scholarly journals Progress in Clinical Neurosciences: Status Epilepticus: A Critical Review of Management Options

Author(s):  
Eelco F.M. Wijdicks ◽  
Nicholas D. Lawn

Although generalized tonic-clonic status epilepticus (SE) is frequently seen, an evidence-based approach to management is limited by a lack of randomized clinical studies. Clinical practice, therefore, relies on a combination of expert recommendations, local hospital guidelines and dogma based on individual preference and past successes. This review explores selected and controversial aspects of SE in adults and provides a critical appraisal of currently recommended management strategies.

2014 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 22-28 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mary Beth Zwart ◽  
Bernadette Olson

Context It is the responsibility of athletic training educators, through curriculum and clinical experiences, to engage students towards adopting evidence-based practice (EBP) into their practice. The initial task of implementing EBP into a curriculum or course can seem like a large task for educators and students. As a way to start scaffolding EBP concepts across the curriculum, a modified critical appraisal assignment was developed to teach therapeutic modality concepts. Objective The purpose of this action research project was to demonstrate how a modified critical appraisal assignment can be used to introduce the process and aspects of critical appraisal and begin scaffolding the development of critical appraisal skills over time. The objectives of this study were to evaluate the students' ability to (1) successfully locate relevant research needed to answer clinical questions and (2) successfully appraise the literature according to basic EBP strategy. From a program perspective, the modified critical appraisal assignment was a starting point from which to include EBP principles into didactic coursework. Design Seventeen athletic training students completed 3 modified critical appraisal assignments pertaining to the use of therapeutic modalities. Each paper included 5 sections: (1) clinical question, (2) key clinical findings, (3) clinical applicability based on information from the appraisal and significance of results, (4) article comparison table, and (5) implications for clinical practice, patient education, and future research. The instructor evaluated the assignments blind. Conclusions Students were generally able to complete the critical appraisal assignment; however, students had difficulty locating research that answered the clinical question. Students struggled to relate the key clinical findings of the research articles and implications for clinical practice to the given clinical question. Findings from this study have informed faculty teaching, including introducing EBP skills earlier in the curriculum and inserting assignments that stress various aspects of the critical appraisal process.


Author(s):  
Allison Werner-Lin ◽  
Lindsey M. Hoskins ◽  
Maya H. Doyle ◽  
Mark H. Greene

Increasingly, 18–24-year-old women from hereditary breast/ovarian cancer (HBOC) families are pursuing genetic testing, despite their low absolute risks of breast and ovarian cancer and the fact that evidence-based management options used with older high-risk women are not generally available. Difficult clinical decisions in older carriers take on substantially more complexity and value-laden import in very young carriers. As a result, many of the latter receive highly personal and emotionally charged cancer risk information in a life context where management strategies are not well defined. We analyzed 32 in-depth interviews with BRCA1/2 mutation-positive women aged 18–24 using techniques of grounded theory and interpretive description. Participants described feeling vulnerable to a cancer diagnosis but in a quandary regarding their care because evidence-based approaches to management have not been developed and clinical trials have not been undertaken. Our participants demonstrated a wide range of genetic and health literacy. Inconsistent recommendations, surveillance fatigue, and the unpredictability of their having health insurance coverage for surgical risk-reducing procedures led several to contemplate risk-reducing mastectomy before age 25. Parents remained a primary source of emotional and financial support, slowing age-appropriate independence and complicating patient privacy. Our findings suggest that, for 18–24-year-olds, readiness to autonomously elect genetic testing, to fully understand and act on genetic information, and to confidently make decisions with life-long implications are all evolving processes. We comment on the tensions between informed consent, privacy, and the unique developmental needs of BRCA1/2 mutation-positive women just emerging into their adult years.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fadi Choucair ◽  
Nagham Younis

Journal clubs are a valuable tool to assist learners in the evaluation of scientific literature and to promote the adoption of evidence-based practices. The Middle East Fertility Society Embryology Specialty Interest Group developed a concise journal club to enhance the engagement of embryologists and provide the structure of a journal club. The embryology journal club STAR format is a monthly super group journal club meeting in which an invited presenting “star” author exposes his group’s article to the entire embryologist’s community. In our modified approach, instead of a traditional lecture, the journal article to be discussed will be sent to participants in advance in conjunction with the STAR (Study design validity, Tackling the methodology, Analysis of the results, Reflecting the results into practice) critical appraisal checklist and a short online quiz to be completed before the meeting. The concise embryology journal club STAR format may be beneficial for embryologists to help them develop an efficient and consistent means to appraise evidence in clinical practice and stay abreast of the latest clinical research.


2012 ◽  
Vol 30 (34_suppl) ◽  
pp. 183-183
Author(s):  
Vishal Kukreti ◽  
Roxanne Cosby ◽  
Annie Cheung ◽  
Marie Hamasoor ◽  
Sherrie Hertz ◽  
...  

