Does conventional early life academic excellence predict later life scientific discovery? An assessment of the lives of great medical innovators.

BACKGROUND: Perhaps, as never before, we need innovators. With our growing population numbers, and with increasing pressures on our education systems, are we in danger of becoming more rigid and formulaic and increasingly inhibiting innovation? When young can we predict who will become the great innovators? For example, in medicine, who will change clinical practice? AIMS: We therefore determined to assess whether the current academic excellence approach to medical school entrance would have captured previous great innovators in medicine, assuming that they should all have well fulfilled current entrance requirements. METHODS: The authors assembled a list of 100 great medical innovators which was then approved, rejected or added to by a jury of 12 MD fellows of the Royal Society of Canada. Two reviewers, who had taken both the past and present Medical College Admission Test as part of North American medical school entrance requirements, independently assessed each innovator's early life educational history in order to predict the innovator's likely success at medical school entry, assuming excellence in all entrance requirements. RESULTS: Thirty-one percent of the great medical innovators possessed no medical degree and 24% would likely be denied entry to medical school by today's standards (e.g. had a history of poor performance, failure, dropout or expulsion) with only 24% being guaranteed entry. Even if excellence in only one topic was required, the figure would only rise to 41% certain of medical school entry. CONCLUSION: These data show that today's medical school entry standards would have barred many great innovators and raise questions about whether we are losing medical innovators as a consequence. Our findings have important implications for promoting flexibility and innovation for medical education, and for promoting an environment for innovation in general.

Increasing adherence to treatment in epilepsy: what do the strongest trials show?

Patient non-adherence to prescribed anti-epileptic drugs (AEDs) remains a challenge to successful treatment of patients with epilepsy. However, the literature on epilepsy does not document a comprehensive review of interventions to improve adherence as a means to improve clinical outcomes. This study systematically reviews existing literature on interventions to enhance AED adherence and clinical outcomes, and the measures of adherence included in these studies. We selected randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of interventions to enhance adherence with AEDs, which also measured clinical outcomes, with at least 80% follow-up of participants for at least 6 months, from a comprehensive Cochrane review of adherence interventions for medications, complete to January 2013, and updated searches for additional AED studies in multiple bibliographic databases to January 2016. Two review authors independently extracted all data and a third author resolved disagreements. The present update included one trial from the Cochrane review and three RCTs published since, bringing the total number of RCTs on this topic to four. Two types of intervention were tested: educational (e.g., providing information to the patient or carer about treatment characteristics, duration, dosage regime, and how to use the AED) and behavioral (activity in order to remind the patient to take a medicine). Methods of measuring adherence included a combination of direct (plasma AED levels) and indirect measures (prescription refill frequency and appointment keeping) or use alone of self-report adherence on standardized scales. Despite the importance of the problem, evidence is limited concerning enhancement of adherence among people with epilepsy. However, the trials available to date show that medication adherence in epilepsy can be improved, leading to better seizure control.

Efficiency of pragmatic search strategies to update clinical guidelines recommendations.

BACKGROUND: A major challenge in updating clinical guidelines is to efficiently identify new, relevant evidence. We evaluated the efficiency and feasibility of two new approaches: the development of restrictive search strategies using PubMed Clinical Queries for MEDLINE and the use of the PLUS (McMaster Premium Literature Service) database. METHODS: We evaluated a random sample of recommendations from a national guideline development program and identified the references that would potentially trigger an update (key references) using an exhaustive approach. We designed restrictive search strategies using the minimum number of Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms and text words required from the original exhaustive search strategies and applying broad and narrow filters. We developed PLUS search strategies, matching Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) and Systematized Nomenclature of Medicine (SNOMED) terms with guideline topics. We compared the number of key references retrieved by these approaches with those retrieved by the exhaustive approach. RESULTS: The restrictive approach retrieved 68.1 % fewer references than the exhaustive approach (12,486 versus 39,136), and identified 89.9 % (62/69) of key references and 88 % (22/25) of recommendation updates. The use of PLUS retrieved 88.5 % fewer references than the exhaustive approach (4,486 versus 39,136) and identified substantially fewer key references (18/69, 26.1 %) and fewer recommendation updates (10/25, 40 %). CONCLUSIONS: The proposed restrictive approach is a highly efficient and feasible method to identify new evidence that triggers a recommendation update. Searching only in the PLUS database proved to be a suboptimal approach and suggests the need for topic-specific tailoring.

