scholarly journals Ocular oncology practice guidelines during COVID-19 pandemic-An expert consensus

2020 ◽  
Vol 68 (7) ◽  
pp. 1281 ◽  
Author(s):  
FairoozP Manjandavida ◽  
SantoshG Honavar ◽  
Usha Kim ◽  
Usha Singh ◽  
Vikas Menon ◽  
...  
2019 ◽  
Vol 41 (3) ◽  
pp. 503-534
Author(s):  
Ingrid S Parry ◽  
Jeffrey C Schneider ◽  
Miranda Yelvington ◽  
Patricia Sharp ◽  
Michael Serghiou ◽  
...  

Abstract The objective of this review was to systematically evaluate the available literature addressing the use of orthoses (splints and casts) with adult and pediatric burn survivors and determine whether practice guidelines could be proposed. This review provides evidence-based recommendations specifically for rehabilitation professionals who are responsible for burn survivor rehabilitation. A summary recommendation was made after the literature was retrieved using a systematic review and critical appraisal by multiple authors. The level of evidence of the literature was determined in accordance with the Oxford Centre for Evidence-based Medicine criteria. Due to the low level of evidence in the available literature, only one practice guideline could be recommended: orthotic use should be considered as a treatment choice for improving range of motion or reducing contracture in adults who have sustained a burn injury. To address the rehabilitation-specific gaps found in the literature regarding orthotic use in burn rehabilitation and provide guidance to clinicians, a formal expert consensus exercise was conducted as a final step to the project. The resultant manuscript provides a summary of the literature regarding orthotic use with burn patients, one practice guideline, proposed orthotic terminology and additional practice recommendations based on expert opinion. The limitations in the current literature are also discussed, and suggestions are made for future studies in the area of orthotic use after burn injury.


2012 ◽  
Vol 30 (34_suppl) ◽  
pp. 256-256
Author(s):  
Allison W. Kurian ◽  
Daphne Lichtensztajn ◽  
Theresa H.M. Keegan ◽  
Rita W. Leung ◽  
Sarah J. Shema ◽  
...  

256 Background: Chemotherapy regimens for early-stage breast cancer have been extensively tested by randomized clinical trials, and specified by evidence based-practice guidelines. However, little is known about the translation of trial results and guidelines to oncology practice. Methods: We extracted individual-level data on chemotherapy administration from the electronic medical records of Kaiser Permanente Northern California (KPNC), a pre-paid integrated health-care delivery system serving 29% of the local population. We linked data to the California Cancer Registry, incorporating demographic and tumor factors, and performed multivariable logistic regression analyses on the receipt of specific chemotherapy regimens. Results: We identified 6,178 women diagnosed with stage I to III breast cancer at KPNC during 2004 to 2007; 2,735 (44.3%) received at least one chemotherapy infusion at KPNC within 18 months of diagnosis. Factors associated with receiving chemotherapy, and specifically receiving anthracyclines, taxanes, and/or trastuzumab, included young age, large tumor size, involved lymph nodes, hormone receptor-negative or HER2/neu-positive tumors, and high tumor grade; comorbid conditions were inversely associated with chemotherapy use (heart disease for anthracyclines, neuropathy for taxanes). We observed less chemotherapy use by unmarried women, less anthracycline and taxane use by low-socioeconomic status (SES) non-Hispanic whites, and more anthracycline use by high-SES Asian/Pacific Islanders (versus high-SES non-Hispanic whites). Concordance with relevant measures of the American Society of Clinical Oncology Quality Oncology Practice Initiative (QOPI) was highest among younger women with larger, higher grade tumors. Conclusions: In this health care organization with essentially equal access, we discovered that chemotherapy use was concordant with practice guidelines, yet may vary according to socio-demographic factors. These findings may inform efforts to optimize treatment, and guide studies of quality in breast cancer care.


2006 ◽  
Vol 13 (3) ◽  
pp. 94-98
Author(s):  
L. M. Elit ◽  
M. Johnston ◽  
M. Brouwers ◽  
M. Fung- Kee-Fung ◽  
G. Browman ◽  
...  

During March 30–April 1, 2005, the Society of Gynecologic Oncologists of Canada (GOC) and the Canadian Strategy for Cancer Control (CSCC) Clinical Practice Guidelines Action Group (CPG-AG) met to • determine how GOC would like to influence practice in the care of women with gynecologic cancer. • explore a collaborative model for developing and implementing evidence-based practice guidelines. • investigate the utility of the CPG evaluation and adaptation cycle as a tool for selecting, adapting, and adopting guidelines. At the workshop meeting, 21 members of the GOC and the CPG-AG heard presentations from various Canadian guideline initiatives. As an example of adaptation and adoption processes, the AGREE (Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation) tool was applied to guidelines in recurrent ovarian cancer, and the group explored their opportunity to use knowledge translation to influence the care of women with gynecologic cancer. The themes influencing practice are consistent with GOC’s mandate. The future is expected to involve partnering with other groups to maximize scarce resources. Resources should be directed to facilitating implementation of existing guidelines rather than to developing new documents. The full spectrum of cancer care includes prevention, screening, diagnosis, primary treatment, follow-up, treatment of recurrent disease, and palliation. High-quality evidence is available in some areas, but gaps exist where guideline panels could provide guidance. Development of a pan-Canadian gynecologic oncology process could provide an opportunity to influence access to care at the political and policy levels. The GOC will develop linkages such that the toolbox available through CSCC-CPG-AG can be incorporated into future collaboration.


2015 ◽  
Vol 66 (4) ◽  
pp. S5
Author(s):  
D.F. Savage ◽  
B. Sandefur ◽  
K. Bernard ◽  
J.D. Schuur ◽  
A.K. Venkatesh

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document