A urinary catheter valve is non-inferior to continuous bladder drainage with respect to post-operative UTIs: a randomized controlled trial

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laura Dhariwal ◽  
Stephanie Chiu ◽  
Charbel Salamon
Keyword(s):  
Randomized Controlled Trial ◽  
Urinary Catheter ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Bladder Drainage ◽  
Randomized Controlled

Bladder drainage during labor: A randomized controlled trial

2012 ◽  
Vol 38 (8) ◽  
pp. 1046-1051 ◽  
Author(s):  
Colleen Rivard ◽  
Michael Awad ◽  
Maike Liebermann ◽  
Megan DeJong ◽  
Sarita M. Massey ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Randomized Controlled Trial ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Bladder Drainage ◽  
Randomized Controlled

scholarly journals Patient and community nurse perspectives on recruitment to a randomized controlled trial of urinary catheter washout solutions

Nursing Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ashley Shepherd ◽  
Emma Steel ◽  
Anne Taylor ◽  
William Gordon Mackay ◽  
Suzanne Hagen
Keyword(s):  
Randomized Controlled Trial ◽  
Urinary Catheter ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Community Nurse ◽  
Randomized Controlled

Bladder training prior to urinary catheter removal in total joint arthroplasty. A randomized controlled trial

2019 ◽  
Vol 89 ◽  
pp. 14-17 ◽  
Author(s):  
George Markopoulos ◽  
Dimitrios Kitridis ◽  
Konstantinos Tsikopoulos ◽  
Dimitrios Georgiannos ◽  
Ilias Bisbinas
Keyword(s):  
Randomized Controlled Trial ◽  
Total Joint Arthroplasty ◽  
Urinary Catheter ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Joint Arthroplasty ◽  
Catheter Removal ◽  
Bladder Training ◽  
Randomized Controlled

A Randomized Controlled Trial of Patient-Controlled Valve Catheter and Indwelling Foley Catheter for Short-term Bladder Drainage

2016 ◽  
Vol 22 (2) ◽  
pp. 88-92 ◽  
Author(s):  
Padma Kandadai ◽  
Omar F. Duenas-Garcia ◽  
Anna L. Pilzeck ◽  
Jyot Saini ◽  
Michael K. Flynn ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Randomized Controlled Trial ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Foley Catheter ◽  
Short Term ◽  
Bladder Drainage ◽  
Randomized Controlled

scholarly journals Recent Endoscopic Ultrasound-Related Publications With Potential to Influence Clinical Practice

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 (04) ◽  
pp. 221-228
Author(s):  
Atul Gawande ◽  
Shrikant Mukewar ◽  
Ravi Daswani ◽  
Bhushan Bhaware ◽  
Saurabh Mukewar
Keyword(s):  
Randomized Controlled Trial ◽  
Gall Bladder ◽  
Endoscopic Ultrasound ◽  
Therapeutic Potential ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Human Study ◽  
Diagnostic Purpose ◽  
Bladder Drainage ◽  
Randomized Controlled

AbstractThe field of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) has evolved significantly over the last two decades from being a tool of only diagnostic purpose to tissue acquisition and now therapeutic potential. There have been several important publications in the field of EUS in the last few years, which had a major impact in the clinical management of various gastrointestinal disorders. In this review, we discuss four such articles that in our opinion will significantly impact the role of EUS in treating various conditions. The first article is a randomized controlled trial comparing EUS-guided gall bladder drainage with percutaneous gall bladder drainage for high-risk acute cholecystitis. The second article is a randomized controlled trial comparing EUS versus minimally invasive surgery for necrotizing pancreatitis. The third article is a novel human study of EUS-guided portal pressure measurement in patients with portal hypertension. The last article is also a randomized controlled trial evaluating the role of rapid on-site evaluation for EUS-guided fine needle biopsy in solid pancreatic lesions.

