Examining Trends in The Evidence Base for The Treatment of Burns and A Quality Assessment of Randomised Controlled Trials Over an 11-Year Period

Burns ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Toni Huw Mihailidis ◽  
Sammy Al-Benna
Trauma ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 22 (3) ◽  
pp. 229-232
Author(s):  
Aidan Brown ◽  
Adam Low

Methods of extrication and spinal immobilisation following trauma remains controversial. There is a consensus shift towards encouraging patients to self-extricate from vehicles after collisions and reduced use of hard cervical collars. Difficulties in conducting randomised controlled trials in this area means that case reports are important in adding to the existing evidence base. This case of an 81-year-old female polytrauma patient suggests that self-extrication, and not using hard cervical collars is safe practice, even in the context of significant multi-level spinal injuries.


2010 ◽  
Vol 196 (6) ◽  
pp. 434-439 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicolas A. Crossley ◽  
Miguel Constante ◽  
Philip McGuire ◽  
Paddy Power

BackgroundThere is an ongoing debate about the use of atypical antipsychotics as a first-line treatment for first-episode psychosis.AimsTo examine the evidence base for this recommendation.MethodMeta-analyses of randomised controlled trials in the early phase of psychosis, looking at long-term discontinuation rates, short-term symptom changes, weight gain and extrapyramidal side-effects. Trials were identified using a combination of electronic (Cochrane Central, EMBASE, MEDLINE and PsycINFO) and manual searches.ResultsFifteen randomised controlled trials with a total of 2522 participants were included. No significant differences between atypical and typical drugs were found for discontinuation rates (odds ratio (OR) = 0.7, 95% CI 0.4 to 1.2) or effect on symptoms (standardised mean difference (SMD) = –0.1, 95% CI –0.2 to 0.02). Participants on atypical antipsychotics gained 2.1 kg (95% CI 0.1 to 4.1) more weight than those on typicals, whereas those on typicals experienced more extrapyramidal side-effects (SMD = –0.4, 95% CI –0.5 to –0.2).ConclusionsThere was no evidence for differences in efficacy between atypical and typical antipsychotics, but there was a clear difference in the side-effect profile.


2017 ◽  
Vol 26 (1) ◽  
pp. 38-40 ◽  
Author(s):  
John Little

Objectives: To explore a contradiction between evidence suggesting community treatment order (CTO) ineffectiveness and clinical experience. Conclusions: The literature pertaining to CTOs actually provides an evidence base for both positions. The headline that three randomised controlled trials and subsequent meta-analyses fail to demonstrate significant differences between groups reflects selection bias. A case may still be made for CTOs.


2011 ◽  
Vol 198 (6) ◽  
pp. 428-430 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sabyasachi Bhaumik ◽  
Satheesh Gangadharan ◽  
Avinash Hiremath ◽  
Paul Swamidhas Sudhakar Russell

SummaryPsychological treatments are widely used for the management of mental health and behavioural problems in people with intellectual disabilities. The evidence base, including the cost-effectiveness of such interventions, is limited. This editorial explores the current evidence base and analyses its strengths and limitations. The editorial also highlights current problems in conducting randomised controlled trials in this area and suggests a way forward.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marion Sommers-Spijkerman ◽  
Judith Austin ◽  
Ernst Bohlmeijer ◽  
Wendy Pots

BACKGROUND There is a need for regularly updating the evidence base on the effectiveness of online mindfulness-based interventions (MBIs), especially considering how fast this field is growing and developing. OBJECTIVE The current study presents an updated meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials assessing the effects of online MBIs on mental health, as well as the potential moderators of those effects. METHODS A systematic literature search was conducted in PsycINFO, PubMed and Web of Science up to July 19th, 2019. Seventy trials totalling 91 comparisons were included. Pre-to-post and pre-to-follow-up between-group effect sizes (Hedges’ g) were calculated for depression, anxiety, stress, well-being and mindfulness, using a random effects model. RESULTS The findings revealed statistically significant moderate pre-to-post effects on stress (g=0.41) and mindfulness (g=0.43) and small effects on depression (g=0.31) and anxiety (g=0.23). For well-being, a significant effect was found only when omitting low quality studies (g=0.34). Significant but small follow-up effects were found for depression (g=0.25), anxiety (g=0.17) and stress (g=-0.11). Subgroup analyses revealed that online MBIs resulted in higher effect sizes for stress when offered with guidance. For stress and mindfulness, studies that used an inactive control condition yielded larger effects. CONCLUSIONS Our findings do not only demonstrate that the field of online MBIs is booming, but also corroborate previous evidence that online MBIs are beneficial for improving mental health outcomes in a broad range of samples. To advance the field of online MBIs, future trials should pay specific attention to methodological quality, adherence and long-term follow-up measurements.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document