTION
We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to identify predictors of serious clinical outcomes after an acute-care evaluation for syncope.
METHODS
We identified studies that assessed for predictors of short-term (≤30 days) serious clinical events after an emergency department (ED) visit for syncope. We performed a MEDLINE search (January 1, 1990 - July 1, 2017) and reviewed reference lists of retrieved articles. The primary outcome was the occurrence of a serious clinical event (composite of mortality, arrhythmia, ischemic or structural heart disease, major bleed, or neurovascular event) within 30 days. We estimated the sensitivity, specificity, and likelihood ratio of findings for the primary outcome. We created summary estimates of association on a variable-by-variable basis using a Bayesian random-effects model.
RESULTS
We reviewed 2,773 unique articles; 17 met inclusion criteria. The clinical findings most predictive of a short-term, serious event were the following: 1) An elevated blood urea nitrogen level (positive likelihood ratio [LR+]: 2.86, 95% confidence interval [CI] [1.15, 5.42]); 2); history of congestive heart failure (LR+: 2.65, 95%CI [1.69, 3.91]); 3) initial low blood pressure in the ED (LR+: 2.62, 95%CI [1.12, 4.9]); 4) history of arrhythmia (LR+: 2.32, 95%CI [1.31, 3.62]); and 5) an abnormal troponin value (LR+: 2.49, 95%CI [1.36, 4.1]). Younger age was associated with lower risk (LR-: 0.44, 95%CI [0.25, 0.68]). An abnormal electrocardiogram was mildly predictive of increased risk (LR+ 1.79, 95%CI [1.14, 2.63]).
CONCLUSION
We identified specific risk factors that may aid clinical judgment and that should be considered in the development of future risk-prediction tools for serious clinical events after an ED visit for syncope.
Topics: Bayes Theorem; Biomarkers; Emergency Service, Hospital; Heart Diseases; Humans; Hypotension; Mortality; Predictive Value of Tests; Risk Factors; Syncope
PubMed: 29760850
DOI: 10.5811/westjem.2018.2.37100 -
Medicine Aug 2020COVID-19 is a global public health emergency. At present, there is no highly effective medicine for the prevention and treatment of 2019-nCoV. Western medicine for... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
COVID-19 is a global public health emergency. At present, there is no highly effective medicine for the prevention and treatment of 2019-nCoV. Western medicine for COVID-19 is mainly based on symptomatic support therapy. Chinese herbal medicine has been used to prevent infectious diseases for thousands of years in China. Western medicine routine treatment combined with Chinese herbal medicine is an alternative clinical option but lacks evidence-based medical evidence. The systematic review protocol aims to formulate a research plan that can evaluate the efficacy and safety of western medicine routine treatment combined with Chinese herbal medicine for COVID-19.
METHODS
We will search the following eight databases: Cochrane Library, PubMed, Embase, Medline, CNKI, Wanfang, VIP, and CBM. The search time is up to the end of July 2020. Two authors will independently complete literature screening, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment. In case of disagreement, the third author will assist in the judgment. The primary outcome will be the clinical cure rate. The secondary outcome will be accounting symptoms, fever time, time of virus nucleic acid turning negative, check the condition by drawing blood, pneumonia absorption rate, patient hospitalization time, severe conversion rate and case fatality rate, adverse reactions, and adverse events. Revman 5.3 will be used for systematic reviews and meta-analysis. The report of the protocol will follow the PRISMA-P statement, and the report of the systematic review and meta-analysis will follow the PRISMA statement.
RESULTS
We will provide evidence-based medical evidence of the efficacy and safety of western medicine routine treatment combined with Chinese herbal medicine for COVID-19. The findings will be published in peer-reviewed journals.
REGISTRATION DETAILS
CRD42020190106.
Topics: Anti-Infective Agents; Antiviral Agents; COVID-19; China; Combined Modality Therapy; Coronavirus Infections; Drugs, Chinese Herbal; Female; Humans; Male; Medicine, Chinese Traditional; Pandemics; Patient Safety; Pneumonia, Viral; Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome; Survival Analysis; Treatment Outcome; United States
PubMed: 32769922
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000021616 -
PloS One 2018To identify and describe the perspectives, experiences, importance, and impact of compassionate care among ethnically diverse population groups. (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
To identify and describe the perspectives, experiences, importance, and impact of compassionate care among ethnically diverse population groups.
METHODS
A systematic search of peer-reviewed research focused on compassionate care in ethnically diverse populations published between 1946 and 2017 was conducted.
