scholarly journals Practical Guidelines for Nursing and Midwifery Diabetes care – 2020 A position of the Polish Federation for Education in Diabetology

2020 ◽  
Vol 19 (3) ◽  
pp. 184-207
Author(s):  
Alicja Szewczyk ◽  
Natasza Tobiasz-Kałkun ◽  
Anna Stefanowicz-Bielska ◽  
Ewa Kobos ◽  
Mirosława Młynarczuk ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Diabetes Care ◽  
Scientific Evidence ◽  
Medical Community ◽  
Diabetic Patients ◽  
Nursing Interventions ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Randomized Controlled Clinical Trials ◽  
Practical Guidelines ◽  
History Of ◽  
Meta Analyses

AbstractIntroduction. The history of recommendations by the Polish Federation for Education in Diabetology dates back to 2006, when guidelines for nurses/midwifes working with diabetic patients were first drawn up. However, the development of nurses and midwifes? competences requires stronger actions that foster a transition from experience-based towards evidence-based practice.Aim. The aim of this publication is to present a set of procedures describing nursing interventions in diabetes care, including currently available scientific evidence and clinical experience of specialists involved in the care of diabetic patients.Material and methods. The study involved a literature review of selected areas of nursing practice in diabetes care. When compiling the material, the priority was to use data from (in order of significance): randomized controlled clinical trials and their meta-analyses, observational studies and other studies with an adequate scientific status.Results. This joint study yielded 11 procedures describing selected aspects of nursing interventions in diabetic patients. Each of the procedures details key recommendations on diabetes care, arranged in accordance of the significance ascribed to the scientific evidence analyzed.Conclusions. The 2020 PFED guidelines on nursing and midwifery diabetes care are the effect of the evaluation of the previous versions and comprise a considerably more extensive, comprehensive and evidence-based set of practices. The major asset of these guidelines is their interdisciplinarity, reflected in the fact that the final version of the publication was approved by consultants in numerous nursing fields, a consultant in diabetology, and the President of the Polish Federation for Education in Diabetology, who all represent the medical community. The authors experience gained during work on international recommendations (New Insulin Delivery Recommendations) played an important role when formulating the present guidelines.

Comparative Analysis: The State of Colorado Study, Part II

2004 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 1-16
Author(s):  
Christopher R. Brigham ◽  
Kathryn Mueller ◽  
Douglas Van Zet ◽  
Debra J. Northrup ◽  
Edward B. Whitney ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Daily Living ◽  
Scientific Evidence ◽  
Pain Syndrome ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Clinical Assessments ◽  
Physician Judgment ◽  
History Of ◽  
Key Terms ◽  
Causation Analysis ◽  
Work Interference

Abstract [Continued from the January/February 2004 issue of The Guides Newsletter.] To understand discrepancies in reviewers’ ratings of impairments based on different editions of the AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (AMA Guides), users can usefully study the history of the revisions as successive editions attempted to provide a comprehensive, valid, reliable, unbiased, and evidence-based system. Some shortcomings of earlier editions have been addressed in the AMA Guides, Fifth Edition, but problems remain with each edition, largely because of the limited scientific evidence available. In the context of the history of the different editions of the AMA Guides and their development, the authors discuss and contextualize a number of key terms and principles including the following: definitions of impairment and normal; activities of daily living; maximum medical improvement; impairment percentages; conversion of regional impairments; combining impairments; pain and other subjective complaints; physician judgment; and causation analysis; finally, the authors note that impairment is not synonymous with disability or work interference. The AMA Guides, Fifth Edition, contrasts impairment evaluations and independent medical evaluations (this was not done in previous editions) and discusses impairment evaluations, rules for evaluations, and report standards. Upper extremity and lower extremity impairment evaluations are discussed in terms of clinical assessments and rating processes, analyzing important changes between editions and problematic areas (eg, complex regional pain syndrome).

scholarly journals Systematic review of meta-analyses to assess the impacts of farming practices - A methodological framework

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Makowski ◽  
Simona Bosco ◽  
Mathilde Chen ◽  
Ana Montero-Castaño ◽  
Marta Pérez-Soba ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Quality Assessment ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Scientific Evidence ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Methodological Framework ◽  
Farming Practices ◽  
Policy Makers ◽  
Scientific Experts ◽  
Meta Analyses

Identifying sustainable agricultural practices to support policy development requires a rigorous synthesis of scientific evidence based on experiments carried out around the world. In agricultural science, meta-analyses (MAs) are now commonly used to assess the impact of farming practices on a variety of outcomes, including crop and livestock productions, biodiversity, greenhouse gas emissions, nitrate leaching, soil organic carbon, based on a large number of experimental data. MA has become a gold standard method for quantitative research synthesis, and the growing number of MAs available can potentially be used to inform decisions of policy makers. However, published MAs are heterogeneous both in content and quality, and a framework is needed to help scientists to report the results and quality levels of MAs in a rigorous and transparent manner. Such a framework must be implementable quickly - within weeks - to be operational and compatible with the time constraints of modern policymaking processes. In this paper, we propose a methodological framework for assessing the impacts of farming practices based on a systematic review of published MAs. The framework includes four main steps: (1) literature search of existing MAs, (2) screening and selection of MAs, (3) data extraction and quality assessment, and (4) reporting. Three types of reports are generated from the extracted data: individual reports summarizing the contents of each MA (MA summary reports), reports summarizing each of the impacts of a given farming practice on a specific environmental, climate mitigation, or production outcome (single-impact reports), and report summarizing all the impacts of a given farming practice on all the outcomes considered (general report). All these reports present the quality levels of the MAs examined on the basis of 16 quality criteria. The proposed framework is semi-automatic in the sense that the skeletons of the reports are generated automatically from the spreadsheet used for the data extraction and quality assessment. This semi-automatic procedure allows scientific experts to reduce the time needed in the reporting step. Since 2020, the proposed framework was successfully applied by a group of scientific experts to support decisions of EU policy makers, and examine a large diversity of single farming practices (e.g. nitrification inhibitors, biochar, liming) and cropping systems (e.g. organic systems, agroforestry) in a relatively short period of time. It provides an operational tool for scientists who want to supply policymakers with scientific evidence based on large numbers of experiments, in a timely and reproducible manner.

History of Evidence-Based Practice

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Scott O. Lilienfeld ◽  
Candice Basterfield
Keyword(s):  
Evidence Based Practice ◽  
Systematic Research ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Clinical Expertise ◽  
Psychological Conditions ◽  
Empirically Supported ◽  
American Psychology ◽  
History Of ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Patient Change

Evidence-based therapies stemmed from the movement toward evidence-based medicine, and later, evidence-based practice (EBP) in psychology and allied fields. EBP reflects a progressive historical shift from naïve empiricism, which is based on raw and untutored observations of patient change, to systematic empiricism, which refines and hones such observations with the aid of systematic research techniques. EBP traces its roots in part to the development of methods of randomization in the early 20th century. In American psychology, EBP has traditionally been conceptualized as a three-legged stool comprising high-quality treatment outcome evidence, clinical expertise, and patient preferences and values. The research leg of the stool is typically operationalized in terms of a hierarchy of evidentiary certainty, with randomized controlled trials and meta-analyses of such trials toward the apex. The most influential operationalization of the EBP research leg is the effort to identify empirically supported treatments, which are psychotherapies that have been demonstrated to work for specific psychological conditions. Still, EBP remains scientifically controversial in many quarters, and some critics have maintained that the research base underpinning it is less compelling than claimed by its proponents.

History of Evidence-Based Practice

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
scott lilienfeld ◽  
Candice Basterfield
Keyword(s):  
Evidence Based Practice ◽  
Systematic Research ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Clinical Expertise ◽  
Psychological Conditions ◽  
Empirically Supported ◽  
American Psychology ◽  
History Of ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Patient Change

Evidence-based therapies stemmed from the movement toward evidence-based medicine, and later, evidence-based practice (EBP) in psychology and allied fields. EBP reflects a progressive historical shift from naïve empiricism, which is based on raw and untutored observations of patient change, to systematic empiricism, which refines and hones such observations with the aid of systematic research techniques. EBP traces its roots in part to the development of methods of randomization in the early 20th century. In American psychology, EBP has traditionally been conceptualized as a three-legged stool comprising high-quality treatment outcome evidence, clinical expertise, and patient preferences and values. The research leg of the stool is typically operationalized in terms of a hierarchy of evidentiary certainty, with randomized controlled trials and meta-analyses of such trials toward the apex. The most influential operationalization of the EBP research leg is the effort to identify empirically supported treatments, which are psychotherapies that have been demonstrated to work for specific psychological conditions. Still, EBP remains scientifically controversial in many quarters, and some critics have maintained that the research base underpinning it is less compelling than claimed by its proponents.

scholarly journals Scientific framework of homeopathy: evidence-based homeopathy

2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (23) ◽  
pp. 72-92
Author(s):  
Michel Van Wassenhoven
Keyword(s):  
Scientific Evidence ◽  
Daily Practice ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Review Of Literature ◽  
High Dilution ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Palabras Clave ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Based Medicine ◽  
Scientific Framework

