scholarly journals Professional Attitudes Toward the Use of Denture Adhesives: A Survey among Nepalese Prosthodontists

2020 ◽  
Vol 22 (4) ◽  
pp. 211-216
Author(s):  
Amar Bhochhibhoya ◽  
SB Rana ◽  
R Sharma
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Clinical Skills ◽  
Good Clinical Practice ◽  
Early Stages ◽  
Anonymous Questionnaire ◽  
Tissue Changes ◽  
Denture Adhesives ◽  
Dental Profession ◽  
And Function

The dental profession has been slow to accept denture adhesive (DA) as a means to enhance denture retention and function which has produced conflicting views both in clinical practice and dental education. Many practitioners view adhesive usage as a reflection of lack of prosthetic expertise and poor clinical skills. A survey was conducted among Nepalese Prosthodontists to explore their attitudes towards DAs. A pre-tested, self-administered anonymous questionnaire consisting of 12 close-ended questions was mailed to the participants. Among all the respondents, 91.7% used DA as a beneficial adjunct to stabilize trial bases in the early stages of denture fabrication. However, only 41.3% of prosthodontists prescribed DA for routine denture patients. Majority of respondents prescribed powder form of adhesives (96.7%). Respondents believed that denture adhesives were helpful in stabilizing trial bases in the early stages of denture fabrication (80%), enhanced the fit of the prosthesis (81.7%) and provided psychologic comfort to the patient (91.7%). They agreed that denture adhesives have the potential to mask pathological tissue changes under ill-fitting dentures (65 %), to permit avoidance of good clinical practice (45%), and to contribute to patients not seeing a dentist for regular follow up visits (61.7%). It was concluded that DAs are a beneficial adjunct to the dentist in the fabrication of dentures. However, enough cautions are required for preventing potential misuses of DAs, by both dentists and patients. The efficient way to optimize the beneficial aspects of DA depends on its rational, selective, and supervised usage.

scholarly journals Why Patients Do Not Comply With Headache Diaries?

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cláudia Borbinha ◽  
Isabel Pavão Martins
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Medication Overuse ◽  
Good Clinical Practice ◽  
Clinical Variables ◽  
Factors Associated ◽  
Headache Center

Abstract Background/ObjectiveHeadache calendars are part of good clinical practice in headache clinics. However, patients’ compliance is rather variable. We aim to identify factors associated with poor compliance.MethodsConsecutive patients observed in follow-up visits of a tertiary headache center were divided into two groups; with a fullfilled calendar (Calendar compliers, CC) and without calendar (Calendar noncompliers, CNC). Incomplete /forgotten records were excluded. Demographic and clinical variables were compared, and CNC were asked the reasons for not filling the calendar. ResultsFrom 93 patients (45.6±13.3 years, on average; 83 females), the majority with migraine (96.8%), 61.3% were CC. CNC were more likely to have medication overuse (34.5% vs. 12.3%, p=0.01) and had a tendency to be paid workers (79.3% vs. 52.6%, p=0.05) compared to CC.Most CC considered calendars useful to improve doctors and patients knowledge about headaches.ConclusionsAlthough these results need to be evaluated in other contexts, they suggest that patients with medication overuse have a more denial attitute towards headache records and may need additional reinforcement.

scholarly journals An FDA Analysis of Inspected Entities After Receiving Official Action Indicated Letters for Good Clinical Practice Violations

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Miah Jung ◽  
Rachelle M. Swann ◽  
Michelle S. Anantha ◽  
Faranak Jamali
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Drug Evaluation ◽  
Good Clinical Practice ◽  
Cross Sectional Study ◽  
Voluntary Action ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Depth Analysis ◽  
The Status

Abstract Background Limited research has been conducted to examine whether clinical investigators (CIs), sponsors (SPs), contract research organizations (CROs), and sponsor-investigators (SIs) continue conducting clinical trials following issuance of FDA Official Action Indicated (OAI) letters. FDA issues OAI letters for significant regulatory violations. The objective of this study was to evaluate the status of inspected entities who received OAI letters in the conduct of Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER)-regulated clinical trials (CRCTs). Methods This cross-sectional study included an analysis of inspectional data from CDER’s Good Clinical Practice (GCP) inspections for OAI letters issued from October 1, 2010, to September 30, 2015, with an in-depth analysis of post-OAI status of inspected entities, including OAI follow-up inspections. Results Of the 2248 GCP letters issued during this period, 104 (4.6%) OAI letters were sent: 95 (4.2%) to CIs (91% of OAIs), 7 (0.3%) to SPs (7% of OAIs), and 2 (0.08%) to SIs (2% of OAIs). Majority of OAI letters were issued as a result of a for-cause inspection. Five CIs were excluded from analysis. No OAI letters were sent to CROs. Only 30% of CIs (27 out of 90) continued to conduct CRCTs. OAI follow-up inspections were completed for these CIs resulting in 16 No Action Indicated (NAI), 11 Voluntary Action Indicated (VAI), and no OAI letters. Majority (64%) of the VAI letters noted repeated but not significant violations. Conclusions Majority (70%) of CIs who received an OAI letter were no longer conducting CRCTs at the time of follow-up. Of the 27 CIs continuing CRCTs, 16 (59%) OAI follow-up inspections resulted in NAI classifications and 11 (41%) in VAI.

scholarly journals Why Patients Do Not Comply With Headache Diaries?