The clinical relevance and newsworthiness of NIHR HTA-funded research: a cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the clinical relevance and newsworthiness of the UK National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Programme funded reports. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: The cohort included 311 NIHR HTA Programme funded reports publishing in HTA in the period 1 January 2007-31 December 2012. The McMaster Online Rating of Evidence (MORE) system independently identified the clinical relevance and newsworthiness of NIHR HTA publications and non-NIHR HTA publications. The MORE system involves over 4000 physicians rating publications on a scale of relevance (the extent to which articles are relevant to practice) and a scale of newsworthiness (the extent to which articles contain news or something clinicians are unlikely to know). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The proportion of reports published in HTA meeting MORE inclusion criteria and mean average relevance and newsworthiness ratings were calculated and compared with publications from the same studies publishing outside HTA and non-NIHR HTA funded publications. RESULTS: 286/311 (92.0%) of NIHR HTA reports were assessed by MORE, of which 192 (67.1%) passed MORE criteria. The average clinical relevance rating for NIHR HTA reports was 5.48, statistically higher than the 5.32 rating for non-NIHR HTA publications (mean difference=0.16, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.29, p=0.01). Average newsworthiness ratings were similar between NIHR HTA reports and non-NIHR HTA publications (4.75 and 4.70, respectively; mean difference=0.05, 95% CI -0.18 to 0.07, p=0.402). NIHR HTA-funded original research reports were statistically higher for newsworthiness than reviews (5.05 compared with 4.64) (mean difference=0.41, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.64, p=0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Funding research of clinical relevance is important in maximising the value of research investment. The NIHR HTA Programme is successful in funding projects that generate outputs of clinical relevance.

Can computerized clinical decision support systems improve diabetes management? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

AIMS: To systematically review randomized trials that assessed the effects of computerized clinical decision support systems in ambulatory diabetes management compared with a non-computerized clinical decision support system control. METHODS: We included all diabetes trials from a comprehensive computerized clinical decision support system overview completed in January 2010, and searched EMBASE, MEDLINE, INSPEC/COMPENDEX and Evidence-Based Medicine Reviews (EBMR) from January 2010 to April 2012. Reference lists of related reviews, included articles and Clinicaltrials.gov were also searched. Randomized controlled trials of patients with diabetes in ambulatory care settings comparing a computerized clinical decision support system intervention with a non-computerized clinical decision support system control, measuring either a process of care or a patient outcome, were included. Screening of studies, data extraction, risk of bias and quality of evidence assessments were carried out independently by two reviewers, and discrepancies were resolved through consensus or third-party arbitration. Authors were contacted for any missing data. RESULTS: Fifteen trials were included (13 from the previous review and two from the current search). Only one study was at low risk of bias, while the others were of moderate to high risk of bias because of methodological limitations. HbA1c (3 months' follow-up), quality of life and hospitalization (12 months' follow-up) were pooled and all favoured the computerized clinical decision support systems over the control, although none were statistically significant. Triglycerides and practitioner performance tended to favour computerized clinical decision support systems although results were too heterogeneous to pool. CONCLUSIONS: Computerized clinical decision support systems in diabetes management may marginally improve clinical outcomes, but confidence in the evidence is low because of risk of bias, inconsistency and imprecision.

Optimal search filters for detecting quality improvement studies in Medline.

BACKGROUND: As the knowledge translation and comparative effectiveness research agendas gain momentum, we can expect more evidence on which to base quality improvement (QI) programmes. Unaided searches for such content in the literature, however, are likely to be daunting, with searches missing key articles while mainly retrieving articles that are irrelevant to the question being asked. The objective of this study was to develop and validate optimal Medline search filters for retrieving original and review articles about clinical QI. METHODS: Analytical survey in the McMaster Clinical Hedges database and Health Knowledge Refinery (HKR) of 161 clinical journals to determine the operating characteristics of QI search filters developed by computerised combinations of terms selected to detect original QI studies and systematic reviews meeting basic methodological criteria for scientific merit. Results from a derivation random subset of articles were tested in a validation random subset. RESULTS: The Clinical Hedges QI database contained 49,233 citations of which 471 (0.96%) were original or review QI studies; of those, 282 (60%) were methodologically sound. Combinations of search terms reached peak sensitivities of 100% at a specificity of 89.3% for detecting methodologically sound original and review QI studies, and sensitivities of 97.6% at a specificity of 53.0% for detecting all original and review QI studies independent of rigour. Operating characteristics of the search filters derived in the development database worked similarly in the validation database, without statistical differences. CONCLUSION: New empirically derived Medline search filters have been validated to optimise retrieval of original and review QI articles.

Tackling the growth of the obesity literature: obesity evidence spreads across many journals.

OBJECTIVE: This study identified the journals with the highest yield of clinical obesity research articles and surveyed the scatter of such studies across journals. The study exemplifies an approach to establish a journal collection that is likely to contain most new knowledge about a field. DESIGN AND METHODS: All original studies that were cited in 40 systematic reviews about obesity topics ('included studies') were compiled and journal titles in which they were published were extracted. The journals were ranked by the number of included studies. The highest-yielding journals for clinical obesity and the scatter across journal titles were determined. A subset of these journals was created in MEDLINE (PubMed) to test search recall and precision for high-quality studies of obesity treatment (that is, articles that pass predetermined methodology criteria, including random allocation of participants to comparison groups, assessment of clinical outcomes, and at least 80% follow-up). RESULTS: Articles in 252 journals were cited in the systematic reviews. The three highest-yielding journals specialized in obesity, but they published only 19.2% of the research, leaving 80.8% scattered across 249 non-obesity journals. The MEDLINE journal subset comprised 241 journals (11 journals were not indexed in MEDLINE) and included 82% of the clinical obesity research articles retrieved by a search for high-quality treatment studies ('recall' of 82%). Of the articles retrieved, 11% were about clinical obesity care ('precision' of 11%), compared with precision of 6% for obesity treatment studies in the full MEDLINE database. CONCLUSION: Obesity journals captured only a small proportion of the literature on clinical obesity care. Those wishing to keep up in this field will need to develop more inclusive strategies than reading these specialty journals. A journal subset based on these findings may be useful when searching large electronic databases to increase search precision.

Interventions for enhancing medication adherence.

BACKGROUND: People who are prescribed self-administered medications typically take less than half the prescribed doses. Efforts to assist patients with adherence to medications might improve the benefits of prescribed medications, but also might increase their adverse effects. OBJECTIVES: To update a review summarizing the results of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of interventions to help patients follow prescriptions for medications for medical problems, including mental disorders but not addictions. SEARCH STRATEGY: We updated searches of The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts (IPA), PsycINFO (all via OVID) and Sociological Abstracts (via CSA) in January 2007 with no language restriction. We also reviewed bibliographies in articles on patient adherence and articles in our personal collections, and contacted authors of relevant original and review articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: Articles were selected if they reported an unconfounded RCT of an intervention to improve adherence with prescribed medications, measuring both medication adherence and treatment outcome, with at least 80% follow-up of each group studied and, for long-term treatments, at least six months follow-up for studies with positive initial findings. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Study design features, interventions and controls, and results were extracted by one review author and confirmed by at least one other review author. We extracted adherence rates and their measures of variance for all methods of measuring adherence in each study, and all outcome rates and their measures of variance for each study group, as well as levels of statistical significance for differences between study groups, consulting authors and verifying or correcting analyses as needed. The studies differed widely according to medical condition, patient population, intervention, measures of adherence, and clinical outcomes. Therefore, we did not feel that quantitative analysis was scientifically justified; rather, we conducted a qualitative analysis. MAIN RESULTS: For short-term treatments, four of ten interventions reported in nine RCTs showed an effect on both adherence and at least one clinical outcome, while one intervention reported in one RCT significantly improved patient adherence, but did not enhance the clinical outcome. For long-term treatments, 36 of 81 interventions reported in 69 RCTs were associated with improvements in adherence, but only 25 interventions led to improvement in at least one treatment outcome. Almost all of the interventions that were effective for long-term care were complex, including combinations of more convenient care, information, reminders, self-monitoring, reinforcement, counseling, family therapy, psychological therapy, crisis intervention, manual telephone follow-up, and supportive care. Even the most effective interventions did not lead to large improvements in adherence and treatment outcomes. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: For short-term treatments several quite simple interventions increased adherence and improved patient outcomes, but the effects were inconsistent from study to study with less than half of studies showing benefits. Current methods of improving adherence for chronic health problems are mostly complex and not very effective, so that the full benefits of treatment cannot be realized. High priority should be given to fundamental and applied research concerning innovations to assist patients to follow medication prescriptions for long-term medical disorders.

