-
The Journal of Trauma and Acute Care... Mar 2016The International Classification of Diseases (ICD) is the main classification system used for population-based injury surveillance activities but does not contain... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
The International Classification of Diseases (ICD) is the main classification system used for population-based injury surveillance activities but does not contain information on injury severity. ICD-based injury severity measures can be empirically derived or mapped, but no single approach has been formally recommended. This study aimed to compare the performance of ICD-based injury severity measures to predict in-hospital mortality among injury-related admissions.
METHODS
A systematic review and a meta-analysis were conducted. MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Global Health databases were searched from their inception through September 2014. Observational studies that assessed the performance of ICD-based injury severity measures to predict in-hospital mortality and reported discriminative ability using the area under a receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) were included. Metrics of model performance were extracted. Pooled AUC were estimated under random-effects models.
RESULTS
Twenty-two eligible studies reported 72 assessments of discrimination on ICD-based injury severity measures. Reported AUC ranged from 0.681 to 0.958. Of the 72 assessments, 46 showed excellent (0.80 ≤ AUC < 0.90) and 6 outstanding (AUC ≥ 0.90) discriminative ability. Pooled AUC for ICD-based Injury Severity Score (ICISS) based on the product of traditional survival proportions was significantly higher than measures based on ICD mapped to Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) scores (0.863 vs. 0.825 for ICDMAP-ISS [p = 0.005] and ICDMAP-NISS [p = 0.016]). Similar results were observed when studies were stratified by the type of data used (trauma registry or hospital discharge) or the provenance of survival proportions (internally or externally derived). However, among studies published after 2003 the Trauma Mortality Prediction Model based on ICD-9 codes (TMPM-9) demonstrated superior discriminative ability than ICISS using the product of traditional survival proportions (0.850 vs. 0.802, p = 0.002). Models generally showed poor calibration.
CONCLUSION
ICISS using the product of traditional survival proportions and TMPM-9 predict mortality more accurately than those mapped to AIS codes and should be preferred for describing injury severity when ICD is used to record injury diagnoses.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE
Systematic review and meta-analysis, level III.
Topics: Abbreviated Injury Scale; Global Health; Hospital Mortality; Humans; Population Surveillance; ROC Curve; Registries; Trauma Severity Indices; Wounds and Injuries
PubMed: 26713976
DOI: 10.1097/TA.0000000000000944 -
The Journal of Urology Apr 2015Inaccurate diagnoses of prostate cancer can result from transposition or contamination of patient biopsy specimens, which are known as specimen provenance complications.... (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
Inaccurate diagnoses of prostate cancer can result from transposition or contamination of patient biopsy specimens, which are known as specimen provenance complications. We assessed the clinical and economic burden of specimen provenance complications in prostate biopsies in the United States.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
We performed a comprehensive, systematic review of the literature to approximate the effect of specimen provenance complications on direct medical costs, patient QALYs and medicolegal costs. Data were extracted from published studies on specimen provenance complications rates, prostate cancer treatment efficacy, treatment cost, litigation/settlement costs after false diagnoses of prostate biopsies and patient quality of life. Sensitivity analysis was done to identify factors that most influenced the outcomes and assess the robustness of the findings.
RESULTS
Of the estimated 806,251 primary and secondary prostate biopsies performed annually in the United States 20,322 specimen provenance complications were projected to result in 4,570 clinically meaningful false diagnoses and an expected loss of 634 QALYs. The total burden of specimen provenance complications was projected to exceed $879.9 million or $3,776 per positive cancer diagnosis. This estimate was most sensitive to the indemnity cost per false-positive case and the rate of transpositions at independent reference laboratories.
CONCLUSIONS
The societal burden of specimen provenance complications in patients who undergo prostate biopsy exceeds $880 million annually in the United States. This analysis framework may be useful as policy makers, health organizations and researchers seek to decrease false diagnoses of prostate cancer and the consequent effects of delayed or unnecessary treatment. Further study is warranted to quantify the economic burden among additional diseases.
