What's in placebos: who knows? Analysis of randomized, controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: No regulations govern placebo composition. The composition of placebos can influence trial outcomes and merits reporting. PURPOSE: To assess how often investigators specify the composition of placebos in randomized, placebo-controlled trials. DATA SOURCES: 4 English-language general and internal medicine journals with high impact factors. STUDY SELECTION: 3 reviewers screened titles and abstracts of the journals to identify randomized, placebo-controlled trials published from January 2008 to December 2009. DATA EXTRACTION: Reviewers independently abstracted data from the introduction and methods sections of identified articles, recording treatment type (pill, injection, or other) and whether placebo composition was stated. Discrepancies were resolved by consensus. DATA SYNTHESIS: Most studies did not disclose the composition of the study placebo. Disclosure was less common for pills than for injections and other treatments (8.2% vs. 26.7%; P = 0.002). LIMITATION: Journals with high impact factors may not be representative. CONCLUSION: Placebos were seldom described in randomized, controlled trials of pills or capsules. Because the nature of the placebo can influence trial outcomes, placebo formulation should be disclosed in reports of placebo-controlled trials.

What is eHealth (3): a systematic review of published definitions.

CONTEXT: The term eHealth is widely used by many individuals, academic institutions, professional bodies, and funding organizations. It has become an accepted neologism despite the lack of an agreed-upon clear or precise definition. We believe that communication among the many individuals and organizations that use the term could be improved by comprehensive data about the range of meanings encompassed by the term. OBJECTIVE: To report the results of a systematic review of published, suggested, or proposed definitions of eHealth. DATA SOURCES: Using the search query string "eHealth" OR "e-Health" OR "electronic health", we searched the following databases: Medline and Premedline (1966-June 2004), EMBASE (1980-May 2004), International Pharmaceutical Abstracts (1970-May 2004), Web of Science (all years), Information Sciences Abstracts (1966-May 2004), Library Information Sciences Abstracts (1969-May 2004), and Wilson Business Abstracts (1982-March 2004). In addition, we searched dictionaries and an Internet search engine. STUDY SELECTION: We included any source published in either print format or on the Internet, available in English, and containing text that defines or attempts to define eHealth in explicit terms. Two of us independently reviewed titles and abstracts of citations identified in the bibliographic databases and Internet search, reaching consensus on relevance by discussion. DATA EXTRACTION: We retrieved relevant reports, articles, references, letters, and websites containing definitions of eHealth. Two of us qualitatively analyzed the definitions and coded them for content, emerging themes, patterns, and novel ideas. DATA SYNTHESIS: The 51 unique definitions that we retrieved showed a wide range of themes, but no clear consensus about the meaning of the term eHealth. We identified 2 universal themes (health and technology) and 6 less general (commerce, activities, stakeholders, outcomes, place, and perspectives). CONCLUSIONS: The widespread use of the term eHealth suggests that it is an important concept, and that there is a tacit understanding of its meaning. This compendium of proposed definitions may improve communication among the many individuals and organizations that use the term.

What is eHealth?: a systematic review of published definitions.

CONTEXT: The term eHealth is widely used by many individuals, academic institutions, professional bodies and funding organisations. It has become an accepted neologism despite the lack of an agreed-upon clear or precise definition. We believe that communication among the many individuals and organisations that use the term could be improved by comprehensive data about the range of meanings encompassed by the term. OBJECTIVE: To report the results of a systematic review of published, suggested or proposed definitions of eHealth. DATA SOURCES: Using hte search query string 'eHealth' OR 'e-Health' OR 'electronic health', we searched the following databases: Medline and Premedline (1996-June 2004), EMBASE (1980-May 2004), International Pharmaceutical Abstracts (1970-May 2004), Web of Science (all years), Information Sciences Abstracts (1996-May 2004), Library Information Sciences Abstracts (1969-May 2004), and Wilson Business Abstracts (1982-March 2004), In addition, we searched dictionaries and an Internet search engine. STUDY SELECTION: We included any source published in either print format or on the Internet, available in English, and containing text that defines or attempts to define eHealth in explicit terms. Two of us independently reviewed titles and abstracts of citations identified in the bibliographic databases and Internet search, reaching consensus on relevance by discussion. DATA EXTRACTION: We retrieved relevant reports, articles, references, letters and websites containing definitions of eHealth. Two of us qualitatively analysed the definitions and coded them for content, emerging themes, patterns and novel ideas. DATA SYNTHESIS: The 51 unique definitions that we retrieved showed a wide range of themes, but no clear consensus about the meaning of the term eHealth. We identified two universal themes (health and technology) and six less general (commerce, activities, stakeholders, outcomes, place, and perspectives). CONCLUSIONS: The widespread use of the term eHealth suggests that it is an important concept, and that there is a tacit understanding of its meaning. This compendium of proposed definitions may improve communication among the many individuals and organisations that use the term.

