scholarly journals Outcome Measures in Solid Organ Donor Management Research - a Systematic Review

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kasia D Bera ◽  
Akshay Shah ◽  
English ◽  
RJ Ploeg
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Critical Care ◽  
Outcome Measures ◽  
Organ Donor ◽  
Solid Organ ◽  
Donor Management ◽  
Management Interventions ◽  
Related Quality ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
Single Organ

Abstract BackgroundTo systematically review published outcome measures across randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of donor management interventions. MethodsThe systematic review was conducted in accordance with recommendations by the Cochrane Handbook and PRISMA statement. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, Web of Science as well as trial databases from 1980 to December 2019 for RCTs of donor management interventions. ResultsTwenty-two RCTs (n = 3432 donors) were included in our analysis. Fourteen RCTs (63.6%) reported a primary outcome relating to a single organ only. Eight RCTs primarily focused on aspects of donor optimisation in critical care. Thyroid hormones and methylprednisolone were the most commonly evaluated interventions (five and four studies, respectively). Only two studies, focusing on single organs (e.g. kidney), evaluated outcomes relating to other organs. The majority of studies evaluated physiological or biomarker-related outcomes. No study evaluated recipient health-related quality of life. Only one study sought consent from potential organ recipients. ConclusionsThe majority of RCTs evaluating donor management interventions only assessed single organ outcomes or effects on donor stability in critical care. There is a need for an evaluation of patient-centred recipient outcomes, and standardisation and reporting of outcome measures for future donor management RCTs. PROSPERO RegistrationCRD42018109487

scholarly journals Outcome Measures in Solid Organ Donor Management Research - a Systematic Review

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kasia D Bera ◽  
Akshay Shah ◽  
English ◽  
RJ Ploeg
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Critical Care ◽  
Outcome Measures ◽  
Organ Donor ◽  
Solid Organ ◽  
Donor Management ◽  
Management Interventions ◽  
Related Quality ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
Single Organ

Abstract BackgroundTo systematically review published outcome measures across randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of donor management interventions. MethodsThe systematic review was conducted in accordance with recommendations by the Cochrane Handbook and PRISMA statement. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, Web of Science as well as trial databases from 1980 to February 2021 for RCTs of donor management interventions. ResultsTwenty-two RCTs (n = 3432 donors) were included in our analysis. Fourteen RCTs (63.6%) reported a primary outcome relating to a single organ only. Eight RCTs primarily focused on aspects of donor optimisation in critical care. Thyroid hormones and methylprednisolone were the most commonly evaluated interventions (five and four studies, respectively). Only two studies, focusing on single organs (e.g. kidney), evaluated outcomes relating to other organs. The majority of studies evaluated physiological or biomarker-related outcomes. No study evaluated recipient health-related quality of life. Only one study sought consent from potential organ recipients. ConclusionsThe majority of RCTs evaluating donor management interventions only assessed single organ outcomes or effects on donor stability in critical care. There is a need for an evaluation of patient-centred recipient outcomes, and standardisation and reporting of outcome measures for future donor management RCTs. PROSPERO Registration CRD42018109487

scholarly journals Outcome Measures in Solid Organ Donor Management Research - a Systematic Review

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kasia D Bera ◽  
Akshay Shah ◽  
English ◽  
RJ Ploeg
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Critical Care ◽  
Outcome Measures ◽  
Organ Donor ◽  
Solid Organ ◽  
Donor Management ◽  
Management Interventions ◽  
Related Quality ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
Single Organ

Abstract BackgroundTo systematically review published outcome measures across randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of donor management interventions. MethodsThe systematic review was conducted in accordance with recommendations by the Cochrane Handbook and PRISMA statement. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, Web of Science as well as trial databases from 1980 to December 2019 for RCTs of donor management interventions. ResultsTwenty-two RCTs (n = 3432 donors) were included in our analysis. Fourteen RCTs (63.6%) reported a primary outcome relating to a single organ only. Eight RCTs primarily focused on aspects of donor optimisation in critical care. Thyroid hormones and methylprednisolone were the most commonly evaluated interventions (five and four studies, respectively). Only two studies, focusing on single organs (e.g. kidney), evaluated outcomes relating to other organs. The majority of studies evaluated physiological or biomarker-related outcomes. No study evaluated recipient health-related quality of life. Only one study sought consent from potential organ recipients. ConclusionsThe majority of RCTs evaluating donor management interventions only assessed single organ outcomes or effects on donor stability in critical care. There is a need for an evaluation of patient-centred recipient outcomes, and standardisation and reporting of outcome measures for future donor management RCTs. PROSPERO RegistrationCRD42018109487

scholarly journals Patient Reported Outcome Measures Assessing Health-Related Quality Of Life in Dupuytren´S Disease: A Systematic Review