Topics: Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Biopsy; Diagnostic Errors; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Prostate; Prostatic Neoplasms; Specimen Handling; United States
PubMed: 25463992
DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2014.11.019 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Aug 2012Although the health benefits of breastfeeding are widely acknowledged, opinions and recommendations are strongly divided on the optimal duration of exclusive... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Although the health benefits of breastfeeding are widely acknowledged, opinions and recommendations are strongly divided on the optimal duration of exclusive breastfeeding. Since 2001, the World Health Organization has recommended exclusive breastfeeding for six months. Much of the recent debate in developed countries has centred on the micronutrient adequacy, as well as the existence and magnitude of health benefits, of this practice.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects on child health, growth, and development, and on maternal health, of exclusive breastfeeding for six months versus exclusive breastfeeding for three to four months with mixed breastfeeding (introduction of complementary liquid or solid foods with continued breastfeeding) thereafter through six months.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched The Cochrane Library (2011, Issue 6), MEDLINE (1 January 2007 to 14 June 2011), EMBASE (1 January 2007 to 14 June 2011), CINAHL (1 January 2007 to 14 June 2011), BIOSIS (1 January 2007 to 14 June 2011), African Index Medicus (searched 15 June 2011), Index Medicus for the WHO Eastern Mediterranean Region (IMEMR) (searched 15 June 2011), LILACS (Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences) (searched 15 June 2011). We also contacted experts in the field.The search for the first version of the review in 2000 yielded a total of 2668 unique citations. Contacts with experts in the field yielded additional published and unpublished studies. The updated literature review in December 2006 yielded 835 additional unique citations.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We selected all internally-controlled clinical trials and observational studies comparing child or maternal health outcomes with exclusive breastfeeding for six or more months versus exclusive breastfeeding for at least three to four months with continued mixed breastfeeding until at least six months. Studies were stratified according to study design (controlled trials versus observational studies), provenance (developing versus developed countries), and timing of compared feeding groups (three to seven months versus later).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We independently assessed study quality and extracted data.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified 23 independent studies meeting the selection criteria: 11 from developing countries (two of which were controlled trials in Honduras) and 12 from developed countries (all observational studies). Definitions of exclusive breastfeeding varied considerably across studies. Neither the trials nor the observational studies suggest that infants who continue to be exclusively breastfed for six months show deficits in weight or length gain, although larger sample sizes would be required to rule out modest differences in risk of undernutrition. In developing-country settings where newborn iron stores may be suboptimal, the evidence suggests that exclusive breastfeeding without iron supplementation through six months may compromise hematologic status. Based on the Belarusian study, six months of exclusive breastfeeding confers no benefit (versus three months of exclusive breastfeeding followed by continued partial breastfeeding through six months) on height, weight, body mass index, dental caries, cognitive ability, or behaviour at 6.5 years of age. Based on studies from Belarus, Iran, and Nigeria, however, infants who continue exclusive breastfeeding for six months or more appear to have a significantly reduced risk of gastrointestinal and (in the Iranian and Nigerian studies) respiratory infection. No significant reduction in risk of atopic eczema, asthma, or other atopic outcomes has been demonstrated in studies from Finland, Australia, and Belarus. Data from the two Honduran trials and from observational studies from Bangladesh and Senegal suggest that exclusive breastfeeding through six months is associated with delayed resumption of menses and, in the Honduran trials, more rapid postpartum weight loss in the mother.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Infants who are exclusively breastfed for six months experience less morbidity from gastrointestinal infection than those who are partially breastfed as of three or four months, and no deficits have been demonstrated in growth among infants from either developing or developed countries who are exclusively breastfed for six months or longer. Moreover, the mothers of such infants have more prolonged lactational amenorrhea. Although infants should still be managed individually so that insufficient growth or other adverse outcomes are not ignored and appropriate interventions are provided, the available evidence demonstrates no apparent risks in recommending, as a general policy, exclusive breastfeeding for the first six months of life in both developing and developed-country settings.
