Clinical and diagnostic aspects of lymphedema

VASA ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 46 (4) ◽  
pp. 255-261 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hong H. Keo ◽  
Silvia B. Gretener ◽  
Daniel Staub
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Critical Appraisal ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Imaging Technique ◽  
Diagnostic Algorithm ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Diagnostic Aspects ◽  
Proper Diagnosis ◽  
Diagnosis Therapy

Abstract. Lymphedema is a chronic, progressive, and common but often unrecognized condition. The diagnosis of lymphatic disease on clinical grounds alone remains a challenge. Without proper diagnosis, therapy is often delayed, allowing disease progression. There is a need for a practical diagnostic algorithm and its imaging technique to guide clinical decision-making. The aim of this topical review is to provide a practical approach for assessing patients with suspected lymphedema and to give a critical appraisal of currently available imaging modalities that are applied in clinical practice to diagnose and map lymphatic disease.

scholarly journals Methods for the Development of Healthcare Practice Recommendations Using Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas Platz
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Critical Appraisal ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Practice Recommendations ◽  
Meta Analyses

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.

scholarly journals The use of multiple-criteria decision-making theory to measure students’ perceptions of high-fidelity simulation

2017 ◽  
Vol 3 (3) ◽  
pp. 88-93 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maureen Anne Jersby ◽  
Paul Van-Schaik ◽  
Stephen Green ◽  
Lili Nacheva-Skopalik
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Repeated Measures ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Learning Experience ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
High Fidelity ◽  
High Fidelity Simulation ◽  
Initial Exposure ◽  
Repeated Measures Design

BackgroundHigh-Fidelity Simulation (HFS) has great potential to improve decision-making in clinical practice. Previous studies have found HFS promotes self-confidence, but its effectiveness in clinical practice has not been established. The aim of this research is to establish if HFS facilitates learning that informs decision-making skills in clinical practice using MultipleCriteria DecisionMaking Theory (MCDMT).MethodsThe sample was 2nd year undergraduate pre-registration adult nursing students.MCDMT was used to measure the students’ experience of HFS and how it developed their clinical decision-making skills. MCDMT requires characteristic measurements which for the learning experience were based on five factors that underpin successful learning, and for clinical decision-making, an analytical framework was used. The study used a repeated-measures design to take two measurements: the first one after the first simulation experience and the second one after clinical placement. Baseline measurements were obtained from academics. Data were analysed using the MCDMT tool.ResultsAfter their initial exposure to simulation learning, students reported that HFS provides a high-quality learning experience (87%) and supports all aspects of clinical decision-making (85%). Following clinical practice, the level of support for clinical decision-making remained at 85%, suggesting that students believe HFS promotes transferability of knowledge to the practice setting.ConclusionOverall, students report a high level of support for learning and developing clinical decision-making skills from HFS. However, there are no comparative data available from classroom teaching of similar content so it cannot be established if these results are due to HFS alone.

Between a logic of disruption and a logic of continuation: Negotiating the legitimacy of algorithms used in automated clinical decision-making

2021 ◽  
pp. 136345932199674
Author(s):  
Rikke Torenholt ◽  
Henriette Langstrup
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Patient Reported Outcomes ◽  
Patient Involvement ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Diagnostic Procedures ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Pro Tools

In both popular and academic discussions of the use of algorithms in clinical practice, narratives often draw on the decisive potentialities of algorithms and come with the belief that algorithms will substantially transform healthcare. We suggest that this approach is associated with a logic of disruption. However, we argue that in clinical practice alongside this logic, another and less recognised logic exists, namely that of continuation: here the use of algorithms constitutes part of an established practice. Applying these logics as our analytical framing, we set out to explore how algorithms for clinical decision-making are enacted by political stakeholders, healthcare professionals, and patients, and in doing so, study how the legitimacy of delegating to an algorithm is negotiated and obtained. Empirically we draw on ethnographic fieldwork carried out in relation to attempts in Denmark to develop and implement Patient Reported Outcomes (PRO) tools – involving algorithmic sorting – in clinical practice. We follow the work within two disease areas: heart rehabilitation and breast cancer follow-up care. We show how at the political level, algorithms constitute tools for disrupting inefficient work and unsystematic patient involvement, whereas closer to the clinical practice, algorithms constitute a continuation of standardised and evidence-based diagnostic procedures and a continuation of the physicians’ expertise and authority. We argue that the co-existence of the two logics have implications as both provide a push towards the use of algorithms and how a logic of continuation may divert attention away from new issues introduced with automated digital decision-support systems.

scholarly journals Awareness, Knowledge, and Utility of RCT Data vs RWE: Results From a Survey of US Cardiologists: Real-world Evidence in Clinical Decision Making

2020 ◽  
Vol 14 ◽  
pp. 117954682095341 ◽  
Author(s):  
Todd C Villines ◽  
Mark J Cziraky ◽  
Alpesh N Amin
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Real World ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
The Body ◽  
Representative Sampling ◽  
Real World Evidence ◽  
Wide Range

Real-world evidence (RWE) provides a potential rich source of additional information to the body of data available from randomized clinical trials (RCTs), but there is a need to understand the strengths and limitations of RWE before it can be applied to clinical practice. To gain insight into current thinking in clinical decision making and utility of different data sources, a representative sampling of US cardiologists selected from the current, active Fellows of the American College of Cardiology (ACC) were surveyed to evaluate their perceptions of findings from RCTs and RWE studies and their application in clinical practice. The survey was conducted online via the ACC web portal between 12 July and 11 August 2017. Of the 548 active ACC Fellows invited as panel members, 173 completed the survey (32% response), most of whom were board certified in general cardiology (n = 119, 69%) or interventional cardiology (n = 40, 23%). The survey results indicated a wide range of familiarity with and utilization of RWE amongst cardiologists. Most cardiologists were familiar with RWE and considered RWE in clinical practice at least some of the time. However, a significant minority of survey respondents had rarely or never applied RWE learnings in their clinical practice, and many did not feel confident in the results of RWE other than registry data. These survey findings suggest that additional education on how to assess and interpret RWE could help physicians to integrate data and learnings from RCTs and RWE to best guide clinical decision making.

Integrating research and evidence-based guidance into prescribing practice

2021 ◽  
Vol 3 (3) ◽  
pp. 120-123
Author(s):  
Adam Bedson
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Critical Appraisal ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Primary Source ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Evidence Base ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Multiple Sources ◽  
Prescribing Practice ◽  
Critical Appraisal Skills

The College of Paramedics and the Royal Pharmaceutical Society are clear that they require advanced paramedics, as non-medical prescribers, to review and critically appraise the evidence base underpinning their prescribing practice. Evidence-based clinical guidance such as that published by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) is recommended as the primary source of evidence on which paramedics should base their prescribing decisions. NICE guidance reflects the best available evidence on which to base clinical decision-making. However, paramedics still need to critically appraise the evidence underpinning their prescribing, applying expertise and decision-making skills to inform their clinical reasoning. This is achieved by synthesising information from multiple sources to make appropriate, evidence-based judgments and diagnoses. This first article in the prescribing paramedic pharmacology series considers the importance of evidence-based paramedic prescribing, alongside a range of tools that can be used to develop and apply critical appraisal skills to support prescribing decision-making. These include critical appraisal check lists and research reporting tools

scholarly journals P114: Barriers and facilitators affecting implementation of a decision aid for the diagnosis of acute aortic syndrome: a qualitative study

CJEM ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 22 (S1) ◽  
pp. S106-S106
Author(s):  
C. Dmitriew ◽  
R. Ohle
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Practice Guidelines ◽  
Resource Use ◽  
Decision Aid ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Barriers And Facilitators ◽  
Acute Aortic Syndrome ◽  
D Dimer

Introduction: Acute aortic syndrome (AAS) is an uncommon, life-threatening emergency that is frequently misdiagnosed. The Canadian clinical practice guidelines for the diagnosis of AAS were developed in order to reduce the frequency of misdiagnoses and number of diagnostic tests. As part of the guidelines, a clinical decision aid was developed in order to facilitate clinician decision-making based on practice recommendations. The objective of this study was to identify barriers and facilitators among physicians to implementation of the decision aid. Methods: We conducted semi-structured interviews with emergency room physicians working at 5 sites distributed between urban academic and rural settings. We used purposive sampling, contacting ED physicians until data saturation was reached. Interview questions were designed to understand potential barriers and facilitators affecting the probability of decision aid uptake and accurate application of the tool. Two independent raters coded interview transcripts using an integrative approach to theme identification, combining an inductive approach to identification of themes within an organizing framework (Theoretical Domains Framework), discrepancies in coding were resolved through discussion until consensus was reached. Results: A majority of interviewees anticipated that the decision aid would support clinical decision making and risk stratification while reducing resource use and missed diagnoses. Facilitators identified included validation and publication of the guidelines as well as adoption by peers. Barriers to implementation and application of the tool included the fact that the use of D-dimer and knowledge of the rationale for its use in the investigation of AAS were not widespread. Furthermore, scoring components were, at times, out of alignment with clinician practices and understanding of risk factors. The complexity of the decision aid was also identified as a potential barrier to accurate use. Conclusion: Physicians were amenable to using the AAS decision aid to support clinical decision-making and to reduce resource use, particularly within rural contexts. Key barriers identified included the complexity of scoring and inclusion criteria, and the variable acceptance of D-dimer among clinicians. These barriers should be addressed prior to implementation of the decision aid during validation studies of the clinical practice guidelines.