183 Background: Although information technology (IT) has the potential to improve the quality and safety of patient care, introduction into the clinical work flow may create unanticipated consequences. IT solutions such as computerized physician order entry (CPOE) are often designed and executed without end-user involvement. An evidence based guideline for systemic treatment (ST) CPOE was developed. The guideline looks at the features, functionalities and components of a ST CPOE system required to ensure safe and high-quality care. Methods: The guideline was developed by an interdisciplinary panel of physicians, nurses, pharmacists, methodologists, IT specialists, and human factors experts. A systematic review was conducted of the available clinical and technology literature and key informant interviews were conducted. Role-specific CPOE functionalities were process mapped for physicians, nurses and pharmacists. Two expert panels (i.e., clinical and supporting tools) were convened to review the information and provide feedback on guideline content. The guideline was also reviewed externally by content experts from provincial, national and international organizations. Results: The resulting evidence-based guideline focused on two distinct yet interconnected parts: clinical practice (e.g., error prevention, unanticipated consequences, impact on practice, clinical decision support), and technology requirements (e.g., usability features, system integration, effective alerts, audit logs, regimen building). The recommendations also highlight the importance of change management strategies and clinician engagement. Conclusions: This innovative guideline provides an approach to technology evaluation focusing on clinical practice needs driving IT solutions. Future research to help standardize design and usability of such systems is necessary. The non-vendor specific recommendations can be used as the foundation for evaluation of ST CPOE systems to reduce errors, improve safety, and support clinical practice. The application of the recommendations as an assessment of ST CPOE system guideline concordance will also be valuable.


2016 ◽  
Vol 22 (2) ◽  
pp. 132-141 ◽  
Author(s):  
Katharine A. Smith ◽  
Andrea Cipriani ◽  
John R. Geddes

SummaryKeeping up to date with the best evidence on treatment interventions is an essential part of clinical practice, but it can seem an overwhelming task for busy clinicians. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses provide a useful and convenient summary of knowledge and form an essential part of an evidence-based approach to clinical practice. However, these reviews vary in methodology and therefore in the quality of the recommendations they provide. Clinicians need to feel confident in their skills of critical appraisal, so that they can assess the relative merits of systematic reviews. In this article we discuss the strengths and limitations of different types of evidence synthesis to enable the reader to feel more confident in assessing the scientific information to use in clinical practice.


2017 ◽  
Vol 156 (1_suppl) ◽  
pp. S1-S29 ◽  
Author(s):  
Seth R. Schwartz ◽  
Anthony E. Magit ◽  
Richard M. Rosenfeld ◽  
Bopanna B. Ballachanda ◽  
Jesse M. Hackell ◽  
...  

Objective This update of the 2008 American Academy of Otolaryngology—Head and Neck Surgery Foundation cerumen impaction clinical practice guideline provides evidence-based recommendations on managing cerumen impaction. Cerumen impaction is defined as an accumulation of cerumen that causes symptoms, prevents assessment of the ear, or both. Changes from the prior guideline include a consumer added to the development group; new evidence (3 guidelines, 5 systematic reviews, and 6 randomized controlled trials); enhanced information on patient education and counseling; a new algorithm to clarify action statement relationships; expanded action statement profiles to explicitly state quality improvement opportunities, confidence in the evidence, intentional vagueness, and differences of opinion; an enhanced external review process to include public comment and journal peer review; and 3 new key action statements on managing cerumen impaction that focus on primary prevention, contraindicated intervention, and referral and coordination of care. Purpose The primary purpose of this guideline is to help clinicians identify patients with cerumen impaction who may benefit from intervention and to promote evidence-based management. Another purpose of the guideline is to highlight needs and management options in special populations or in patients who have modifying factors. The guideline is intended for all clinicians who are likely to diagnose and manage patients with cerumen impaction, and it applies to any setting in which cerumen impaction would be identified, monitored, or managed. The guideline does not apply to patients with cerumen impaction associated with the following conditions: dermatologic diseases of the ear canal; recurrent otitis externa; keratosis obturans; prior radiation therapy affecting the ear; previous tympanoplasty/myringoplasty, canal wall down mastoidectomy, or other surgery affecting the ear canal. Key Action Statements The panel made a strong recommendation that clinicians should treat, or refer to a clinician who can treat, cerumen impaction, defined as an accumulation of cerumen that is associated with symptoms, prevents needed assessment of the ear, or both. The panel made the following recommendations: (1) Clinicians should explain proper ear hygiene to prevent cerumen impaction when patients have an accumulation of cerumen. (2) Clinicians should diagnose cerumen impaction when an accumulation of cerumen, as seen on otoscopy, is associated with symptoms, prevents needed assessment of the ear, or both. (3) Clinicians should assess the patient with cerumen impaction by history and/or physical examination for factors that modify management, such as ≥1 of the following: anticoagulant therapy, immunocompromised state, diabetes mellitus, prior radiation therapy to the head and neck, ear canal stenosis, exostoses, and nonintact tympanic membrane. (4) Clinicians should not routinely treat cerumen in patients who are asymptomatic and whose ears can be adequately examined. (5) Clinicians should identify patients with obstructing cerumen in the ear canal who may not be able to express symptoms (young children and cognitively impaired children and adults), and they should promptly evaluate the need for intervention. (6) Clinicians should perform otoscopy to detect the presence of cerumen in patients with hearing aids during a health care encounter. (7) Clinicians should treat, or refer to a clinician who can treat, the patient with cerumen impaction with an appropriate intervention, which may include ≥1 of the following: cerumenolytic agents, irrigation, or manual removal requiring instrumentation. (8) Clinicians should recommend against ear candling for treating or preventing cerumen impaction. (9) Clinicians should assess patients at the conclusion of in-office treatment of cerumen impaction and document the resolution of impaction. If the impaction is not resolved, the clinician should use additional treatment. If full or partial symptoms persist despite resolution of impaction, the clinician should evaluate the patient for alternative diagnoses. (10) Finally, if initial management is unsuccessful, clinicians should refer patients with persistent cerumen impaction to clinicians who have specialized equipment and training to clean and evaluate ear canals and tympanic membranes. The panel offered the following as options: (1) Clinicians may use cerumenolytic agents (including water or saline solution) in the management of cerumen impaction. (2) Clinicians may use irrigation in the management of cerumen impaction. (3) Clinicians may use manual removal requiring instrumentation in the management of cerumen impaction. (4) Last, clinicians may educate/counsel patients with cerumen impaction or excessive cerumen regarding control measures.