Topics: Age Factors; Breast Feeding; Child Development; Developed Countries; Developing Countries; Female; Gastrointestinal Diseases; Growth; Humans; Infant; Infant Nutritional Physiological Phenomena; Infections; Maternal Welfare; Time Factors
PubMed: 22895934
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003517.pub2 -
Advances in Experimental Medicine and... 2004Although the health benefits of breastfeeding are acknowledged widely, opinions and recommendations are divided on the optimal duration of exclusive breastfeeding. We... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Although the health benefits of breastfeeding are acknowledged widely, opinions and recommendations are divided on the optimal duration of exclusive breastfeeding. We systematically reviewed available evidence concerning the effects on child health, growth, and development and on maternal health of exclusive breastfeeding for 6 months vs. exclusive breastfeeding for 3-4 months followed by mixed breastfeeding (introduction of complementary liquid or solid foods with continued breastfeeding) to 6 months. Two independent literature searches were conducted, together comprising the following databases: MEDLINE (as of 1966), Index Medicus (prior to 1966), CINAHL, HealthSTAR, BIOSIS, CAB Abstracts, EMBASE-Medicine, EMBASE-Psychology, Econlit, Index Medicus for the WHO Eastern Mediterranean Region, African Index Medicus, Lilacs (Latin American and Carribean literature), EBM Reviews-Best Evidence, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register. No language restrictions were imposed. The two searches yielded a total of 2,668 unique citations. Contacts with experts in the field yielded additional published and unpublished studies. Studies were stratified according to study design (controlled trials vs. observational studies) and provenance (developing vs. developed countries). The main outcome measures were weight and length gain, weight-for-age and length-for-age z-scores, head circumference, iron status, gastrointestinal and respiratory infectious morbidity, atopic eczema, asthma, neuromotor development, duration of lactational amenorrhea, and maternal postpartum weight loss. Twenty independent studies meeting the selection criteria were identified by the literature search: 9 from developing countries (2 of which were controlled trials in Honduras) and 11 from developed countries (all observational studies). Neither the trials nor the observational studies suggest that infants who continue to be exclusively breastfed for 6 months show deficits in weight or length gain, although larger sample sizes would be required to rule out modest increases in the risk of undernutrition. The data are conflicting with respect to iron status but suggest that, at least in developing-country settings, where iron stores of newborn infants may be suboptimal, exclusive breastfeeding without iron supplementation through 6 months of age may compromise hematologic status. Based primarily on an observational analysis of a large randomized trial in Belarus, infants who continue exclusive breastfeeding for 6 months or more appear to have a significantly reduced risk of one or more episodes of gastrointestinal tract infection. No significant reduction in risk of atopic eczema, asthma, or other atopic outcomes has been demonstrated in studies from Finland, Australia, and Belarus. Data from the two Honduran trials suggest that exclusive breastfeeding through 6 months of age is associated with delayed resumption of menses and more rapid postpartum weight loss in the mother. Infants who are breastfed exclusively for 6 months experience less morbidity from gastrointestinal tract infection than infants who were mixed breastfed as of 3 or 4 months of age. No deficits have been demonstrated in growth among infants from either developing or developed countries who are exclusively breastfed for 6 months or longer. Moreover, the mothers of such infants have more prolonged lactational amenorrhea and faster postpartum weight loss. Based on the results of this review, the World Health Assembly adopted a resolution to recommend exclusive breastfeeding for 6 months to its member countries. Large randomized trials are recommended in both developed and developing countries to ensure that exclusive breastfeeding for 6 months does not increase the risk of undernutrition (growth faltering), to confirm the health benefits reported thus far, and to investigate other potential effects on health and development, especially over the long term.
Topics: Breast Feeding; Child Development; Developed Countries; Developing Countries; Female; Humans; Infant; Infant Nutritional Physiological Phenomena; Infant, Newborn; Male; Maternal Welfare; Time Factors
PubMed: 15384567
DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4757-4242-8_7 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... 2002: Although the health benefits of breastfeeding are widely acknowledged, opinions and recommendations are strongly divided on the optimal duration of exclusive... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
: Although the health benefits of breastfeeding are widely acknowledged, opinions and recommendations are strongly divided on the optimal duration of exclusive breastfeeding. Much of the debate has centered on the so-called 'weanling's dilemma' in developing countries: the choice between the known protective effect of exclusive breastfeeding against infectious morbidity and the (theoretical) insufficiency of breast milk alone to satisfy the infant's energy and micronutrient requirements beyond four months of age. The debate over whether to recommend exclusive breastfeeding for four to six months versus 'about six months' has recently become heated and acrimonious.
