Time filter

Source Type

O'Reilly R.,University of Western States | Beale B.,University of Western States | Gillies D.,Center for Reviews and Dissemination
Trauma, Violence, and Abuse | Year: 2010

Domestic violence (DV) against women during pregnancy affects many women and unborn infants worldwide. Pregnancy presents a window of opportunity for health care providers to identify DV and provide appropriate intervention. The aim of this systematic review was to appraise the effectiveness of DV screening and interventions for women identified for DV through screening in pregnancy. The Cochrane Library, EMBASE, MEDLINE, and PsycINFO were searched from January 1995 to November 2009 to identify potentially relevant studies. Studies using any comparative methodology from both national and international arenas were included but had to be in the English language. Nine studies (13 references) met the inclusion criteria, five for screening and four for interventions. Of the five screening studies, the identification of DV was significantly higher compared to studies that used a nonstandardized screen or no screen at all. There was also evidence that recurrent screening throughout the pregnancy further increased identification rates. There was some evidence that interventions for pregnant women who had experienced DV reduced the amount of violence experienced by these women, but the evidence is very limited by the small number of randomized studies with small participant numbers. Further research is required to establish the most effective interventions for women who are identified at risk of DV during pregnancy. © The Author(s) 2010.

Burch J.,Center for Reviews and Dissemination | Rice S.,Center for Reviews and Dissemination | Yang H.,Center for Reviews and Dissemination | Neilson A.,Center for Reviews and Dissemination | And 5 more authors.
Health Technology Assessment | Year: 2014

Background: There is currently no standard practice for the monitoring of patients receiving treatment for osteoporosis. Repeated dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) is commonly used for monitoring treatment response, but it has its limitations. Bone turnover markers have advantages over DXA as they are non-invasive, relatively cheap and can detect changes in bone turnover rates earlier. However, they do have disadvantages, particularly high within- and between-patient variability. The ability of bone turnover markers to identify treatment non-responders and predict future fracture risk has yet to be established. Objectives: We aimed to determine the clinical effectiveness, test accuracy, reliability, reproducibility and cost-effectiveness of bone turnover markers for monitoring the response to osteoporosis treatment. Data sources: We searched 12 electronic databases (including MEDLINE, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library and trials registries) without language restrictions from inception to March 2012. We hand-searched three relevant journals for the 12 months prior to May 2012, and websites of five test manufacturers and the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Reference lists of included studies and relevant reviews were also searched. Review methods: A systematic review of test accuracy, clinical utility, reliability and reproducibility, and cost-effectiveness of two formation and two resorption bone turnover markers, in patients being treated for osteoporosis with any of bisphosphonate [alendronate (Fosamax®, MSD), risedronate (Actonel®, Warner Chilcott Company), zolendronate (Zometa®, Novartis)], raloxifene (Evista®, Eli Lilly and Company Ltd), strontium ranelate (Protelos®, Servier Laboratories Ltd), denosumab (Prolia®, Amgen Ltd) or teriparatide (Forsteo®, Eli Lilly and Company Ltd), was undertaken according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. Given the breadth of the review question, a range of study designs and outcome measures were eligible. The development of a decision model was planned to determine the cost-effectiveness of bone turnover markers for informing changes in patient management if clinical effectiveness could be established. Results: Forty-two studies (70 publications) met the inclusion criteria; none evaluated cost-effectiveness. Only five were randomised controlled trials (RCTs); these assessed only the impact of bone marker monitoring on aspects of adherence. No RCTs evaluated the effectiveness of bone turnover marker monitoring on treatment management. One trial suggested that feedback of a good response decreased non-persistence [hazard ratio (HR) 0.71, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.53 to 0.95], and feedback of a poor response increased non-persistence (HR 2.22, 95% CI 1.27 to 3.89); it is not clear whether or not the trial recruited a population representative of that seen in clinical practice. Thirty-three studies reported results of some assessment of test accuracy, mostly correlations between changes in bone turnover and bone mineral density. Only four studies reported on intra- or interpatient reliability and reproducibility in treated patients. Overall, the results were inconsistent and inconclusive, owing to considerable clinical heterogeneity across the studies and the generally small sample sizes. As clinical effectiveness of bone turnover monitoring could not be established, a decision-analytic model was not developed. Conclusions: There was insufficient evidence to inform the choice of which bone turnover marker to use in routine clinical practice to monitor osteoporosis treatment response. The research priority is to identify the most promising treatment-test combinations for evaluation in subsequent, methodologically sound, RCTs. In order to determine whether or not bone turnover marker monitoring improves treatment management decisions, and ultimately impacts on patient outcomes in terms of reduced incidence of fracture, RCTs are required. Given the large number of potential patient population-treatment-test combinations, the most promising combinations would initially need to be identified in order to ensure that any RCTs focus on evaluating those strategies. As a result, the research priority is to identify these promising combinations, by either conducting small variability studies or initiating a patient registry to collect standardised data. © Queen's Printer and Controller of HMSO 2014.

Redman M.G.,Hull York Medical School | Redman M.G.,Center for Reviews and Dissemination | Ward E.J.,Leeds General Infirmary | Phillips R.S.,Center for Reviews and Dissemination
Annals of Oncology | Year: 2014

Background: Probiotics are living microorganisms that are generally thought of as being beneficial to the recipient. They have been shown to be effective in people with acute infectious diarrhoea, and cost-effective in antibiotic-associated diarrhoea. Probiotics may have a role in people with cancer, as various cancer treatments often lead to diarrhoea. However, as people with cancer are often immunocompromised, it is important to assess for adverse events (AEs) such as infection, which could potentially be a consequence of deliberate ingestion of living microorganisms. Design: A systematic review was carried out to collect, analyse and synthesise all available data on the efficacy and safety of probiotics in people with cancer (PROSPERO registration: CRD42012003454). Randomised, controlled trials, identified through screening multiple databases and grey literature, were included for analysing efficacy, while all studies were included for the analysis of safety of probiotics. Primary outcomes were the reduction in duration, severity and incidence of antibiotic-associated diarrhoea and chemotherapy-associated diarrhoea, and AEs, especially probiotic-associated infection. Where possible, data were combined for meta-analysis by a random-effects model, assessing causes of heterogeneity, including differences in strains, dosage and patient characteristics. Results: Eleven studies (N = 1557 participants) were included for assessing efficacy. Results show that probiotics may reduce the severity and frequency of diarrhoea in patients with cancer and may reduce the requirement for anti-diarrhoeal medication, but more studies are needed to assess the true effect. For example comparing probiotic use to control 25 groups on effect on Common Toxicity Criteria ≥2 grade diarrhoea, odds ratio (OR) = 0.32 [95% confidence interval (CI) of 0.13-0.79; P = 0.01]. Seventeen studies (N = 1530) were included in the safety analysis. Five case reports showed probiotic-related bacteraemia/fungaemia/positive blood cultures. Conclusion(s): Probiotics may be a rare cause of sepsis. Further evidence needs to be collated to determine whether probiotics provide a significant overall benefit for people with cancer. © The Author 2014.

Discover hidden collaborations