2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (4) ◽  
pp. 3968-3973
Author(s):  
Pranav Saha ◽  
◽  
Tenzin Yangchen ◽  
Shaili Sharma ◽  
Jaspinder Kaur ◽  
...  

Background: Evidence-based practice in the field of physiotherapy is of utmost importance and is the way ahead. Physiotherapists' knowledge of evidence in terms of assessment and management of knee OA may influence the implementation of evidence-based practice. However, physiotherapist’s practice patterns are usually based on their professional experience or expert opinions. The present study aimed to explore the evidence awareness among Indian physiotherapists and identify their practice patterns in patients with knee OA. Methods: An online cross-sectional survey was conducted among Indian physiotherapists. The survey was designed using current clinical practice guidelines and previously published similar studies. The survey consisted of three sections: (1) demographic details, (2) questions related to evidence awareness, (3) questions related to the practice patterns of Indian physiotherapists. The evidence awareness and practice patterns of physiotherapists were explored. Results: A total of 165 responses were received and analyzed. Most participants perceived footwear modifications (21.2%) and resistance exercises (44.2%) as having very strong evidence. Range of motion assessment and functional assessment was regarded as a must during the patient's initial visit. In terms of management strategies majority of the participants considered patient education (n=122), strengthening exercises (n=81), and therapeutic ultrasound (n=79) as their treatment of choice. Conclusion: Most physiotherapist assessment strategies were aimed at identifying impairments in patients. In line with the clinical practice guidelines, most physiotherapists use patient education and strengthening exercises to treat patients with knee OA. However, treatment modalities like ultrasound, TENS, and dry needling, which lack scientific support, are still being used by the physiotherapist. There is a lack of coherence between physiotherapists' evidence awareness and their choice of management strategies. KEY WORDS: Knee, Osteoarthritis, Survey, Resistance exercises.


2021 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas Platz

Quality of healthcare can be improved when the best external evidence available is integrated in clinical decision-making in a systematic explicit manner. With the rapid expansion of clinical evidence, the opportunities for evidence-based high-quality healthcare increase. Paradoxically, the likelihood of any one person to get a complete and balanced picture of the evidence available decreases. This is especially true for rehabilitation interventions that are complex in nature and where clinical research is rather diverse. Given the complex nature of the evidence, there is a substantial risk of misinterpreting the complex information both at the level of individual sources (e.g., reports of clinical trials) and for aggregated data syntheses (e.g., systematic reviews and meta-analyses). These risks are inherent in these sources themselves and are in addition related to the methodological expertise necessary to make valid use of the evidence for clinical decision-making. Taken together, there is a great demand for systematic structured guidance from evidence to clinical decision. This methodology paper describes a structured process for the development and report of evidence-based clinical practice recommendations that uses systematic reviews and meta-analyses as evidence source. It provides a comprehensive framework with specific requirements for the development group, the formulation of the healthcare question addressed, the systematic search for the evidence, its critical appraisal, the extraction and the outcome-centered presentation of the evidence, the rating of its quality, strengths and weaknesses, any further considerations relevant for decision-making, and an explicit recommendation statement along with its justification, implementation, and resource aspects. The suggested methodology uses international standards in evidence synthesis, critical appraisal of systematic reviews, rating the quality of evidence, characteristics of recommendations, and guideline development as developed by Cochrane, GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation), AMSTAR (A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews), and AGREE (Appraisal of Guidelines for REsearch & Evaluation). An added distinctive feature of the methodology is to focus on the most up-to-date, most valid evidence and hence to support the development of valid practice recommendations in an efficient way. Practice recommendations generated by such a valid methodology would be generally applicable and promote evidence-based clinical practice globally.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document