Time filter

Source Type

Bells Corners, Canada

The Ottawa Hospital Research Institute , formerly Ottawa Health Research Institute, is a non-profit academic health research institute located in the city of Ottawa. It was formed in 2001 following the merger of three Ottawa hospitals. The Ottawa Hospital Research Institute is the research arm of The Ottawa Hospital and affiliated with the University of Ottawa.As of April 2013, the Ottawa Hospital Research Institute houses approximately 560 scientists and clinical investigators, 475 students and research fellows, and 700 support staff. It has five research programs: Cancer Therapeutics; Chronic Disease; Clinical Epidemiology; Regenerative Medicine; and Neuroscience.Ronald G. Worton was the research institute's founding CEO and Scientific Director in 2001. In 2007, Duncan Stewart, formerly Chief Cardiologist of St. Michael's Hospital in Toronto and Director of Cardiology of University of Toronto, took over as CEO and Scientific Director. Wikipedia.

Wells P.,Ottawa Hospital Research Institute
Hematology / the Education Program of the American Society of Hematology. American Society of Hematology. Education Program | Year: 2013

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a common condition that can lead to complications such as postphlebitic syndrome, chronic pulmonary artery hypertension, and death. The approach to the diagnosis of has evolved over the years and an algorithm strategy combining pretest probability, D-dimer testing, and diagnostic imaging now allows for safe, convenient, and cost-effective investigation of patients. Patients with low pretest probability and a negative D-dimer can have VTE excluded without the need for imaging. The mainstay of treatment of VTE is anticoagulation, whereas interventions such as thrombolysis and inferior vena cava filters are reserved for special situations. Low-molecular-weight heparin has allowed for outpatient management of most patients with deep vein thrombosis at a considerable cost savings to the health care system. Patients with malignancy-associated VTE benefit from decreased recurrent rates if treated with long-term low-molecular-weight heparin. The development of new oral anticoagulants further simplifies treatment. The duration of anticoagulation is primarily influenced by underlying cause of the VTE (whether provoked or not) and consideration of the risk for major hemorrhage. Testing for genetic and acquired thrombophilia may provide insight as to the cause of a first idiopathic deep vein thrombosis, but the evidence linking most thrombophilias to an increased risk of recurrent thrombosis is limited.

Turner L.,Ottawa Hospital Research Institute
Cochrane database of systematic reviews (Online) | Year: 2012

An overwhelming body of evidence stating that the completeness of reporting of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is not optimal has accrued over time. In the mid-1990s, in response to these concerns, an international group of clinical trialists, statisticians, epidemiologists, and biomedical journal editors developed the CONsolidated Standards Of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) Statement. The CONSORT Statement, most recently updated in March 2010, is an evidence-based minimum set of recommendations including a checklist and flow diagram for reporting RCTs and is intended to facilitate the complete and transparent reporting of trials and aid their critical appraisal and interpretation. In 2006, a systematic review of eight studies evaluating the "effectiveness of CONSORT in improving reporting quality in journals" was published. To update the earlier systematic review assessing whether journal endorsement of the 1996 and 2001 CONSORT checklists influences the completeness of reporting of RCTs published in medical journals. We conducted electronic searches, known item searching, and reference list scans to identify reports of evaluations assessing the completeness of reporting of RCTs. The electronic search strategy was developed in MEDLINE and tailored to EMBASE. We searched the Cochrane Methodology Register and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews using the Wiley interface. We searched the Science Citation Index, Social Science Citation Index, and Arts and Humanities Citation Index through the ISI Web of Knowledge interface. We conducted all searches to identify reports published between January 2005 and March 2010, inclusive. In addition to studies identified in the original systematic review on this topic, comparative studies evaluating the completeness of reporting of RCTs in any of the following comparison groups were eligible for inclusion in this review: 1) Completeness of reporting of RCTs published in journals that have and have not endorsed the CONSORT Statement; 2) Completeness of reporting of RCTs published in CONSORT-endorsing journals before and after endorsement; or 3) Completeness of reporting of RCTs before and after the publication of the CONSORT Statement (1996 or 2001). We used a broad definition of CONSORT endorsement that includes any of the following: (a) requirement or recommendation in journal's 'Instructions to Authors' to follow CONSORT guidelines; (b) journal editorial statement endorsing the CONSORT Statement; or (c) editorial requirement for authors to submit a CONSORT checklist and/or flow diagram with their manuscript. We contacted authors of evaluations reporting data that could be included in any comparison group(s), but not presented as such in the published report and asked them to provide additional data in order to determine eligibility of their evaluation. Evaluations were not excluded due to language of publication or validity assessment. We completed screening and data extraction using standardised electronic forms, where conflicts, reasons for exclusion, and level of agreement were all automatically and centrally managed in web-based management software, DistillerSR(®). One of two authors extracted general characteristics of included evaluations and all data were verified by a second author. Data describing completeness of reporting were extracted by one author using a pre-specified form; a 10% random sample of evaluations was verified by a second author. Any discrepancies were discussed by both authors; we made no modifications to the extracted data. Validity assessments of included evaluations were conducted by one author and independently verified by one of three authors. We resolved all conflicts by consensus.For each comparison we collected data on 27 outcomes: 22 items of the CONSORT 2001 checklist, plus four items relating to the reporting of blinding, and one item of aggregate CONSORT scores. Where reported, we extracted and qualitatively synthesised data on the methodological quality of RCTs, by scale or score. Fifty-three publications reporting 50 evaluations were included. The total number of RCTs assessed within evaluations was 16,604 (median per evaluation 123 (interquartile range (IQR) 77 to 226) published in a median of six (IQR 3 to 26) journals. Characteristics of the included RCT populations were variable, resulting in heterogeneity between included evaluations. Validity assessments of included studies resulted in largely unclear judgements. The included evaluations are not RCTs and less than 8% (4/53) of the evaluations reported adjusting for potential confounding factors.   Twenty-five of 27 outcomes assessing completeness of reporting in RCTs appeared to favour CONSORT-endorsing journals over non-endorsers, of which five were statistically significant.