Treatment Fidelity Procedures for an Aphasia Intervention Within a Randomized Controlled Trial: Design, Feasibility, and Results

2020 ◽  
Vol 29 (1S) ◽  
pp. 412-424
Author(s):  
Elissa L. Conlon ◽  
Emily J. Braun ◽  
Edna M. Babbitt ◽  
Leora R. Cherney
Keyword(s):  
Randomized Controlled Trial ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Treatment Protocol ◽  
Treatment Fidelity ◽  
Protocol Adherence ◽  
Study Condition ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Aphasia Therapy ◽  
Percent Accuracy ◽  
Over Time

Purpose This study reports on the treatment fidelity procedures implemented during a 5-year randomized controlled trial comparing intensive and distributed comprehensive aphasia therapy. Specifically, the results of 1 treatment, verb network strengthening treatment (VNeST), are examined. Method Eight participants were recruited for each of 7 consecutive cohorts for a total of 56 participants. Participants completed 60 hr of aphasia therapy, including 15 hr of VNeST. Two experienced speech-language pathologists delivered the treatment. To promote treatment fidelity, the study team developed a detailed manual of procedures and fidelity checklists, completed role plays to standardize treatment administration, and video-recorded all treatment sessions for review. To assess protocol adherence during treatment delivery, trained research assistants not involved in the treatment reviewed video recordings of a subset of randomly selected VNeST treatment sessions and completed the fidelity checklists. This process was completed for 32 participants representing 2 early cohorts and 2 later cohorts, which allowed for measurement of protocol adherence over time. Percent accuracy of protocol adherence was calculated across clinicians, cohorts, and study condition (intensive vs. distributed therapy). Results The fidelity procedures were sufficient to promote and verify a high level of adherence to the treatment protocol across clinicians, cohorts, and study condition. Conclusion Treatment fidelity strategies and monitoring are feasible when incorporated into the study design. Treatment fidelity monitoring should be completed at regular intervals during the course of a study to ensure that high levels of protocol adherence are maintained over time and across conditions.

Phonomotor Versus Semantic Feature Analysis Treatment for Anomia in 58 Persons With Aphasia: A Randomized Controlled Trial

2019 ◽  
Vol 62 (12) ◽  
pp. 4464-4482 ◽  
Author(s):  
Diane L. Kendall ◽  
Megan Oelke Moldestad ◽  
Wesley Allen ◽  
Janaki Torrence ◽  
Stephen E. Nadeau
Keyword(s):  
Randomized Controlled Trial ◽  
Response Latency ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Semantic Knowledge ◽  
Semantic Feature ◽  
Feature Analysis ◽  
Group Differences ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Confrontation Naming ◽  
Semantic Feature Analysis

Purpose The ultimate goal of anomia treatment should be to achieve gains in exemplars trained in the therapy session, as well as generalization to untrained exemplars and contexts. The purpose of this study was to test the efficacy of phonomotor treatment, a treatment focusing on enhancement of phonological sequence knowledge, against semantic feature analysis (SFA), a lexical-semantic therapy that focuses on enhancement of semantic knowledge and is well known and commonly used to treat anomia in aphasia. Method In a between-groups randomized controlled trial, 58 persons with aphasia characterized by anomia and phonological dysfunction were randomized to receive 56–60 hr of intensively delivered treatment over 6 weeks with testing pretreatment, posttreatment, and 3 months posttreatment termination. Results There was no significant between-groups difference on the primary outcome measure (untrained nouns phonologically and semantically unrelated to each treatment) at 3 months posttreatment. Significant within-group immediately posttreatment acquisition effects for confrontation naming and response latency were observed for both groups. Treatment-specific generalization effects for confrontation naming were observed for both groups immediately and 3 months posttreatment; a significant decrease in response latency was observed at both time points for the SFA group only. Finally, significant within-group differences on the Comprehensive Aphasia Test–Disability Questionnaire ( Swinburn, Porter, & Howard, 2004 ) were observed both immediately and 3 months posttreatment for the SFA group, and significant within-group differences on the Functional Outcome Questionnaire ( Glueckauf et al., 2003 ) were found for both treatment groups 3 months posttreatment. Discussion Our results are consistent with those of prior studies that have shown that SFA treatment and phonomotor treatment generalize to untrained words that share features (semantic or phonological sequence, respectively) with the training set. However, they show that there is no significant generalization to untrained words that do not share semantic features or phonological sequence features.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document