Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 4 de 4
Filtrar
1.
J Occup Environ Med ; 44(7): 650-6, 2002 Jul.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-12138876

RESUMEN

In a case-control study, we examined whether parental occupational exposures were related to neural tube defect (NTD)-affected pregnancies among Mexican Americans living along the Texas-Mexico border. Case women were 184 Mexican-American women with NTD-affected pregnancies; control women were 225 study-area residents who delivered normal babies during the same period as the case women. The women were interviewed in person about maternal and paternal occupations and work exposures during the periconceptional period. Compared with control women, case women were more likely to have had occupational exposures to solvents (odds ratio [OR], infinity; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.4-infinity) and also were more likely to have worked in cleaning (OR 9.5; 95% CI, 1.1 to 82.2) or health care occupations (OR 3.0; 95% CI, 1.0 to 9.0) than control women. No compelling associations were found between paternal work exposures or occupations and NTDs in offspring in this population.


Asunto(s)
Exposición Materna/efectos adversos , Americanos Mexicanos , Defectos del Tubo Neural/etiología , Exposición Profesional/efectos adversos , Exposición Paterna/efectos adversos , Solventes/efectos adversos , Adulto , Estudios de Casos y Controles , Escolaridad , Femenino , Humanos , Renta , Recién Nacido , Masculino , Defectos del Tubo Neural/epidemiología , Embarazo , Texas/epidemiología
2.
Clin Biochem ; 45(13-14): 999-1011, 2012 Sep.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-22709932

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVES: This article is a systematic review of the effectiveness of three practices for reducing blood culture contamination rates: venipuncture, phlebotomy teams, and prepackaged preparation/collection (prep) kits. DESIGN AND METHODS: The CDC-funded Laboratory Medicine Best Practices Initiative systematic review methods for quality improvement practices were used. RESULTS: Studies included as evidence were: 9 venipuncture (vs. versus intravenous catheter), 5 phlebotomy team; and 7 prep kit. All studies for venipuncture and phlebotomy teams favored these practices, with meta-analysis mean odds ratios for venipuncture of 2.69 and phlebotomy teams of 2.58. For prep kits 6 studies' effect sizes were not statistically significantly different from no effect (meta-analysis mean odds ratio 1.12). CONCLUSIONS: Venipuncture and the use of phlebotomy teams are effective practices for reducing blood culture contamination rates in diverse hospital settings and are recommended as evidence-based "best practices" with high overall strength of evidence and substantial effect size ratings. No recommendation is made for or against prep kits based on uncertain improvement.


Asunto(s)
Bacterias/aislamiento & purificación , Sangre/microbiología , Errores Diagnósticos/prevención & control , Flebotomía/normas , Guías de Práctica Clínica como Asunto/normas , Evaluación de Programas y Proyectos de Salud/métodos , Técnicas de Cultivo de Célula/normas , Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S. , Contaminación de Equipos/prevención & control , Reacciones Falso Positivas , Humanos , Oportunidad Relativa , Mejoramiento de la Calidad/normas , Juego de Reactivos para Diagnóstico/normas , Estados Unidos
3.
Clin Biochem ; 45(13-14): 979-87, 2012 Sep.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-22750773

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: To conduct a systematic review of the evidence available in support of automated notification methods and call centers and to acknowledge other considerations in making evidence-based recommendations for best practices in improving the timeliness and accuracy of critical value reporting. DESIGN AND METHODS: This review followed the Laboratory Medicine Best Practices (LMBP) review methods (Christenson, et al. 2011). A broad literature search and call for unpublished submissions returned 196 bibliographic records which were screened for eligibility. 41 studies were retrieved. Of these, 4 contained credible evidence for the timeliness and accuracy of automatic notification systems and 5 provided credible evidence for call centers for communicating critical value information in in-patient care settings. RESULTS: Studies reporting improvement from implementing automated notification findings report mean differences and were standardized using the standard difference in means (d=0.42; 95% CI=0.2-0.62) while studies reporting improvement from implementing call centers generally reported criterion referenced findings and were standardized using odds ratios (OR=22.1; 95% CI=17.1-28.6). CONCLUSIONS: The evidence, although suggestive, is not sufficient to make an LMBP recommendation for or against using automated notification systems as a best practice to improve the timeliness of critical value reporting in an in-patient care setting. Call centers, however, are effective in improving the timeliness of critical value reporting in an in-patient care setting, and meet LMBP criteria to be recommended as an "evidence-based best practice."


Asunto(s)
Práctica Clínica Basada en la Evidencia/normas , Guías de Práctica Clínica como Asunto/normas , Evaluación de Programas y Proyectos de Salud/normas , Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S. , Bases de Datos Factuales , Humanos , Sistemas de Información/estadística & datos numéricos , Laboratorios/normas , Oportunidad Relativa , Evaluación de Programas y Proyectos de Salud/métodos , Garantía de la Calidad de Atención de Salud/normas , Factores de Tiempo , Estados Unidos
4.
Clin Biochem ; 45(13-14): 988-98, 2012 Sep.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-22750145

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVES: This is the first systematic review of the effectiveness of barcoding practices for reducing patient specimen and laboratory testing identification errors. DESIGN AND METHODS: The CDC-funded Laboratory Medicine Best Practices Initiative systematic review methods for quality improvement practices were used. RESULTS: A total of 17 observational studies reporting on barcoding systems are included in the body of evidence; 10 for patient specimens and 7 for point-of-care testing. All 17 studies favored barcoding, with meta-analysis mean odds ratios for barcoding systems of 4.39 (95% CI: 3.05-6.32) and for point-of-care testing of 5.93 (95% CI: 5.28-6.67). CONCLUSIONS: Barcoding is effective for reducing patient specimen and laboratory testing identification errors in diverse hospital settings and is recommended as an evidence-based "best practice." The overall strength of evidence rating is high and the effect size rating is substantial. Unpublished studies made an important contribution comprising almost half of the body of evidence.


Asunto(s)
Técnicas de Laboratorio Clínico/normas , Errores Diagnósticos/prevención & control , Práctica Clínica Basada en la Evidencia/normas , Evaluación de Programas y Proyectos de Salud/métodos , Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S. , Técnicas de Laboratorio Clínico/métodos , Bases de Datos Factuales , Procesamiento Automatizado de Datos/métodos , Práctica Clínica Basada en la Evidencia/métodos , Humanos , Oportunidad Relativa , Guías de Práctica Clínica como Asunto/normas , Garantía de la Calidad de Atención de Salud/normas , Estados Unidos
SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA