Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 3 de 3
Filter
Add more filters

Database
Country/Region as subject
Language
Affiliation country
Publication year range
1.
CMAJ ; 196(23): E779-E788, 2024 Jun 16.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38885975

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The response of Canada's research community to the COVID-19 pandemic provides a unique opportunity to examine the country's clinical health research ecosystem. We sought to describe patterns of enrolment across Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR)-funded studies on COVID-19. METHODS: We identified COVID-19 studies funded by the CIHR and that enrolled participants from Canadian acute care hospitals between January 2020 and April 2023. We collected information on study-and site-level variables from study leads, site investigators, and public domain sources. We described and evaluated factors associated with cumulative enrolment. RESULTS: We obtained information for 23 out of 26 (88%) eligible CIHR-funded studies (16 randomized controlled trials [RCTs] and 7 cohort studies). The 23 studies were managed by 12 Canadian and 3 international coordinating centres. Of 419 Canadian hospitals, 97 (23%) enrolled a total of 28 973 participants - 3876 in RCTs across 78 hospitals (median cumulative enrolment per hospital 30, interquartile range [IQR] 10-61), and 25 097 in cohort studies across 62 hospitals (median cumulative enrolment per hospital 158, IQR 6-348). Of 78 hospitals recruiting participants in RCTs, 13 (17%) enrolled 50% of all RCT participants, whereas 6 of 62 hospitals (9.7%) recruited 54% of participants in cohort studies. INTERPRETATION: A minority of Canadian hospitals enrolled the majority of participants in CIHR-funded studies on COVID-19. This analysis sheds light on the Canadian health research ecosystem and provides information for multiple key partners to consider ways to realize the full research potential of Canada's health systems.


Subject(s)
Biomedical Research , COVID-19 , Humans , Canada/epidemiology , COVID-19/epidemiology , SARS-CoV-2 , Pandemics , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
2.
Can Urol Assoc J ; 17(9): E252-E256, 2023 Sep.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37458737

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: Studies published to date have suggested non-inferiority of robotic-assisted radical cystectomy (RARC) compared to open radical cystectomy (ORC), while few centers in Canada have adopted this approach. Though multifactorial, the learning curve and operative time are often discussed barriers. Herein, we present outcomes from the largest Canadian cohort of RARC performed to date. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective chart review of all patients undergoing RARC by a single surgeon with greater than 1500 robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) experience at our institution from May 2020 to December 2021. Clinicopathological, intraoperative, and postoperative data, as well as complications in the first 90 days, were collected. Regression analysis was used to determine the relationship between case volume and operative time/lymph node yield. RESULTS: A total of 31 patients underwent RARC during the study period, 26 of which were male. The median length of stay was six days (Q1-Q3 5-10), while days alive and out of hospital at 90 days were 83 days (Q1-Q3 80-85). Soft tissue margins were positive in 9.6% (3/31) of patients. Median lymph node yield was 17.0 lymph nodes (Q1-Q3 11-23). Median operative time was 241 minutes (Q1-Q3 228-252) in the ileal conduit group and 320 minutes (Q1-Q3 302-337) in the neobladder group. We observed four Clavien-Dindo grade >3 complications. The 90-day readmission rate and mortality rate were 17.2% (5) and 0% (0), respectively. There was no correlation between case volume and any outcome variables. CONCLUSIONS: Previous high-volume experience performing RARP reduces the learning curve for performing RARC, with similar short-term outcomes to high-volume centers.

3.
Man Ther ; 16(5): 440-6, 2011 Oct.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-21377403

ABSTRACT

Rare, serious, and common, benign adverse events (AE) are associated with MT techniques. A proposed standard for defining AE in manual therapy (MT) practise has been published but it did not include the patient perspective. Research comparing clinician and patient reporting of AE demonstrates that several differences exist; for example, the reporting of objective versus subjective events. The objective of this study was to describe how patients define AE associated with MT techniques. A descriptive qualitative design was employed. Semi-structured interviews were used with a purposive sample of patients (n = 13) receiving MT, from physiotherapy, chiropractic and osteopathic practises in Ontario, Canada. The interview guide was informed by existing evidence and consultation with content and methodological experts. Interviews were audiotaped and transcribed verbatim. Date were analysed by two independent team members using thematic content analysis. A key finding was that patients defined mild, moderate and major AE by pain/symptom severity, functional impact, duration and by ruling out of alternative causes. An overarching theme identified multiple factors that influence how the AE is perceived. These concepts differ from the previously proposed framework for defining AE that did not include the patient perspective. Future processes to create standard definitions or measures should include the patient viewpoint to provide a broader, client-centred foundation.


Subject(s)
Patients/psychology , Physical Therapy Modalities/adverse effects , Physical Therapy Modalities/standards , Adult , Aged , Canada , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Ontario , Patient Acceptance of Health Care , Patient Satisfaction
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL