RESUMO
INTRODUCTION: Websites and online resources are increasingly becoming patients' main source of healthcare information. It is paramount that high quality information is available online to enhance patient education and improve clinical outcomes. Upper gastrointestinal (UGI) endoscopy is the gold standard investigation for UGI symptoms and yet little is known regarding the quality of patient orientated websites. The aim of this study was to assess the quality of online patient information on UGI endoscopy using the modified Ensuring Quality Information for Patients (EQIP) tool. METHODS: Ten search terms were employed to conduct a systematic review. for each term, the top 100 websites identified via a Google search were assessed using the modified EQIP tool. High scoring websites underwent further analysis. Websites intended for professional use by clinicians as well as those containing video or marketing content were excluded. FINDINGS: A total of 378 websites were eligible for analysis. The median modified EQIP score for UGI endoscopy was 18/36 (interquartile range: 14-21). The median EQIP scores for the content, identification and structure domains were 8/18, 1/6 and 9/12 respectively. Higher modified EQIP scores were obtained for websites produced by government departments and National Health Service hospitals (p=0.007). Complication rates were documented in only a fifth (20.4%) of websites. High scoring websites were significantly more likely to provide balanced information on risks and benefits (94.6% vs 34.4%, p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: There is an immediate need to improve the quality of online patient information regarding UGI endoscopy. The currently available resources provide minimal information on the risks associated with the procedure, potentially hindering patients' ability to make informed healthcare decisions.
RESUMO
PURPOSE: Contemporary trauma resuscitation prioritizes control of bleeding and uses major haemorrhage protocols (MHPs) to prevent and treat coagulopathy. We aimed to determine whether augmenting MHPs with Viscoelastic Haemostatic Assays (VHA) would improve outcomes compared to Conventional Coagulation Tests (CCTs). METHODS: This was a multi-centre, randomized controlled trial comparing outcomes in trauma patients who received empiric MHPs, augmented by either VHA or CCT-guided interventions. Primary outcome was the proportion of subjects who, at 24 h after injury, were alive and free of massive transfusion (10 or more red cell transfusions). Secondary outcomes included 28-day mortality. Pre-specified subgroups included patients with severe traumatic brain injury (TBI). RESULTS: Of 396 patients in the intention to treat analysis, 201 were allocated to VHA and 195 to CCT-guided therapy. At 24 h, there was no difference in the proportion of patients who were alive and free of massive transfusion (VHA: 67%, CCT: 64%, OR 1.15, 95% CI 0.76-1.73). 28-day mortality was not different overall (VHA: 25%, CCT: 28%, OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.54-1.31), nor were there differences in other secondary outcomes or serious adverse events. In pre-specified subgroups, there were no differences in primary outcomes. In the pre-specified subgroup of 74 patients with TBI, 64% were alive and free of massive transfusion at 24 h compared to 46% in the CCT arm (OR 2.12, 95% CI 0.84-5.34). CONCLUSION: There was no difference in overall outcomes between VHA- and CCT-augmented-major haemorrhage protocols.