RESULTS
A total of 2296 abstracts were retrieved, out of which 23 articles met the inclusion criteria. Synthesis of the literature identified the perspectives, facilitators and barriers of compassion in healthcare within ethnic groups. Compassion was described as being comprised of healthcare provider (HCP) virtues (honesty, kindness, helpful, non-judgment) and actions (smile, touch, care, support, flexibility) aimed at relieving the suffering of patients. The importance and impact of providing compassion to ethnically diverse patients was also identified which included overcoming cultural differences, alleviating distress at end-of-life, promoting patient dignity and improving patient care. This review also identified the need for more contextual studies directly exploring the topic of compassion from the perspectives of individuals within diverse ethnic groups, rather than superimposing a pre-defined, enculturated and researcher-based definition of compassion.
CONCLUSIONS
This review synthesizes the current evidence related to perceptions of compassion in healthcare among diverse ethnic groups and the role that compassion can play in bridging ethno-cultural differences and associated challenges, along with identifying gaps in literature related to compassionate care within diverse ethnic groups. Establishing an evidence base grounded in the direct accounts of members of diverse ethnic communities can enhance culturally sensitive compassionate care and improve compassion related health outcomes among diverse ethnic groups.
Topics: Attitude of Health Personnel; Delivery of Health Care; Empathy; Health Personnel; Humans; Social Perception
PubMed: 29771933
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0197261 -
The Science of the Total Environment Feb 2022Decision Support Systems (DSS) for Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS) are a valuable aid for SUDS widespread adoption. These tools systematize the decision-making... (Review)
Review
Decision Support Systems (DSS) for Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS) are a valuable aid for SUDS widespread adoption. These tools systematize the decision-making criteria and eliminate the bias inherent to expert judgment, abridging the technical aspect of SUDS for non-technical users and decision-makers. Through the collection and careful assessment of 120 papers on SUDS models and SUDS-DSS, this review shows how these tools are built, selected, and used to assist decision-makers questions. The manuscript classifies the DSS based on the question they assist in answering, the spatial scale used, the software selected, among other aspects. SUDS-DSS aspects that require more attention are identified, including environmental and social considerations, SUDS trains performance and criteria for selection, stochasticity of rainfall, and future scenarios impact. Suggestions for SUDS-DSS are finally offered to better equip decision-makers in facing emerging stormwater challenges in urban centers.
PubMed: 34582871
DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.150447 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2022Enhancing health equity is endorsed in the Sustainable Development Goals. The failure of systematic reviews to consider potential differences in effects across equity... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Enhancing health equity is endorsed in the Sustainable Development Goals. The failure of systematic reviews to consider potential differences in effects across equity factors is cited by decision-makers as a limitation to their ability to inform policy and program decisions. OBJECTIVES: To explore what methods systematic reviewers use to consider health equity in systematic reviews of effectiveness.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the following databases up to 26 February 2021: MEDLINE, PsycINFO, the Cochrane Methodology Register, CINAHL, Education Resources Information Center, Education Abstracts, Criminal Justice Abstracts, Hein Index to Foreign Legal Periodicals, PAIS International, Social Services Abstracts, Sociological Abstracts, Digital Dissertations and the Health Technology Assessment Database. We searched SCOPUS to identify articles that cited any of the included studies on 10 June 10 2021. We contacted authors and searched the reference lists of included studies to identify additional potentially relevant studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included empirical studies of cohorts of systematic reviews that assessed methods for measuring effects on health inequalities. We define health inequalities as unfair and avoidable differences across socially stratifying factors that limit opportunities for health. We operationalised this by assessing studies which evaluated differences in health across any component of the PROGRESS-Plus acronym, which stands for Place of residence, Race/ethnicity/culture/language, Occupation, Gender or sex, Religion, Education, Socioeconomic status, Social capital. "Plus" stands for other factors associated with discrimination, exclusion, marginalisation or vulnerability such as personal characteristics (e.g. age, disability), relationships that limit opportunities for health (e.g. children in a household with parents who smoke) or environmental situations which provide limited control of opportunities for health (e.g. school food environment).