scholarly journals Self‐reported medication intake vs. information from other data sources such as pharmacy records or medical records: Identification and description of existing publications, and comparison of agreement results for publications focusing on patients with cancer ‐ a systematic review

Author(s):  
Manuela Brüne ◽  
Carina Emmel ◽  
Gisela Meilands ◽  
Silke Andrich ◽  
Sigrid Droste ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
Seyed Reza Mirhafez ◽  
Mitra Hariri

Abstract. L-arginine is an important factor in several physiological and biochemical processes. Recently, scientists studied L-arginine effect on inflammatory mediators such as C-reactive protein (CRP), tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α) and interleukin-6 (IL-6). We conducted a systematic review on randomized controlled trials assessing L-arginine effect on inflammatory mediators. We searched data bases including Google scholar, ISI web of science, SCOPUS, and PubMed/Medline up to April 2019. Randomized clinical trials assessing the effect of L-arginine on inflammatory mediators in human adults were included. Our search retrieved eleven articles with 387 participants. Five articles were on patients with cancer and 6 articles were on adults without cancer. L-arginine was applied in enteral form in 5 articles and in oral form in 6 articles. Eight articles were on both genders, two articles were on women, and one article was on men. L-arginine could not reduce inflammatory mediators among patients with and without cancer except one article which indicated that taking L-arginine for 6 months decreased IL-6 among cardiopathic nondiabetic patients. Our results indicated that L-arginine might not be able to reduce selected inflammatory mediators, but for making a firm decision more studies are needed to be conducted with longer intervention duration, separately on male and female and with different doses of L-arginine.



BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (10) ◽  
pp. e037405
Author(s):  
Daniel Dedman ◽  
Melissa Cabecinha ◽  
Rachael Williams ◽  
Stephen J W Evans ◽  
Krishnan Bhaskaran ◽  
...  

ObjectiveTo identify observational studies which used data from more than one primary care electronic health record (EHR) database, and summarise key characteristics including: objective and rationale for using multiple data sources; methods used to manage, analyse and (where applicable) combine data; and approaches used to assess and report heterogeneity between data sources.DesignA systematic review of published studies.Data sourcesPubmed and Embase databases were searched using list of named primary care EHR databases; supplementary hand searches of reference list of studies were retained after initial screening.Study selectionObservational studies published between January 2000 and May 2018 were selected, which included at least two different primary care EHR databases.Results6054 studies were identified from database and hand searches, and 109 were included in the final review, the majority published between 2014 and 2018. Included studies used 38 different primary care EHR data sources. Forty-seven studies (44%) were descriptive or methodological. Of 62 analytical studies, 22 (36%) presented separate results from each database, with no attempt to combine them; 29 (48%) combined individual patient data in a one-stage meta-analysis and 21 (34%) combined estimates from each database using two-stage meta-analysis. Discussion and exploration of heterogeneity was inconsistent across studies.ConclusionsComparing patterns and trends in different populations, or in different primary care EHR databases from the same populations, is important and a common objective for multi-database studies. When combining results from several databases using meta-analysis, provision of separate results from each database is helpful for interpretation. We found that these were often missing, particularly for studies using one-stage approaches, which also often lacked details of any statistical adjustment for heterogeneity and/or clustering. For two-stage meta-analysis, a clear rationale should be provided for choice of fixed effect and/or random effects or other models.



2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (4) ◽  
pp. e000843
Author(s):  
Kelly Bos ◽  
Maarten J van der Laan ◽  
Dave A Dongelmans

PurposeThe purpose of this systematic review was to identify an appropriate method—a user-friendly and validated method—that prioritises recommendations following analyses of adverse events (AEs) based on objective features.Data sourcesThe electronic databases PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase (Ovid), Cochrane Library, PsycINFO (Ovid) and ERIC (Ovid) were searched.Study selectionStudies were considered eligible when reporting on methods to prioritise recommendations.Data extractionTwo teams of reviewers performed the data extraction which was defined prior to this phase.Results of data synthesisEleven methods were identified that are designed to prioritise recommendations. After completing the data extraction, none of the methods met all the predefined criteria. Nine methods were considered user-friendly. One study validated the developed method. Five methods prioritised recommendations based on objective features, not affected by personal opinion or knowledge and expected to be reproducible by different users.ConclusionThere are several methods available to prioritise recommendations following analyses of AEs. All these methods can be used to discuss and select recommendations for implementation. None of the methods is a user-friendly and validated method that prioritises recommendations based on objective features. Although there are possibilities to further improve their features, the ‘Typology of safety functions’ by de Dianous and Fiévez, and the ‘Hierarchy of hazard controls’ by McCaughan have the most potential to select high-quality recommendations as they have only a few clearly defined categories in a well-arranged ordinal sequence.