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cláudia Borbinha ◽  
Isabel Pavão Martins
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Medication Overuse ◽  
Good Clinical Practice ◽  
Poor Compliance ◽  
Clinical Variables ◽  
Factors Associated ◽  
Headache Center

Abstract Background: Headache calendars are part of good clinical practice in headache clinics. However, patients’ compliance is rather variable. We aim to identify factors associated with poor compliance. Methods: Consecutive patients observed in follow-up visits of a tertiary headache center were divided into two groups; with a fullfilled calendar (Calendar compliers, CC) and without calendar (Calendar noncompliers, CNC). Incomplete / forgotten records were excluded. Demographic and clinical variables were compared, and CNC were asked the reasons for not filling the calendar. Results: From 93 patients (45.6±13.3 years, on average; 83 females), the majority with migraine (96.8%), 61.3% were CC. CNC were more likely to have medication overuse (34.5% vs. 12.3%, p=0.01) and had a tendency to be paid workers (79.3% vs. 52.6%, p=0.05) compared to CC. Most CC considered calendars useful to improve doctors and patients knowledge about headaches.Conclusions: Although these results need to be evaluated in other contexts, they suggest that patients with medication overuse have a more denial attitute towards headache records and may need additional reinforcement.

Kernicterus in a Full-Term Infant: The Need for Increased Vigilance

PEDIATRICS ◽  
1995 ◽  
Vol 95 (5) ◽  
pp. 798-798
Author(s):  
William Moneit
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Good Clinical Practice ◽  
Term Infant ◽  
Full Term ◽  
Full Term Infant ◽  
Follow Up Care ◽  
First Time Mothers ◽  
First Time

I read the article, "Kernicterus in a Full-Term Infant," in the June 1994 issue of Pediatrics, and wish to comment on the conclusions drawn by Penn et al. On the point of follow-up care after infants are discharged at 24 hours of life or sooner: I have found it to be good clinical practice to bring these infants into the office for their first examination at 3 days of life. The number of times that I have seen problems with newborns and especially those born to first time mothers are countless.

What Does Evidence-Based Practice Mean to You? A Follow-Up Study Examining School-Based Speech-Language Pathologists' Perspectives on Evidence-Based Practice

2020 ◽  
Vol 29 (2) ◽  
pp. 688-704
Author(s):  
Katrina Fulcher-Rood ◽  
Anny Castilla-Earls ◽  
Jeff Higginbotham
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Research Evidence ◽  
Evidence Based Practice ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Clinical Expertise ◽  
Speech Language Pathologists ◽  
School Based ◽  
Research Findings ◽  
Ebp Implementation

Purpose The current investigation is a follow-up from a previous study examining child language diagnostic decision making in school-based speech-language pathologists (SLPs). The purpose of this study was to examine the SLPs' perspectives regarding the use of evidence-based practice (EBP) in their clinical work. Method Semistructured phone interviews were conducted with 25 school-based SLPs who previously participated in an earlier study by Fulcher-Rood et al. 2018). SLPs were asked questions regarding their definition of EBP, the value of research evidence, contexts in which they implement scientific literature in clinical practice, and the barriers to implementing EBP. Results SLPs' definitions of EBP differed from current definitions, in that SLPs only included the use of research findings. SLPs seem to discuss EBP as it relates to treatment and not assessment. Reported barriers to EBP implementation were insufficient time, limited funding, and restrictions from their employment setting. SLPs found it difficult to translate research findings to clinical practice. SLPs implemented external research evidence when they did not have enough clinical expertise regarding a specific client or when they needed scientific evidence to support a strategy they used. Conclusions SLPs appear to use EBP for specific reasons and not for every clinical decision they make. In addition, SLPs rely on EBP for treatment decisions and not for assessment decisions. Educational systems potentially present other challenges that need to be considered for EBP implementation. Considerations for implementation science and the research-to-practice gap are discussed.

Automatic Remote Monitoring of Implantable Cardiac Devices in Clinical Practice – The Lumos-T Safely Reduces Routine Office Device Follow-up (TRUST) Trial

2010 ◽  
Vol 6 (3) ◽  
pp. 87
Author(s):  
Niraj Varma ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Remote Monitoring ◽  
Home Monitoring ◽  
Implantable Devices ◽  
Cardiac Device ◽  
Cardiac Devices ◽  
Enhance Patient Safety ◽  
Implantable Cardiac Devices ◽  
Post Implantation

The use of implantable electronic cardiac devices is increasing. Post-implantation follow-up is important for monitoring both device function and patient condition; however, clinical practice is inconsistent. For example, implantable cardioverter–defibrillator follow-up schedules vary from every three months to yearly according to facility and physician preference and the availability of resources. Importantly, no surveillance occurs between follow-up visits. By contrast, implantable devices with automatic remote monitoring capability provide a means for performing constant surveillance, with the ability to identify salient problems rapidly. The Lumos-T Reduces Routine Office Device Follow-up Study (TRUST) demonstrated that remote home monitoring reduced clinic burden and allowed early detection of patient and/or system problems, enabling efficient monitoring and an opportunity to enhance patient safety. The results of the trial have significant implications for the management of patients receiving all forms of implantable electronic cardiac device.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document