2020 ◽  
Vol 5 (01) ◽  
Author(s):  
Diego Gómez Herrero ◽  
Rafael Sanjuan-Cerveró ◽  
Pedro Vazquez-Ferreiro ◽  
Francisco Javier Carrera-Hueso ◽  
Marina Sáez-Belló ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Outcome Measures ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome Measures ◽  
Measurement Properties ◽  
Health Related Quality ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Related Quality ◽  
Health Related

Objective: The objective of this study is to carry out a systematic review of the outcome measures reported by the patient that are used to measure the quality of life of patients with Dupuytren´s disease (DD), assessing their relevance and effectiveness. Methods: A systematic literature search was carried out in the PubMed®, Web of Sciencie®, SciELO®, EMBASE®, Google Scholar® and Cochrane® databases. We searched for peer-reviewed articles evaluating health related quality of life (HR-QoL) in patients with DD diagnosed and/or treated until April 1, 2017, for English or Spanish language. The following keywords were used: “Dupuytren´s disease (MeSH)” AND “health related quality of life (MeSH)”. The documents were eligible for inclusion if they described data on the HR-QoL domains in relation to diagnosis or treatment of DD after a revision process by two independent authors. The checklist (STROBE) was used to evaluate the quality of the works. Results: From 352 identified articles were finally selected 26 studies in the systematic review, mostly European. A total of nine outcomes measures specifically reported by the patient were identified: DASH (used in 13 of the 26 selected studies), Quick-DASH (8/26), MHQ (7/26), briefMHQ (1/26), URAM (4/26), POS-HAND/ARM (1/26), SDSS (1/26), DDSP (1/26) and CHFS (1/26) questionnaires. We analyze their quantitative results to evaluate the effectiveness and evaluate the methodological quality of the studies on the measurement properties of the results reported by patients related to health. Conclusion: More work is urgently needed in these areas before we can reach a consensus on which instrument is the best to assess functional deterioration and improvement in patients with DD.

scholarly journals Effect of backward walking training on knee osteoarthritis: protocol of a systematic review and meta-analysis

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (10) ◽  
pp. e040726
Author(s):  
Yuxuan Wu ◽  
Cheng Lei ◽  
Zhimin Huangfu ◽  
Kejimu Sunzi ◽  
Changmei Yang
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Knee Osteoarthritis ◽  
Outcome Measures ◽  
Human Subjects ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Personal Data ◽  
Adjunctive Treatment ◽  
Bias Analysis ◽  
Backward Walking ◽  
Randomised Controlled

IntroductionBackward walking (BW) is otherwise known as retrowalking. As opposed to forward walking, BW is a countersequential exercise and is a common method of rehabilitation training and disease-assisted treatment. Studies have shown that BW has a helpful effect on improving lower limb proprioception, gait synergy and improving limb balance. Many studies have concluded that BW can improve the symptoms of patients with knee osteoarthritis (KOA) and can be used for rehabilitation and adjunctive treatment of KOA, but there is a lack of evidence-based medical evidence.This research aims to provide an update to the most recent available evidence on the effect of BW on patients with KOA .Methods and analysesElectronic databases, such as Ovid/MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Scopus, Web of Science and PubMed, will be searched by us. We will include studies identified from citation until 12 May 2020 and will not be restricted by geographical setting. The search will not be limited to the language of the publication, but the study of human subjects. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on the BW training of KOA will be included, with outcome measures including pain, knee function or balance function. The quality of included RCTs will be evaluated according to the Cochrane Collaboration’s risk of bias tool. A meta-analysis or systematic review will be performed to summarise the effects of BW training. We will perform sensitivity analysis on the sample size of RCTs, meta-regression analysis of the follow-up periods, dosages and baselines of outcome measures, and publication bias analysis.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval is not required as this study will not involve confidential personal data. The results of this study will be disseminated through a peer-reviewed journal.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42020185694.

scholarly journals Interventions for oropharyngeal dysphagia in acute and critical care: a protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis

2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Sallyanne Duncan ◽  
Jennifer Mc Gaughey ◽  
Richard Fallis ◽  
Daniel F. McAuley ◽  
Margaret Walshe ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Critical Care ◽  
Acute Care ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Oropharyngeal Dysphagia ◽  
Length Of Hospital Stay ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Randomised Controlled

Abstract Background Oropharyngeal dysphagia or swallowing difficulties are common in acute care and critical care, affecting 47% of hospitalised frail elderly, 50% of acute stroke patients and approximately 62% of critically ill patients who have been intubated and mechanically ventilated for prolonged periods. Complications of dysphagia include aspiration leading to chest infection and pneumonia, malnutrition, increased length of hospital stay and re-admission to hospital. To date, most dysphagia interventions in acute care have been tested with acute stroke populations. While intervention studies in critical care have been emerging since 2015, they are limited and so there is much to learn about the type, the delivery and the intensity of treatments in this setting to inform future clinical trials. The aim of this systematic review is to summarise the evidence regarding the relationship between dysphagia interventions and clinically important patient outcomes in acute and critical care settings. Methods We will search MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, Web of Science, CINAHL and clinical trial registries from inception to the present. We will include studies conducted with adults in acute care settings such as acute hospital wards or units or intensive care units and critical care settings. Studies will be restricted to randomised controlled trials and quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing a new dysphagia intervention with usual care or another intervention. The main outcomes that will be collected include length of time taken to return to oral intake, change in incidence of aspiration and pneumonia, nutritional status, length of hospital stay and quality of life. Key intervention components such as delivery, intensity, acceptability, fidelity and adverse events associated with such interventions will be collected to inform future clinical trials. Two independent reviewers will assess articles for eligibility, data extraction and quality appraisal. A meta-analysis will be conducted as appropriate. Discussion No systematic review has attempted to summarise the evidence for oropharyngeal dysphagia interventions in acute and critical care. Results of the proposed systematic review will inform practice and the design of future clinical trials. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD 42018116849 (http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/)

scholarly journals Reporting of “dialysis adequacy” as an outcome in randomised trials conducted in adults on haemodialysis: a systematic review

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sanne Steyaert ◽  
Els Holvoet ◽  
Evi Nagler ◽  
Simon Malfait ◽  
Wim Van Biesen
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Outcome Measures ◽  
Health Care Professionals ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Structured Interviews ◽  
Dialysis Adequacy ◽  
Registration Number ◽  
Randomised Controlled

ABSTRACTBackgroundClinical trials are most informative for evidence-based decision-making when they consistently measure and report outcomes of relevance to stakeholders, especially patients, clinicians, and policy makers. However, sometimes terminology used is interpreted differently by different stakeholders, which might lead to confusion during shared decision making. The construct dialysis adequacy is frequently used, suggesting it is an important outcome both for health care professionals as for patients.ObjectiveTo assess the scope and consistency of the construct dialysis adequacy as reported in randomised controlled trials in hemodialysis, and evaluate whether these align to the insights and understanding of this construct by patients.MethodsTo assess scope and consistency of dialysis adequacy by professionals, we performed a systematic review searching the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) up to July 2017. We identified all randomised controlled trails (RCT) including patients on hemodialysis and reporting dialysis adequacy, adequacy or adequacy of dialysis and extracted and classified all reported outcomes. To explore interpretation and meaning of the construct of adequacy by patients, we conducted 10 semi-structured interviews with HD patients using thematic analysis. Belgian registration number B670201731001.FindingsFrom the 31 included trials, we extracted and classified 98 outcome measures defined by the authors as adequacy of dialysis, of which 94 (95%) were biochemical, 3 (3%) non-biochemical surrogate and 2 (2%) patient-relevant. The three most commonly reported measures were all biochemical. None of the studies defined adequacy of dialysis as a patient relevant outcome such as survival or quality of life.Patients had a substantially different understanding of the construct dialysis adequacy than the biochemical interpretation reported in the literature. Being alive, time spent while being on dialysis, fatigue and friendliness of staff were the most prominent themes that patients linked to the construct of dialysis adequacy.Conclusion Adequacy of dialysis as reported in the literature refers to biochemical outcome measures, most of which are not related with patient relevant outcomes. For patients, adequate dialysis is a dialysis that enables them to spend as much quality time in their life as possible.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document