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










Database
Language
Publication year range
1.
Otol Neurotol ; 44(9): 848-852, 2023 10 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37703893

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Chronic dizziness can cause significant functional impairment. Outcome measures used in this patient population have not been examined systematically. Consequently, providers lack consensus on the ideal outcome measures to assess the impact of their interventions. OBJECTIVE AND METHODS: We conducted a scoping review to summarize existing literature on outcomes in chronic dizziness (with a minimum of 6 mo of patient follow-up). Among other details, we extracted and analyzed patient demographics, medical condition(s), and the specific outcome measures of each study. RESULTS: Of 19,426 articles meeting the original search terms, 416 met final exclusion after title/abstract and full-text review. Most studies focused on Ménière's disease (75%) and recurrent benign paroxysmal positional vertigo (21%). The most common outcome measures were hearing (62%) and number of attacks by American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head & Neck Surgery criteria (60%). A minority (35%) looked formally at quality-of-life metrics (Dizziness Handicap Index or other). CONCLUSIONS: Ménière's disease and benign paroxysmal positional vertigo are overrepresented in literature on outcome assessment in chronic dizziness. Objective clinical measures are used more frequently than quality-of-life metrics. Future work is needed to identify the optimal outcome measures that reflect new knowledge about the most common causes of chronic dizziness (including persistent postural-perceptual dizziness and vestibular migraine) and consider what is most important to patients.


Subject(s)
Benign Paroxysmal Positional Vertigo , Meniere Disease , Humans , Dizziness/etiology , Meniere Disease/complications , Consensus , Hearing
2.
N Am Spine Soc J ; 11: 100142, 2022 Sep.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35983028

ABSTRACT

Background: Predictive analytics are being used increasingly in the field of spinal surgery with the development of models to predict post-surgical complications. Predictive models should be valid, generalizable, and clinically useful. The purpose of this review was to identify existing post-surgical complication prediction models for spinal surgery and to determine if these models are being adequately investigated with internal/external validation, model updating and model impact studies. Methods: This was a scoping review of studies pertaining to models for the prediction of post-surgical complication after spinal surgery published over 10 years (2010-2020). Qualitative data was extracted from the studies to include study classification, adherence to Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis (TRIPOD) guidelines and risk of bias (ROB) assessment using the Prediction model study Risk Of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST). Model evaluation was determined using area under the curve (AUC) when available. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) statement was used as a basis for the search methodology in four different databases. Results: Thirty studies were included in the scoping review and 80% (24/30) included model development with or without internal validation. Twenty percent (6/30) were exclusively external validation studies and only one study included an impact analysis in addition to model development and internal validation. Two studies referenced the TRIPOD guidelines and there was a high ROB in 100% of the studies using the PROBAST tool. Conclusions: The majority of post-surgical complication prediction models in spinal surgery have not undergone standardized model development and internal validation or adequate external validation and impact evaluation. As such there is uncertainty as to their validity, generalizability, and clinical utility. Future efforts should be made to use existing tools to ensure standardization in development and rigorous evaluation of prediction models in spinal surgery.

3.
Crit Care Res Pract ; 2021: 6612187, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33981458

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: Delirium frequently affects critically ill patients in the intensive care unit (ICU). The purpose of this study is to evaluate the impact of delirium on ICU and hospital length of stay (LOS) and perform a cost analysis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Prospective studies and randomized controlled trials of patients in the ICU with delirium published between January 1, 2015, and December 31, 2020, were evaluated. Outcome variables including ICU and hospital LOS were obtained, and ICU and hospital costs were derived from the respective LOS. RESULTS: Forty-one studies met inclusion criteria. The mean difference of ICU LOS between patients with and without delirium was significant at 4.77 days (p < 0.001); for hospital LOS, this was significant at 6.67 days (p < 0.001). Cost data were extractable for 27 studies in which both ICU and hospital LOS were available. The mean difference of ICU costs between patients with and without delirium was significant at $3,921 (p < 0.001); for hospital costs, the mean difference was $5,936 (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: ICU and hospital LOS and associated costs were significantly higher for patients with delirium, compared to those without delirium. Further research is necessary to elucidate other determinants of increased costs and cost-reducing strategies for critically ill patients with delirium. This can provide insight into the required resources for the prevention of delirium, which may contribute to decreasing healthcare expenditure while optimizing the quality of care.

SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...