Evidence-Based Decision Making in Action: Part 2 – Evaluating and Applying the Clinical Evidence

2003 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 42-52 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jane L. Forrest ◽  
Syrene A. Miller
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Critical Appraisal ◽  
Clinical Evidence ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Online Search ◽  
Case Scenario ◽  
The Third ◽  
Evidence Based Decision Making

Abstract This is the second of a two-part series addressing the use of evidence-based decision making (EBDM) in the use of home bleaching. In Part 1, a case scenario demonstrated the skills involved in (1) structuring a clinical question and (2) conducting an online search using PubMed.1 Part 2 demonstrates the third and fourth steps in the EBDM process, i.e., (3) critical appraisal to assess the validity of a study and (4) applying that information to clinical decision making. This 4-step approach to EBDM recognizes that clinicians can never be completely current with all conditions, medications, materials, and products. Thus, EBDM provides a mechanism for addressing these gaps in knowledge in order to provide the best care possible. Citation Forrest JL, Miller SA. Evidence-Based Decision Making in Action: Part 2 – Evaluating and Applying the Clinical Evidence. J Contemp Dent Pract 2003 February;(4)1:042-052.

Integrating research and evidence-based guidance into prescribing practice

2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 10-13
Author(s):  
Adam Bedson
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Critical Appraisal ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Primary Source ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Evidence Base ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Multiple Sources ◽  
Prescribing Practice ◽  
Critical Appraisal Skills

The College of Paramedics and the Royal Pharmaceutical Society are clear that they require advanced paramedics, as non-medical prescribers, to review and critically appraise the evidence base underpinning their prescribing practice. Evidence-based clinical guidance such as that published by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) is recommended as the primary source of evidence on which paramedics should base their prescribing decisions. NICE guidance reflects the best available evidence on which to base clinical decision-making. However, paramedics still need to critically appraise the evidence underpinning their prescribing, applying expertise and decision-making skills to inform their clinical reasoning. This is achieved by synthesising information from multiple sources to make appropriate, evidence-based judgments and diagnoses. This first article in the prescribing paramedic pharmacology series considers the importance of evidence-based paramedic prescribing, alongside a range of tools that can be used to develop and apply critical appraisal skills to support prescribing decision-making. These include critical appraisal checklists and research reporting tools.

Interrogating metastatic prostate cancer treatment switch decisions.

2016 ◽  
Vol 34 (2_suppl) ◽  
pp. 296-296
Author(s):  
David Lorente ◽  
Praful Ravi ◽  
Niven Mehra ◽  
Carmel Jo Pezaro ◽  
Aurelius Gabriel Omlin ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Bone Scan ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Response To Treatment ◽  
Clinical Progression ◽  
Online Questionnaire ◽  
Main Challenge ◽  
Access To Technology

296 Background: Increased availability of treatment options in CRPC requires improved biomarkers to optimize decision making for therapeutic sequencing. Despite evidence for the value of CTCs in assessing prognosis and response to treatment, their use in clinical practice is not widely implemented. Clinicians rely on PCWG2 criteria based on PSA, clinical and radiological criteria although these are only inconsistently used in clinical practice. We evaluated the trends for clinical decision-making by physicians treating CRPC. Methods: An online questionnaire was distributed to physicians treating PC from the UK, Switzerland and Australia. Questions on clinical practice, familiarity with progression criteria, use of CTCs and clinical-decision making were formulated. Results: 111 participants replied. Most (84.7%) were oncologists treating ≥ 50 patients per year (65.3%). Although only 39.6% usually used PCWG2 in clinical practice, 74.5% considered PSA, bone scans and CT to be useful for monitoring disease. 55.6% considered PSA to be an important biomarker. A minority were able to identify PSA (41.4%) and bone scan (39.4%) progression criteria by PCWG2. On average, more physicians discontinued cabazitaxel (28%) than docetaxel (10.4%) before cycle 4. Similar number of cycles were given to bone only disease compared to RECIST evaluable patients. Clinical progression was most important for switching treatment for most physicians (90.5%), followed by RECIST (71.6%), bone scan (47.7%), CTC (23.2%) and PSA (21.1%). The main challenge associated with the use of CTCs was the access to technology (84.7%). Most respondents (92%) would not stop therapy with rising PSA but falling CTC counts; most (88.8%) would not stop with declining PSA but rising CTCs. Although 50% acknowledged the prognostic value of CTCs, only 33% would use them to guide decision-making. Conclusions: A significant number of physicians discontinue treatment before 12 weeks. Most physicians rely on clinical progression for decision-making. Knowledge of PCWG2 response and progression criteria is generally suboptimal. Greater physician awareness, access to technology and further evidence and will be required for the implementation of CTCs as a routine biomarker in CRPC.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document