2021 ◽  
pp. bmjspcare-2020-002638
Author(s):  
Juan Yang ◽  
Dietlind L Wahner-Roedler ◽  
Xuan Zhou ◽  
Lesley A Johnson ◽  
Alex Do ◽  
...  

BackgroundPain is one of the most common and problematic symptoms encountered by patients with cancer. Due to the multifactorial aetiology, pain management of these patients frequently requires multidisciplinary interventions including conventional support and specialty palliative care. Acupuncture has been identified as a possible adjunctive therapy for symptom management in cancer pain, and there is currently no systematic review focused solely on the evidence of acupuncture on cancer pain in palliative care.ObjectiveTo critically analyse currently available publications regarding the use of acupuncture for pain management among patients with cancer in palliative care settings.MethodsMultiple academic databases were searched from inception to 29 October 2020. Randomised controlled trials involving acupuncture in palliative care for treatment of cancer-related pain were synthesised. Data were extracted by two independent reviewers, and methodological quality of each included study was assessed using the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine (OCEBM) 2011 Levels of Evidence.ResultsFive studies (n=189) were included in this systematic review. Results indicated a favourable effect of acupuncture on pain relief in palliative care for patients with cancer. According to OCEBM 2011 Levels of Evidence, they were level 2 in one case (20%), level 3 in two cases (40%) and level 4 in the remaining (40%). Low-level evidence adversely affects the reliability of findings.ConclusionsAcupuncture may be an effective and safe treatment associated with pain reduction in the palliative care of patients with cancer. Further high-quality, adequately powered studies are needed in the future.



2021 ◽  
Vol 27 ◽  
pp. 107602962097959
Author(s):  
I. A. Vathiotis ◽  
N. K. Syrigos ◽  
E. P. Dimakakos

Low-molecular-weight heparins are approved for primary and secondary venous thromboembolism prevention. Tinzaparin is the low-molecular-weight heparin with the highest average molecular weight. The purpose of this systematic review is to provide an update regarding the safety profile of tinzaparin, prescribed either as a prophylactic or as a therapeutic regimen for venous thromboembolism in special populations, including cancer patients and patients with renal impairment. We identified prospective studies up to August 2020 reporting safety outcomes for cancer patients and patients with renal impairment on tinzaparin regimens. In patients with cancer major bleeding rates fluctuated between 0.8% and 7%. Patients on tinzaparin exhibited significantly lower rates of clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding events in comparison with those on vitamin K antagonists. Bioaccumulation of tinzaparin was not correlated with age, body weight or creatinine clearance. Periodic administration of either prophylactic or therapeutic doses of tinzaparin did not result in bioaccumulation, even in patients with severe renal impairment and creatinine clearance < 20 ml/min. Major bleeding rates for non-cancer patients with renal impairment on prophylactic tinzaparin regimens were 0%. Non-cancer patients with renal impairment on therapeutic tinzaparin regimens exhibited major bleeding in 0 to 3.4% of cases; major bleeding rates were higher for cancer patients with renal impairment on therapeutic tinzaparin regimens (4.3 to 10%). Tinzaparin can be used without dose adjustment in patients with severe renal impairment and creatinine clearance > 20 ml/min. Tinzaparin represents a safe choice for special populations at increased risk for thrombosis and bleeding.



2016 ◽  
Vol 17 (4) ◽  
pp. e142-e148 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elie Isenberg-Grzeda ◽  
Sudhanshu Rahane ◽  
Antonio P DeRosa ◽  
Janet Ellis ◽  
Stephen E Nicolson


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document