Educational outreach visits: effects on professional practice and health care outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Educational outreach visits (EOVs) have been identified as an intervention that may improve the practice of healthcare professionals. This type of face-to-face visit has been referred to as university-based educational detailing, academic detailing, and educational visiting. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of EOVs on health professional practice or patient outcomes. SEARCH STRATEGY: For this update, we searched the Cochrane EPOC register to March 2007. In the original review, we searched multiple bibliographic databases including MEDLINE and CINAHL. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised trials of EOVs that reported an objective measure of professional performance or healthcare outcomes. An EOV was defined as a personal visit by a trained person to healthcare professionals in their own settings. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed study quality. We used bubble plots and box plots to visually inspect the data. We conducted both quantitative and qualitative analyses. We used meta-regression to examine potential sources of heterogeneity determined a priori. We hypothesised eight factors to explain variation across effect estimates. In our primary visual and statistical analyses, we included only studies with dichotomous outcomes, with baseline data and with low or moderate risk of bias, in which the intervention included an EOV and was compared to no intervention. MAIN RESULTS: We included 69 studies involving more than 15,000 health professionals. Twenty-eight studies (34 comparisons) contributed to the calculation of the median and interquartile range for the main comparison. The median adjusted risk difference (RD) in compliance with desired practice was 5.6% (interquartile range 3.0% to 9.0%). The adjusted RDs were highly consistent for prescribing (median 4.8%, interquartile range 3.0% to 6.5% for 17 comparisons), but varied for other types of professional performance (median 6.0%, interquartile range 3.6% to 16.0% for 17 comparisons). Meta-regression was limited by the large number of potential explanatory factors (eight) with only 31 comparisons, and did not provide any compelling explanations for the observed variation in adjusted RDs. There were 18 comparisons with continuous outcomes, with a median adjusted relative improvement of 21% (interquartile range 11% to 41%). There were eight trials (12 comparisons) in which the intervention included an EOV and was compared to another type of intervention, usually audit and feedback. Interventions that included EOVs appeared to be slightly superior to audit and feedback. Only six studies evaluated different types of visits in head-to-head comparisons. When individual visits were compared to group visits (three trials), the results were mixed. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: EOVs alone or when combined with other interventions have effects on prescribing that are relatively consistent and small, but potentially important. Their effects on other types of professional performance vary from small to modest improvements, and it is not possible from this review to explain that variation.

WITHDRAWN: Audit and feedback versus alternative strategies: effects on professional practice and health care outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Audit and feedback has been identified as having the potential to change the practice of health care professionals. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of audit and feedback compared with other interventions in changing health professional practice and to assess whether the effectiveness of audit and feedback can be improved by modifying how it is done. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched MEDLINE up to June 1997, the Research and Development Resource Base in Continuing Medical Education, and reference lists of related systematic reviews and articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised trials of audit and feedback (defined as any summary of clinical performance of health care over a specified period of time) compared with other interventions. The participants were health care providers responsible for patient care. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed study quality. MAIN RESULTS: Twelve studies were included involving more than 2194 physicians. Seven trials with direct comparisons were included. The targeted behaviours were the management of low haemoglobin, the delivery of preventive care services (two studies), the management of high cholesterol, the performance of cervical smears, and the ordering of diagnostic tests (two studies). From the results of four trials, there is little evidence of a measurable effect of adding a complementary intervention such as a local consensus process to audit and feedback compared to audit and feedback alone. Two of three trials that compared audit and feedback to reminders reported that reminders were more effective in improving the delivery of some preventive services. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: It is not possible to recommend a complementary intervention to enhance the effectiveness of audit and feedback. Reminders might be more effective than audit and feedback to improve the delivery of some preventive services but the results are not striking. Few trials have investigated the effect of varying different characteristics of the audit and feedback process. Consideration should be given to testing the effects of modifying important characteristics such as the content, source, timing, recipient and format.

Lost in publication: Half of all renal practice evidence is published in non-renal journals.

