A critical appraisal of evidence-based guidelines for the treatment of psoriasis vulgaris: ‘AGREE-ing’ on a common base for European evidence-based psoriasis treatment guidelines

Author(s):  
A Nast ◽  
Ph Spuls ◽  
AD Ormerod ◽  
N Reytan ◽  
Ph Saiag ◽  
...  
2012 ◽  
Vol 26 (3) ◽  
pp. 270-279 ◽  
Author(s):  
Divyamani Srinivasan ◽  
Bree Watzak

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) encompasses deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE). Each year, VTE affects about 300 000 to 600 000 people in the United States, and death is the first manifestation in one-fourth of this population.1{Beckman, 2010 #79} Moreover, approximately 10% of the US population has genetic factors that increase their risk for developing thrombosis.1 In addition to inherited disorders, factors that contribute to VTE include prolonged immobilization, trauma, surgery, cancer, and critically ill patients.2 Routine assessment and prophylaxis are recommended in these groups to avoid DVT-related complications.2 Anticoagulants are the mainstay of drugs used in DVT/PE prevention and treatment. Despite the availability of evidence-based guidelines for anticoagulant therapy, there is suboptimal implementation of DVT prophylaxis in hospitalized patients.3 All anticoagulants are “high-alert” drugs, and judicious use is mandatory to prevent bleeding complications.4 This review discusses treatment guidelines, monitoring, side effects, and reversal agents available for some anticoagulant drugs approved for VTE. Dissemination of the knowledge via pharmacy education programs significantly improves the adherence to VTE prophylaxis.5 Understanding the clinical aspects of anticoagulant dispensing as presented in this review is hoped to facilitate implementation of the theoretical knowledge as well as evidence-based guidelines in order to maximize patient benefit.


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sean O'Dell ◽  
Matthew J. Gormley ◽  
Victoria Schlieder ◽  
Tracey Klinger ◽  
Kathy DeHart ◽  
...  

Abstract Background and Objectives: Despite efficacious treatments and evidence-based guidelines, youth coping with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) receive suboptimal care. Primary care clinicians (PCCs) are frontline providers of ADHD care; however, little is known about PCC perspectives regarding this care gap and how to effectively address it within health systems. We investigated PCC perspectives on determinants of pediatric ADHD care and considerations for improving adherence to evidence-based guidelines. Methods: Semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with 26 PCCs representing clinics within a health system on improving adherence to treatment guidelines for pediatric ADHD. Interview guides were based on the Pragmatic Robust Implementation and Sustainability Model (PRISM) to elicit PCC views regarding determinants of current practices and suggestions to guide improvement efforts. We used thematic analysis to identify patterns of responding that were common across participants.Results: We identified 12 themes categorized into two broad domains: Status Quo of Pediatric ADHD Care and Supporting and Constraining Factors for Improvement Initiatives. PCCs identified several internal and external contextual factors as determinants of current practices. Of note, PCCs reported they face challenges at multiple steps in the care process, including mental health stigma, coordinating care across settings, clinical productivity pressures, access to behavioral health care, and insurance mandates regarding medications. PCCs recommended efficient continuing education trainings accompanied by improvements to the electronic health record to include validated screening tools and documentation templates.Conclusions: Future research triangulating these findings may help to more efficiently improve the quality of pediatric ADHD care in health systems.


2014 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
pp. 41 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark F. Harris ◽  
Jane Lloyd ◽  
Yordanka Krastev ◽  
Mahnaz Fanaian ◽  
Gawaine Powell Davies ◽  
...  

Significant gaps remain between recommendations of evidence-based guidelines and primary health care practice in Australia. This paper aims to evaluate factors associated with the use of guidelines reported by Australian GPs. Secondary analysis was performed on a survey of primary care practitioners which was conducted by the Commonwealth Fund in 2009: 1016 general practitioners responded in Australia (response rate 52%). Two-thirds of Australian GPs reported that they routinely used evidence-based treatment guidelines for the management of four conditions: diabetes, depression, asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and hypertension – a higher proportion than in most other countries. Having non-medical staff educating patients about self-management, and a system of GP reminders to provide patients with test results or guideline-based intervention or screening tests, were associated with a higher probability of guidelines use. Older GP age was associated with lower probability of guideline usage. The negative association with age of the doctor may reflect a tendency to rely on experience rather than evidence-based guidelines. The association with greater use of reminders and self-management is consistent with the chronic illness model.