Schulz K.F.,Family Health International | Altman D.G.,University of Oxford | Moher D.,Ottawa Hospital Research Institute
Annals of Internal Medicine | Year: 2010

The CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) statement is used worldwide to improve the reporting of randomized, controlled trials. Schulz and colleagues describe the latest version, CONSORT 2010, which updates the reporting guideline based on new methodological evidence and accumulating experience.

Freedman M.S.,Ottawa Hospital Research Institute
European Journal of Neurology | Year: 2014

Background and purpose: Although the first-line disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) interferon beta and glatiramer acetate have a favourable benefit-to-risk profile, they are only partially effective for treating relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS). The optimization of treatment in patients who do not show a maximum response to first-line therapy is critical for achieving the best long-term outcomes. Treatment strategies for patients with a suboptimal response include switching to another first-line DMT or a second-line DMT. Natalizumab and fingolimod are approved for RRMS with high disease activity in the European Union and Canada. Methods: A comprehensive literature search for articles published between 1990 and April 2012 was undertaken. Results: This review discusses key clinical and safety data for fingolimod and natalizumab, particularly in the patient subgroups for whom these treatments are approved. Benefit-to-risk profiles, including first-dose cardiovascular effects associated with fingolimod and the risk of progressive multifocal encephalopathy with natalizumab, are discussed. Conclusion: A descriptive comparison of fingolimod and natalizumab is provided in the context of the decision-making process of how and when to switch patients who have a suboptimal response to first-line therapy. © 2013 The Author(s). European Journal of Neurology © 2013 EFNS.

Worswick J.,Ottawa Hospital Research Institute
Systematic reviews | Year: 2013

Ensuring high quality care for persons with diabetes remains a challenge for healthcare systems globally with consistent evidence of suboptimal care and outcomes. There is increasing interest in quality improvement strategies to improve diabetes management as reflected by a growing number of systematic reviews. These reviews are of varying quality and dispersed across many sources. In this paper, we present an overview of systematic reviews evaluating the impact of interventions to improve the quality of diabetes care. We searched for systematic reviews evaluating the effectiveness of any intervention intended to improve intermediate patient outcomes and process of care measures for patients with any type of diabetes. Two reviewers independently screened search results, appraised each systematic review using AMSTAR and extracted data from high quality reviews (AMSTAR score ≥ 5). Within reviews, we used vote counting by direction of effect to report the number of studies favouring an intervention for each outcome. We produced summaries of results for each intervention category. We identified 125 reviews of varying methodological quality and summarised key findings from 50 high quality reviews. We categorised reviews by quality improvement intervention. Eight reviews were broad based (involving a variety of strategies). Other reviews considered: patient education and support (n = 21), telemedicine (n = 10), provider role changes (n = 7), and organisational changes (n = 4). Reviews reported intermediate patient outcomes (e.g. glycaemic control) (n = 49) and process of care outcomes (n = 9). There was evidence of considerable overlap of included studies between reviews. There is consistent evidence from high quality systematic reviews that patient education and support, provider role changes, and telemedicine are associated with improvements in glycaemic and vascular risk factor control in patients. There is less evidence about the impact of quality improvement interventions on other key process measures such as screening patients for diabetic complications. This paper provides decision makers with a comprehensive overview of evidence from high quality systematic reviews about the effects of quality improvement interventions on improving diabetes care.

Discover hidden collaborations