Physicians often scan a select number of journals to keep up to date with practice evidence for patients with kidney conditions. This raises the question of where relevant studies are published. We performed a bibliometric analysis using 195 renal systematic reviews. Each review used a comprehensive method to identify all primary studies for a focused clinical question relevant to patient care. We compiled all the primary studies included in these reviews, and considered where each study was published. Of the 2779 studies, 1351 (49%) were published in the top 20 journals. Predictably, this list included Transplantation Proceedings (5.9% of studies), Kidney International (5.3%), American Journal of Kidney Diseases (4.7%), Nephrology Dialysis Transplantation (4.3%), Transplantation (4.2%), and Journal of the American Society of Nephrology (2.4%). Ten non-renal journals were also on this list, including New England Journal of Medicine (2.4%), Lancet (2.3%), and Diabetes Care (2.2%). The remaining 1428 (51%) studies were published across other 446 journals. When the disciplines of all journals were considered, 59 were classified as renal or transplant journals (42% of articles). Other specialties included general and internal medicine (16%), endocrinology (diabetes) and metabolism (6.5%), surgery (6.2%), cardiovascular diseases (6.1%), pediatrics (4.3%), and radiology (3.3%). About half of all renal practice evidence is published in non-renal journals. Browsing the top journals is important. However, relevant studies are also scattered across a large range of journals that may not be routinely scanned by busy physicians, and keeping up with this literature requires other continuing education strategies.

A candidate gene approach to searching for low-penetrance breast and prostate cancer genes.

Most cases of breast and prostate cancer are not associated with mutations in known high-penetrance genes, indicating the involvement of multiple low-penetrance risk alleles. Studies that have attempted to identify these genes have met with limited success. The National Cancer Institute Breast and Prostate Cancer Cohort Consortium--a pooled analysis of multiple large cohort studies with a total of more than 5,000 cases of breast cancer and 8,000 cases of prostate cancer--was therefore initiated. The goal of this consortium is to characterize variations in approximately 50 genes that mediate two pathways that are associated with these cancers--the steroid-hormone metabolism pathway and the insulin-like growth factor signalling pathway--and to associate these variations with cancer risk.

Interventions to enhance medication adherence.

BACKGROUND: People who are prescribed self-administered medications typically take less than half the prescribed doses. Efforts to assist patients with adherence to medications might improve the benefits of prescribed medications, but also might increase their adverse effects. OBJECTIVES: To update a review summarizing the results of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of interventions to help patients follow prescriptions for medications for medical problems, including mental disorders but not addictions. SEARCH STRATEGY: Computerized searches were updated to September 2004 without language restriction in MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, The Cochrane Library, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts (IPA), PsycINFO and SOCIOFILE. We also reviewed bibliographies in articles on patient adherence and articles in our personal collections, and contacted authors of original and review articles on the topic. SELECTION CRITERIA: Articles were selected if they reported an unconfounded RCT of an intervention to improve adherence with prescribed medications, measuring both medication adherence and treatment outcome, with at least 80% follow-up of each group studied and, for long-term treatments, at least six months follow-up for studies with positive initial findings. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Study design features, interventions and controls, and results were extracted by one reviewer and confirmed by at least one other reviewer. We extracted adherence rates and their measures of variance for all methods of measuring adherence in each study, and all outcome rates and their measures of variance for each study group, as well as levels of statistical significance for differences between study groups, consulting authors and verifying or correcting analyses as needed. MAIN RESULTS: For short-term treatments, four of nine interventions reported in eight RCTs showed an effect on both adherence and at least one clinical outcome, while one intervention reported in one RCT significantly improved patient compliance, but did not enhance the clinical outcome. For long-term treatments, 26 of 58 interventions reported in 49 RCTs were associated with improvements in adherence, but only 18 interventions led to improvement in at least one treatment outcome. Almost all of the interventions that were effective for long-term care were complex, including combinations of more convenient care, information, reminders, self-monitoring, reinforcement, counseling, family therapy, psychological therapy, crisis intervention, manual telephone follow-up, and supportive care. Even the most effective interventions did not lead to large improvements in adherence and treatment outcomes. Six studies showed that telling patients about adverse effects of treatment did not affect their adherence. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Improving short-term adherence is relatively successful with a variety of simple interventions. Current methods of improving adherence for chronic health problems are mostly complex and not very effective, so that the full benefits of treatment cannot be realized. High priority should be given to fundamental and applied research concerning innovations to assist patients to follow medication prescriptions for long-term medical disorders.

Interventions for helping patients to follow prescriptions for medications.