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently extracted data using a pre-tested form. Risk of bias was appraised for included studies according to the potential for bias in selection and detection of systematic reviews. MAIN RESULTS: In total, 48,814 studies were identified and the titles and abstracts were screened in duplicate. In this updated review, we identified an additional 124 methodological studies published in the 10 years since the first version of this review, which included 34 studies. Thus, 158 methodological studies met our criteria for inclusion. The methods used by these studies focused on evidence relevant to populations experiencing health inequity (108 out of 158 studies), assess subgroup analysis across PROGRESS-Plus (26 out of 158 studies), assess analysis of a gradient in effect across PROGRESS-Plus (2 out of 158 studies) or use a combination of subgroup analysis and focused approaches (20 out of 158 studies). The most common PROGRESS-Plus factors assessed were age (43 studies), socioeconomic status in 35 studies, low- and middle-income countries in 24 studies, gender or sex in 22 studies, race or ethnicity in 17 studies, and four studies assessed multiple factors across which health inequity may exist. Only 16 studies provided a definition of health inequity. Five methodological approaches to consider health equity in systematic reviews of effectiveness were identified: 1) descriptive assessment of reporting and analysis in systematic reviews (140 of 158 studies used a type of descriptive method); 2) descriptive assessment of reporting and analysis in original trials (50 studies); 3) analytic approaches which assessed differential effects across one or more PROGRESS-Plus factors (16 studies); 4) applicability assessment (25 studies) and 5) stakeholder engagement (28 studies), which is a new finding in this update and examines the appraisal of whether relevant stakeholders with lived experience of health inequity were included in the design of systematic reviews or design and delivery of interventions. Reporting for both approaches (analytic and applicability) lacked transparency and was insufficiently detailed to enable the assessment of credibility.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is a need for improvement in conceptual clarity about the definition of health equity, describing sufficient detail about analytic approaches (including subgroup analyses) and transparent reporting of judgments required for applicability assessments in order to consider health equity in systematic reviews of effectiveness.
Topics: Child; Health Equity; Humans; Parents; Research Design; Systematic Reviews as Topic
PubMed: 35040487
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.MR000028.pub3 -
Neuropsychology Review Mar 2023The current systematic review examines the behavioral effects of TMS on reading. Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) to targeted nodes of the brain's reading network... (Review)
Review
The current systematic review examines the behavioral effects of TMS on reading. Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) to targeted nodes of the brain's reading network has been shown to impact reading. Extracted data included (a) study characteristics, (b) methodology, (c) targeted nodes, (d) control paradigm, (e) type of reading task, (f) adverse effects, and (g) main findings. Data was classified by type of reading task: 1) phonological processing, 2) semantic judgment, 3) lexical decision, 4) whole word reading, and 5) visual or text characteristics. Seventy records from 46 studies (n = 844) were identified. Results indicate that TMS modulates semantic judgments when focused in the anterior aspects of the reading circuit, phonological processes after stimulation within the dorsal circuit, and impacts single word recognition and contextual reading when administered to the ventral circuit. Findings suggest that changes in specific behavioral aspects of reading following TMS may contribute to identification of foci for use as part of reading interventions.
Topics: Humans; Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation; Brain Mapping; Magnetic Resonance Imaging; Semantics
PubMed: 35119625
DOI: 10.1007/s11065-022-09534-7 -
Iranian Journal of Nursing and... 2022Blinding is one of the critical criteria of clinical trials that prevents probable bias. Judgment regarding results of an intervention significantly depends on the... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Blinding is one of the critical criteria of clinical trials that prevents probable bias. Judgment regarding results of an intervention significantly depends on the quality of such studies, one of which is blinding. This study aimed to investigate blinding and its quality in clinical trials in patients with breast cancer.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
A systematic review was conducted on the online databases of PubMed, ScienceDirect and ProQuest using keywords, MeSH terms and grey literature. Articles were screened by predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. They were evaluated based on the checklists introduced by Cochrane database.
RESULTS
From 22519 articles obtained at the initial stage, 20 articles remained after screening for the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Fifteen articles had used single, five: double and none had used triple or quadruple blinding. Seventeen studies had described the details of blinding. Of the 15 single blind articles, the blinded subjects were patients in five, patients and research assistants in three, research assistants in five studies, and two had not given any details.
CONCLUSIONS
The majority of researchers had used the single blind method, though using double, triple or quadruple blinding increases the trustworthiness of results and increases the quality of clinical trials. The details of blinding should be explained to other researchers and for a better understanding of the method if it is to be repeated. Thereafter, nurses can apply new interventions and earn their patients' trust and help those with breast cancer by relieving them of their disease symptoms and its treatment complications.
PubMed: 35280192
DOI: 10.4103/ijnmr.IJNMR_49_20