Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 4 de 4
Filtrar
1.
J Evid Based Med ; 14(1): 7-16, 2021 Feb.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33528882

RESUMEN

AIM: Use of systematic reviews (SRs) as first-level evidence for guideline recommendations hinges on review quality. In particular, US guidelines for adherence-related recommendations in the treatment of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) are not based on available SRs of adherence-outcome relationships; it is unclear why. No published studies report on the quality of SRs on HIV adherence and outcomes, which may be driving the lack of use. We describe the quality of this body of literature. METHODS: Literature searches were conducted in Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PubMed Central, the Cochrane Library, Science Citation Index, Web of Science, ScIELO Citation Index, and Ovid Emcare. Screening and quality assessments were performed in duplicate using AMSTAR 2. Funding sources and impact factors of publishing journals were also extracted, and correlations between quality rankings and numbers of critical weaknesses versus impact factors were assessed using Spearman's rank correlation coefficient. RESULTS: Nine SRs of 1141 records met eligibility criteria. Overall confidence in the results was critically low for most (78%) SRs. Underperformance was found across all AMSTAR 2 domains. Impact factor (a surrogate or journal reputation) did not correlate with quality. CONCLUSIONS: SRs do not necessarily comprise top-level evidence despite the availability of quality appraisal tools and reporting guidance, which could explain the lack of SR evidence in US HIV medication adherence-related guideline recommendations. All parties to evidence synthesis publication should require quality assessment of studies.


Asunto(s)
Infecciones por VIH , Informe de Investigación , Infecciones por VIH/tratamiento farmacológico , Humanos , Cumplimiento de la Medicación , Revisiones Sistemáticas como Asunto
2.
Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol ; 42(5): 530-548, 2021 05.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33059777

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: A growing body of evidence suggests that antibiotic allergy labels as documented in medical records are a risk factor for poor clinical outcomes. In this systematic review, we aimed to determine how antibiotic allergy labels influence 3 domains: antibiotic use and exposure, clinical outcomes, and healthcare-related costs. DESIGN: We performed a systematic review to identify studies reporting outcomes in patients with antibiotic allergy labels compared to nonallergic counterparts. The search included PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL, EBSCO, Cochrane Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects and Web of Science. Two reviewers independently screened studies for inclusion and abstracted data. Studies were graded using the Newcastle-Ottawa quality assessment scale. Study outcomes included antibiotic use, clinical outcomes, and economic outcomes. RESULTS: In total, 41 studies met our criteria for inclusion. These studies varied in medical specialty, patient population, healthcare delivery system, and design, but most were conducted among adults age >18 years (85%) in the inpatient setting (82.5%). Among 34 studies examining antibiotic exposure, 32 (94%) found that patients with antibiotic allergy labels received more broad-spectrum antibiotics. Moreover, 31 studies examined clinical outcomes such as length of hospitalization, ICU admission, hospital readmission, multidrug-resistant or opportunistic infection, or mortality, and 27 (87%) found that allergy-labeled patients had at least 1 negative outcome. Of 9 studies examining healthcare costs, 7 (78%) found that allergy-labeled patients incurred significantly higher drug or hospital-related costs. CONCLUSIONS: Antibiotic allergy labels have negative effects on antibiotic use, clinical outcomes, and economic outcomes in a variety of clinical settings and populations.


Asunto(s)
Antibacterianos , Hipersensibilidad a las Drogas , Adolescente , Adulto , Antibacterianos/efectos adversos , Atención a la Salud , Hipersensibilidad a las Drogas/epidemiología , Humanos , Pacientes Internos , Readmisión del Paciente
3.
J Pain Palliat Care Pharmacother ; 30(4): 258-268, 2016 Dec.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-27802072

RESUMEN

We conducted a systematic review to evaluate worldwide human English published literature from 2009 to 2014 on prevalence of opioid misuse/abuse in retrospective databases where International Classification of Diseases (ICD) codes were used. Inclusion criteria for the studies were use of a retrospective database, measured abuse, dependence, and/or poisoning using ICD codes, stated prevalence or it could be derived, and documented time frame. A meta-analysis was not performed. A qualitative narrative synthesis was used, and 16 studies were included for data abstraction. ICD code use varies; 10 studies used ICD codes that encompassed all three terms: abuse, dependence, or poisoning. Eight studies limited determination of misuse/abuse to an opioid user population. Abuse prevalence among opioid users in commercial databases using all three terms of ICD codes varied depending on the opioid; 21 per 1000 persons (reformulated extended-release oxymorphone; 2011-2012) to 113 per 1000 persons (immediate-release opioids; 2010-2011). Abuse prevalence in general populations using all three ICD code terms ranged from 1.15 per 1000 persons (commercial; 6 months 2010) to 8.7 per 1000 persons (Medicaid; 2002-2003). Prevalence increased over time. When similar ICD codes are used, the highest prevalence is in US government-insured populations. Limiting population to continuous opioid users increases prevalence. Prevalence varies depending on ICD codes used, population, time frame, and years studied. Researchers using ICD codes to determine opioid abuse prevalence need to be aware of cautions and limitations.


Asunto(s)
Analgésicos Opioides/administración & dosificación , Trastornos Relacionados con Opioides/epidemiología , Mal Uso de Medicamentos de Venta con Receta/estadística & datos numéricos , Analgésicos Opioides/efectos adversos , Bases de Datos Factuales , Humanos , Clasificación Internacional de Enfermedades , Prevalencia
4.
J Pain Palliat Care Pharmacother ; 29(4): 388-400, 2015.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-26654413

RESUMEN

A 2009 systematic review found that the total cost of prescription opioid abuse in 2001 in the United States was approximately $8.6 billion and medical expenses were estimated to be $15,884 for opioid abusers and $1,830 for nonabusers. A search was conducted for English publications on the cost of prescription opioid abuse and misuse from 2009 to 2014. The initial literature search identified 5,412 citations. Title and abstract review selected 59 for further review. The final review process resulted in 16 publications for inclusion that examined cost from the payer perspective. Mean costs to the payer for abusers were $23,000-$25,000 per year and excess costs approximately $15,000 per patient. Three papers were identified that presented societal costs, including direct and indirect costs such as criminal justice costs and costs associated with lost productivity. The strongest evidence suggests that societal cost is in excess of $50 billion per year in the United States. Prescription opioid abuse and misuse is a common and important problem throughout the world that has significant associated societal costs and excess medical costs.


Asunto(s)
Costo de Enfermedad , Costos de la Atención en Salud , Trastornos Relacionados con Opioides/economía , Mal Uso de Medicamentos de Venta con Receta/economía , Humanos , Estados Unidos
SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA
...