BACKGROUND: People who are prescribed self-administered medications typically take less than half the prescribed doses. Efforts to assist patients with adherence to medications might improve the benefits and efficiency of health care, but also might increase its adverse effects. OBJECTIVES: To update a review summarising the results of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of interventions to help patients follow prescriptions for medications for medical problems, focusing on trials that measured both adherence and clinical outcomes. SEARCH STRATEGY: Computerised searches to August 2001 in MEDLINE, CINAHL, The Cochrane Library, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts (IPA) PsychInfo, and Sociofile; bibliographies in articles on patient adherence; articles in the reviewers' personal collections; and contact with authors of original and review articles on the topic. SELECTION CRITERIA: Articles were selected if they reported an unconfounded RCT of an intervention to improve adherence with prescribed medications, measuring both medication adherence and treatment outcome, with at least 80% follow-up of each group studied and, for long-term treatments, at least six months follow-up for studies with positive initial findings. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Information on study design features, interventions and controls, and results were extracted by one reviewer and confirmed by at least one other reviewer. The studies were too disparate to warrant meta-analysis. MAIN RESULTS: For short-term treatments, one of three interventions reported in three RCTs showed an effect on both adherence and clinical outcome. Eighteen of 36 interventions for long-term treatments reported in 30 RCTs were associated with improvements in adherence, but only 16 interventions led to improvements in treatment outcomes. Almost all of the interventions that were effective for long-term care were complex, including combinations of more convenient care, information, reminders, self-monitoring, reinforcement, counselling, family therapy, and other forms of additional supervision or attention by a health care provider (physician, nurse, pharmacist or other). Even the most effective interventions did not lead to large improvements in adherence and treatment outcomes. Two studies showed that telling patients about adverse effects of treatment did not affect their adherence. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: The full benefits of medications cannot be realised at currently achievable levels of adherence. Current methods of improving adherence for chronic health problems are mostly complex and not very effective. Innovations to assist patients to follow medication prescriptions are needed.

Association between renal insufficiency and malnutrition in older adults: results from the NHANES III.

BACKGROUND: The extent to which relevant confounding variables influence the recognized association between renal insufficiency and malnutrition is not known. This study examined whether renal insufficiency was associated with malnutrition, independent of relevant demographic, social, and medical conditions in noninstitutionalized adults 60 years of age and older. METHODS: Participants (5248) in the United States Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES III, 1988 to 1994), a cross-sectional study, were examined in a multivariate logistic regression model. Participants were stratified into three groups of glomerular filtration rate (GFR) by serum creatinine. Dietary and nutritional factors were estimated from 24-hour dietary recall, biochemistry measurements, anthropometry, and bioelectrical impedance. Participants were malnourished if they demonstrated at least three of the following five criteria: (1) serum albumin < or =37 g/L, (2) male weight < or =63.9 kg, female weight < or =51.8 kg, (3) serum cholesterol <4.1 mmol/L, (4) energy intake <15 kcal/kg/day, and (5) protein intake <0.5 g/kg/day. RESULTS: A GFR <30 mL/min/1.73 m(2) was present in 2.3% of men and 2.6% of women; these participants demonstrated low energy and protein intake and higher serum markers of inflammation. Thirty-one percent of individuals with malnutrition demonstrated a GFR <60 mL/min/1.73 m(2). In multivariate analysis, a GFR <30 mL/min/1.73 m(2) was independently associated with malnutrition [odds ratio 3.6 (2.0 to 6.6)] after adjustment for relevant demographic, social and medical conditions. CONCLUSIONS: It is probable that renal insufficiency is an important independent risk factor for malnutrition in older adults. Malnutrition should be considered, prevented, and treated as possible in persons with clinically important renal insufficiency. These results should be confirmed in a prospective longitudinal cohort study.

Clinical decision support systems for the practice of evidence-based medicine.

BACKGROUND: The use of clinical decision support systems to facilitate the practice of evidence-based medicine promises to substantially improve health care quality. OBJECTIVE: To describe, on the basis of the proceedings of the Evidence and Decision Support track at the 2000 AMIA Spring Symposium, the research and policy challenges for capturing research and practice-based evidence in machine-interpretable repositories, and to present recommendations for accelerating the development and adoption of clinical decision support systems for evidence-based medicine. RESULTS: The recommendations fall into five broad areas--capture literature-based and practice-based evidence in machine--interpretable knowledge bases; develop maintainable technical and methodological foundations for computer-based decision support; evaluate the clinical effects and costs of clinical decision support systems and the ways clinical decision support systems affect and are affected by professional and organizational practices; identify and disseminate best practices for work flow-sensitive implementations of clinical decision support systems; and establish public policies that provide incentives for implementing clinical decision support systems to improve health care quality. CONCLUSIONS: Although the promise of clinical decision support system-facilitated evidence-based medicine is strong, substantial work remains to be done to realize the potential benefits.