OBJECTIVES
: The primary objective of this review was to assess the effects on child health, growth, and development, and on maternal health, of exclusive breastfeeding for six months versus exclusive breastfeeding for three to four months with mixed breastfeeding (introduction of complementary liquid or solid foods with continued breastfeeding) thereafter through six months. A secondary objective was to assess the child and maternal health effects of prolonged (greater than six months) exclusive breastfeeding versus exclusive breastfeeding for six months followed by mixed breastfeeding thereafter.
SEARCH STRATEGY
: Two independent literature searches were carried out, together comprising the following databases: MEDLINE (as of 1966), Index Medicus (prior to 1966), CINAHL, HealthSTAR, BIOSIS, CAB Abstracts, EMBASE-Medicine, EMBASE-Psychology, Econlit, Index Medicus for the WHO Eastern Mediterranean Region, African Index Medicus, Lilacs (Latin American and Caribbean literature), EBM Reviews-Best Evidence, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (The Cochrane Library Issue 3, 2000), and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (The Cochrane Library Issue 3, 2000). No language restrictions were imposed. The two searches yielded a total of 2,668 unique citations. Contacts with experts in the field yielded additional published and unpublished studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
: We selected all internally-controlled clinical trials and observational studies comparing child or maternal health outcomes with exclusive breastfeeding for six or more months versus exclusive breastfeeding for at least three to four months with continued mixed breastfeeding until at least six months. Studies were stratified according to study design (controlled trials versus observational studies), provenance (developing versus developed countries), and timing of compared feeding groups (three to seven months versus later).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
: Two reviewers independently assessed study quality (using a priori assessment criteria) and extracted data.
MAIN RESULTS
: Twenty independent studies meeting the selection criteria were identified by the literature search: nine from developing countries (two of which were controlled trials in Honduras) and 11 from developed countries (all observational studies). The two trials did not receive high methodologic quality ratings but were nonetheless superior to any of the observational studies included in this review. The observational studies were of variable quality; in addition, their nonexperimental designs were not able to exclude potential sources of confounding and selection bias. Definitions of exclusive breastfeeding varied considerably across studies. Neither the trials nor the observational studies suggest that infants who continue to be exclusively breastfed for six months show deficits in weight or length gain, although larger sample sizes would be required to rule out modest differences in risk of undernutrition. The data are conflicting with respect to iron status, but at least in developing country settings where newborn iron stores may be suboptimal, suggest that exclusive breastfeeding without iron supplementation through six months may compromise hematologic status. Based primarily on an observational analysis of a large randomized trial in Belarus, infants who continue exclusive breastfeeding for six months or more appear to have a significantly reduced risk of one or more episodes of gastrointestinal infection. No significant reduction in risk of atopic eczema, asthma, or other atopic outcomes has been demonstrated in studies from Finland, Australia, and Belarus. Data from the two Honduran trials suggest that exclusive breastfeeding through six months is associated with delayed resumption of menses and more rapid postpartum weight loss in the mother.
REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS
: We found no objective evidence of a 'weanling's dilemma'. Infants who are exclusively breastfed for six months experience less morbidity from gastrointestinal infection than those who are mixed breastfed as of three or four months, and no deficits have been demonstrated in growth among infants from either developing or developed countries who are exclusively breastfed for six months or longer. Moreover, the mothers of such infants have more prolonged lactational amenorrhea. Although infants should still be managed individually so that insufficient growth or other adverse outcomes are not ignored and appropriate interventions are provided, the available evidence demonstrates no apparent risks in recommending, as a general policy, exclusive breastfeeding for the first six months of life in both developing and developed country settings. Large randomized trials are recommended in both types of setting to rule out small effects on growth and to confirm the reported health benefits of exclusive breastfeeding for six months or beyond.
Topics: Breast Feeding; Child Development; Female; Growth; Humans; Infant; Infant Nutritional Physiological Phenomena; Maternal Welfare; Time Factors
PubMed: 11869667
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003517