Systematic review of the literature on postpartum care: methodology and literature search results.

BACKGROUND: The postpartum period is a time for multiple clinical interventions. To date, no critical review of these interventions exists. This systematic review examined evidence for the effectiveness of postpartum interventions that have been reported in the literature. METHODS: MEDLINE, Cinahl, PsycINFO, and the Cochrane Library were searched for randomized controlled trials of interventions initiated from immediately after birth to 1 year in postnatal women that were conducted in North America, Europe, Australia, or New Zealand. The initial literature search was done in 1999, using postpartum content search terms, and was enhanced in 2003. In both years, bibliographic databases were searched from their inception. Studies were categorized into key topic areas. Data extraction forms were developed and completed for each study, and the quality of each study was systematically reviewed. Groups of studies in a topic area were reviewed together, and clinically relevant questions emanating from the studies were identified to determine whether the studies, alone or together, provided evidence to support the clinical intervention. RESULTS: In the 1999 search, of 671 studies identified, 140 studies were randomized controlled trials that met the selection criteria: 41 studies related to breastfeeding, 33 to postpartum perineal pain management, and 63 to 11 other key topic areas (Papanicolaou test, rubella immunization, contraception, postpartum support, early discharge, postpartum depression and anxiety, postpartum medical disorders, smoking cessation, nutrition supplements other than breastfeeding, effects of pelvic floor exercise, and effects of early newborn contact). The results of the systematic review of each topic will be summarized in separate papers as they are completed. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic search has identified key topic areas in postpartum care for which randomized controlled trials have been conducted. Our ultimate goal is to provide evidence-based guidelines on the use of routine postpartum interventions.

Systematic review of the literature on postpartum care: selected contraception methods, postpartum Papanicolaou test, and rubella immunization.

BACKGROUND: The postpartum period is a time when many routine interventions are provided to mothers. This review examined the published evidence for the effectiveness of selected contraceptive methods, Papanicolaou (Pap) tests, and rubella immunization. METHODS: MEDLINE, Cinahl, PsycINFO, and the Cochrane Library were searched for randomized controlled trials of interventions initiated from immediately after birth to 1 year in postnatal women. The initial literature search was done in 1999, and was enhanced in 2003. Studies were categorized and reviewed by topic areas. Data were extracted in a systematic method, and the quality of each study was reviewed. RESULTS: In the 1999 search, 140 studies were randomized controlled trials that met the selection criteria: 5 related to postpartum contraception, 1 to timing of the postpartum Pap test, and 2 to postpartum rubella immunization. In the 2003 searches, 1 additional study related to postpartum contraception was identified. From the published literature on selected contraceptive methods, the intrauterine devices examined were effective in preventing pregnancy and had comparable side effect profiles. No clear recommendation can be made because insertion timing was not randomized in the included trials. Although delaying the postpartum Pap smear until 8 weeks reduces the proportion of inflammatory smears, it is uncertain whether a Pap smear is of benefit to postpartum women. The RA 27/3 postpartum rubella vaccine appears to be more effective than the Cendehill vaccine, but a small proportion of women may develop acute and chronic joint manifestations. CONCLUSIONS: Some evidence is available to support selected postpartum contraceptive methods and the postpartum rubella vaccine, but data are lacking on the effectiveness and optimal timing of the postpartum Pap smear.