This paper aims at considering all important aspects of the scientific framework of homeopathic practice, looking at the levels of scientific evidence of each aspect in an objective way, through an extensive review of literature. Levels of evidence considered are: I) existence of meta-analyses and/or systematic positive reviews of literature; IIa) multiple positive randomized controlled trials (RCTs); IIb) some positive RCTs; IIIa) positive multiple cohorts studies; IIIb) positive studies with some cohorts; IV) opinion of experts (clinical and daily practice cases). Conclusions are clear: homeopathy must stay within the framework of medical practice, and it is even a necessity for public health. Keywords: Evidence-Based medicine, Homeopathy, Scientific framework, Literature review.   Marco científico da homeopatia: homeopatia baseada em evidéncias Resumo O presente artigo aborda aspectos importantes do marco científico da prática homeopática, focando os níveis de evidéncia de cada um deles de maneira objetica, através de uma revisão extensa da literatura. Os níveis de evidéncia considerados são: I) existéncia de meta-análises e/ou revisões sistemáticas positivas da literatura; IIa) múltiplos estudos randomizados controlados (RCTs) positivos; IIb) alguns RCTs positivos; IIIa) estudos de coortes múltiplas positivos; IIIb) estudos com algumas coortes positivos; IV) opinião de expertos (casos clínicos da prática cotidiana). As conclusões são claras: a homeopatia deve permanecer dentro do marco da prática médica, sendo, inclusive, uma necessidade para a saúde pública. Palavras-chave: Medicina Baseada em Evidéncias, Homeopatia, Estrutura ciéntifica, Revisão de literatura.   Marco científico de la homeopatía: homeopatía basada en evidencia Resumen Este artículo aborda aspectos importantes del marco científico de la práctica homeopática, enfocando los niveles de evidencia de cada aspecto, de modo objetivo, mediante una revisión extensiva de la literatura. Los niveles de evidencia considerados son: I) existencia de meta-análisis y/o revisiones sistemáticas positivas de la literatura; IIa) múltiples ensayos randomizados controlados (RCTs) positivos; IIb) algunos RCTs positivos; IIIa) estudios con cohortes múltiplas positivos; IIIb) estudios con algunas cohortes positivos; IV) opinión de expertos (casos clínicos de la práctica cotidiana). Las conclusiones son claras: la homeopatía debe permanecer dentro del marco de la práctica médica, siendo, inclusive, una necesidad para la salud pública. Palabras-clave: Medicina enbasada en evidencia, homeopatía, estructura científica, Revisión de la literatura.   Correspondence author: Michel van Wassenhoven, [email protected] How to cite this article: Wassenhoven MV. Scientific framework of homeopathy: Evidence-based Homeopathy. Int J High Dilution Res [online]. 2008 [cited YYYY Mmm DD]; 7(23): 72-92. Available from: http://journal.giri-society.org/index.php/ijhdr/article/view/286/354.  

scholarly journals An Insight into Acute Pericoronitis and the Need for an Evidence-Based Standard of Care

2019 ◽  
Vol 7 (3) ◽  
pp. 88 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chelsea Wehr ◽  
Gianncarlo Cruz ◽  
Simon Young ◽  
Walid D. Fakhouri
Keyword(s):  
Online Survey ◽  
Acute Infection ◽  
Third Molar ◽  
Standard Of Care ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Emergency Patients ◽  
Randomized Controlled Clinical Trials ◽  
Third Molar Extraction ◽  
Painful Sensation ◽  
Meta Analyses

Background: Pericoronitis is inflammation of the operculum associated with a partially erupted third molar. It is a highly prevalent infection of the oral cavity and presents as a painful sensation of the soft tissue encompassing the crown of the involved tooth. Though pericoronitis is common, there is no evidence-based standard-of-care for treatment of emergency patients with acute pericoronitis. Study Design: In this study, anonymous clinicians were asked to participate in an online survey with questions formulated to identify professional clinical background, emergency treatment preferred for acute pericoronitis, number of associated complications, frequency of third molar extraction, and patient satisfaction. Results and Conclusion: A statistical analysis of the collected data regarding the variance among different treatment plans and associated complications revealed little consensus in the treatment of pericoronitis. The lack of consistency of the responses focusing on the preferred treatment for emergency patients with acute pericoronitis reinforces the need for developing a standard-of-care to train future dental professionals based on well-designed randomized controlled clinical trials and meta-analyses. Practical Implications: The ultimate goal is developing a treatment option with the fewest complications to provide the best health care for patients with pericoronitis. This issue is seen not only as an acute infection but also has the potential to impact overall health.

scholarly journals Evidence-based, ethically justified counseling for fetal bilateral renal agenesis