2007 ◽  
Vol 299 (3) ◽  
pp. 111-138 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. Nast ◽  
I. Kopp ◽  
M. Augustin ◽  
K. B. Banditt ◽  
W. H. Boehncke ◽  
...  

2018 ◽  
Vol 35 (4) ◽  
pp. 267-269 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sharon Ann Swain ◽  
Graham Stiff

The starting point for evidence-based guidelines is the systematic review and critical appraisal of the relevant literature. This review highlights the risk of bias identified while critically appraising the evidence to inform the National Institute of Health and Care Excellence guideline on the assessment and initial management of major trauma.


CNS Spectrums ◽  
2006 ◽  
Vol 11 (S12) ◽  
pp. 34-39 ◽  
Author(s):  
David S. Baldwin

AbstractEvidence-based medicine (EBM) enables clinicians to justify decision making, enhances the quality of medical practice, identifies unanswered research questions, and ensures the efficient practice of medicine. Implementation of evidence-based mental health programs requires education, time, and improved effort by administration, regulatory, and clinical professionals. Essential to these efforts are consistent incentives for change, effective training materials, and clear clinical guidelines. Guidelines exist within the framework of EBM. Good guidelines are simple, specific, and user friendly, focus on key clinical decisions, are based on research evidence, and present evidence and recommendations in a concise and accessible format. Potential limitations of guidelines to improve clinical outcomes in anxiety disorders are the widespread distribution of anxiety symptoms in primary care, health inequalities across patient groups, persistent misconceptions regarding psychotropic drugs, and low confidence in using simple psychological treatments. Clinical guidelines generally specify therapeutic areas covered and not covered, but often there is no mention of cost or cost effectiveness of treatment. Guidelines can inform clinical decision making, but administrators of drug formularies may regard themselves as being primarily responsible for limiting costs and access to certain medications, even if these decisions are at odds with guideline recommendations.


2019 ◽  
Vol 25 (2) ◽  
pp. 47-62
Author(s):  
Tahira Haider ◽  
Debra Dunstan

AbstractPsychologists’ adherence with evidence-based guidelines based on the biopsychosocial premise in the management of musculoskeletal injuries is influenced by the actions by General Practitioners (GPs), insurers, and injured patients’ actions. For data collection, we interviewed GPs (n = 6), insurers (n = 6), and injured people (n = 15) from the two personal injury compensation schemes in New South Wales. Thematic analysis yielded the following: GPs were reticent to access psychological services that represented a poor fit between their practice and treatment guidelines, insurers lacked trust in the validity of “secondary psychological injury” claims’. Injured peoples’ willingness to engage with treatment was impaired by a poor fit between the treatment guidelines and their experience of insurers’ and psychologists’ practices.


2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. 153 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gaby Resmark ◽  
Stephan Herpertz ◽  
Beate Herpertz-Dahlmann ◽  
Almut Zeeck

Anorexia nervosa is the most severe eating disorder; it has a protracted course of illness and the highest mortality rate among all psychiatric illnesses. It is characterised by a restriction of energy intake followed by substantial weight loss, which can culminate in cachexia and related medical consequences. Anorexia nervosa is associated with high personal and economic costs for sufferers, their relatives and society. Evidence-based practice guidelines aim to support all groups involved in the care of patients with anorexia nervosa by providing them with scientifically sound recommendations regarding diagnosis and treatment. The German S3-guideline for eating disorders has been recently revised. In this paper, the new guideline is presented and changes, in comparison with the original guideline published in 2011, are discussed. Further, the German guideline is compared to current international evidence-based guidelines for eating disorders. Many of the treatment recommendations made in the revised German guideline are consistent with existing international treatment guidelines. Although the available evidence has significantly improved in quality and amount since the original German guideline publication in 2011, further research investigating eating disorders in general, and specifically anorexia nervosa, is still needed.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document