2017 ◽  
Vol 45 (5) ◽  
Author(s):  
Alana N. Thomas ◽  
Laurence B. McCullough ◽  
Frank A. Chervenak ◽  
Frank X. Placencia
Keyword(s):  
Pregnant Women ◽  
Literature Search ◽  
Renal Agenesis ◽  
Single Case ◽  
Ethical Analysis ◽  
Medical Community ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Obstetric Management ◽  
History Of ◽  
Responsibility Model

AbstractBackground:Not much data are available on the natural history of bilateral renal agenesis, as the medical community does not typically offer aggressive obstetric or neonatal care asbilateral renal agenesis has been accepted as a lethal condition.Aim:To provide an evidence-based, ethically justified approach to counseling pregnant women about the obstetric management of bilateral renal agenesis.Study design:A systematic literature search was performed using multiple databases. We deploy an ethical analysis of the results of the literature search on the basis of the professional responsibility model of obstetric ethics.Results:Eighteen articles met the inclusion criteria for review. With the exception of a single case study using serial amnioinfusion, there has been no other case of survival following dialysis and transplantation documented. Liveborn babies die during the neonatal period. Counseling pregnant women about management of pregnancies complicated by bilateral renal agenesis should be guided by beneficence-based judgment informed by evidence about outcomes.Conclusions:Based on the ethical analysis of the results from this review, without experimental obstetric intervention, neonatal mortality rates will continue to be 100%. Serial amnioinfusion therefore should not be offered as treatment, but only as approved innovation or research.

scholarly journals Partnership development of the COVID-19 Front Door: a best evidence resource

2021 ◽  
Vol 109 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Nancy J. Allee ◽  
Charles P. Friedman ◽  
Allen J. Flynn ◽  
Chase Masters ◽  
Kai Donovan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Health Care Providers ◽  
Scientific Evidence ◽  
Direct Access ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Care Providers ◽  
High Quality ◽  
Front Door ◽  
Partnership Development ◽  
Relevant Evidence ◽  
Meta Analyses

This project describes the creation of a single searchable resource during the pandemic, called the COVID-19 Best Evidence Front Door, with a primary goal of providing direct access to high-quality meta-analyses, literature syntheses, and clinical guidelines from a variety of trusted sources. The Front Door makes relevant evidence findable and accessible with a single search to aggregated evidence-based resources, optimizing time, discovery, and improved access to quality scientific evidence while reducing the burden of frontline health care providers and other knowledge-seekers in needing to separately identify, locate, and explore multiple websites.

Evidence-Based Psychotherapy Responsiveness: The Third Task Force

2019 ◽  
pp. 1-14
Author(s):  
John C. Norcross ◽  
Bruce E. Wampold
Keyword(s):  
Attachment Style ◽  
Stages Of Change ◽  
Task Force ◽  
Spiritual Identity ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Evidence Based Practices ◽  
History Of ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Racial Ethnic ◽  
Therapy Preferences

This chapter introduces the second volume of Psychotherapy Relationships That Work and frames its work within the Interdivisional APA Task Force on Evidence-Based Relationships and Responsiveness. The book presents clinical examples, original meta-analyses, diversity considerations, training implications, and research-infused practice recommendations for nine methods of adapting or tailoring psychotherapy to clients’ transdiagnostic characteristics (attachment style, coping style, racial/ethnic culture, gender identity, therapy preferences, reactance level, religion/spiritual identity, sexual orientation, and stages of change). The chapter outlines the purpose and history of the interdivisional task force and its relation to previous efforts to identify evidence-based practices in psychotherapy. The chapter also presents the key limitations of the work.

Adapting Evidence-Based Practice for Sexual and Gender Minorities

2019 ◽  
pp. 3-22
Author(s):  
John E. Pachankis ◽  
Steven A. Safren
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Evidence Based Practice ◽  
Scientific Evidence ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Psychotherapy Process Research ◽  
Gender Minorities ◽  
Evidence Based Treatments ◽  
History Of ◽  
And Gender

This chapter reviews the history of scientific evidence regarding sexual and gender minority (SGM) mental health, from the unscientific, homophobic theories of the early 20th century to the pioneering research that paved the way for the accurate evidence on SGM mental health that researchers currently possess and continue to acquire. This chapter also discusses historical impediments to creating evidence-based treatments for SGM mental health, including a lack of clear treatment targets and treatment studies specific to SGM, as well as the recent progress toward overcoming these barriers as illustrated in the chapters throughout this handbook. The chapter offers several justifications for the widespread use and dissemination of evidence-based treatments with SGM, including ethical, professional, and scientific considerations in this pursuit. Finally, it provides suggestions for future research to advance evidence-based practice for SGM, spanning psychiatric epidemiology to psychotherapy process research.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document