Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 5 de 5
Filtrar
1.
J Craniofac Surg ; 34(1): 83-91, 2023.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35968948

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: To identify key recommendations for maximizing the efficiency and efficacy of perioperative care in transsphenoidal pituitary surgery. METHODS: The authors performed a comprehensive literature search of Enhanced Recovery After Surgery protocols implemented for patients undergoing transsphenoidal adenomectomy (TSA); individual recommendations were abstracted, and the evidence base thoroughly reviewed. RESULTS: The authors identified 19 individual recommendations pertinent to the care of patients undergoing TSA, which were subdivided into preoperative (n=6), intraoperative (n=6), and postoperative (n=7) interventions. Key factors recommended for minimizing length of stay, preventing readmission, and improving patient outcomes included comprehensive patient education, multidisciplinary evaluation, avoidance of routine lumbar drain placement and nasal packing, and rigorous postoperative monitoring of pituitary function and salt-water imbalances. The overall level of evidence for 7/19 (37%) implemented recommendations was found to be low, suggesting a need for continued research in this patient population. CONCLUSION: Several key interventions should be considered in the development of Enhanced Recovery After Surgery protocols for TSA, which may aid in further decreasing length of stay and promoting positive patient outcomes.


Asunto(s)
Recuperación Mejorada Después de la Cirugía , Enfermedades de la Hipófisis , Neoplasias Hipofisarias , Humanos , Neoplasias Hipofisarias/cirugía , Hipófisis/cirugía , Atención Perioperativa , Complicaciones Posoperatorias/prevención & control , Complicaciones Posoperatorias/epidemiología
2.
Braz. j. otorhinolaryngol. (Impr.) ; Braz. j. otorhinolaryngol. (Impr.);88(4): 625-632, July-Aug. 2022. tab, graf
Artículo en Inglés | LILACS-Express | LILACS | ID: biblio-1394140

RESUMEN

Abstract Objective: Several clinical practice guidelines have been produced and disseminated for the evaluation of a neck mass. However, to date, the quality and methodologic rigor of these clinical practice guidelines have not been appraised. Therefore, this study set out to identify and assess the methodologic quality of national and international guidelines for the evaluation and management of neck masses in adults. Methods: We conducted a comprehensive search of EMBASE, MEDLINE/PubMed, SCOPUS and grey literature sources until September 2020. The quality of these guidelines was assessed by four reviewers using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation, 2nd edition (AGREE II). Domain scores were considered acceptable quality if they scored >60%, and Intraclass Correlation Coefficients (ICC) were calculated to assess agreement among the appraisers. Results: Seven guidelines were assessed for evaluation. Among these, only the American Academy of Otolaryngology (AAO), Cancer Care Manitoba (CCMB), and the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) achieved an overall rating of ‟high". The remaining four guidelines achieved ratings of either ‟average" or ‟low". The ‟Scope and Purpose" domain achieved the highest mean score (94.4%±5.0%), and lowest was ‟Applicability" (51.5%±29.2%). ICC analysis showed substantial to very good agreement across all domains (0.75-0.98). Conclusion: These findings highlight the variability in methodologic quality of guidelines for the evaluation and management of adult neck mass. The results from this analysis highlight the need to improve guidelines development process for this topic and may guide the selection and use of these guidelines in clinical practice.


Resumo Introdução: Várias diretrizes de práticas clínicas foram produzidas e divulgadas para a avaliação de massa cervical. Porém, até o momento, a qualidade e o rigor metodológico dessas diretrizes de práticas clínicas não foram avaliados. Objetivo: Identificar e avaliar a qualidade metodológica das diretrizes nacionais e internacionais para a avaliação e tratamento de massas cervicais em adultos. Método: Fizemos uma pesquisa abrangente das fontes de dados Embase, Medline/PubMed, Scopus e literatura cinza até setembro de 2020. A qualidade dessas diretrizes foi avaliada por quatro revisores com a 2a edição do Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE II). Os escores dos domínios foram considerados de qualidade aceitável se pontuassem >60% e os coeficientes de correlação intraclasse (Intraclass correlation coefficient - ICC) foram calculados para avaliar a concordância entre os avaliadores. Resultados: Sete diretrizes foram investigadas para avaliação. Entre elas, apenas a American Academy of Otolaryngology (AAO), o Cancer Care Manitoba (CCMB) e a American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) obtiveram uma classificação geral ‟alta". As quatro diretrizes restantes obtiveram classificações ‟media" ou ‟baixa". O domínio ‟Escopo e objetivo'" obteve o maior escore médio (94,4% ± 5,0%) e o domínio ‟Aplicabilidade" obteve o menor escore (51,5%±29,2%). A análise ICC mostrou concordância substancial a muito boa em todos os domínios (0,75-0,98). Conclusão: Esses achados destacam a variabilidade na qualidade metodológica das diretrizes para avaliação e tratamento de massa cervical em adultos. Os resultados dessa análise destacam a necessidade de melhorar o processo de desenvolvimento de diretrizes para esse tópico e podem orientar a seleção e o uso dessas diretrizes na prática clínica.

3.
Pain Manag Nurs ; 23(4): 411-417, 2022 08.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35305935

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Several clinical practice guidelines (CPGs), consensus statements, and recommendations currently exist for the diagnosis and management of breakthrough cancer pain (BTcP). These documents have considerable variability amongst them, and to date, their quality and methodologic rigor have not been appraised. AIM: We aim to identify and perform a quality appraisal of CPGs for the diagnosis and management of BTcP using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE II) tool. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was performed in MEDLINE (via PubMed), EMBASE, and SCOPUS databases up until January 1, 2021. Four reviewers independently evaluated each guideline using the AGREE II instrument. Scaled domain scores were generated and the threshold used for satisfactory quality was >60%. Additionally, intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) were calculated to determine level of agreement between reviewers. RESULTS: Eleven guidelines were selected for final evaluation based on inclusion/exclusion criteria. Only one guideline was classified of "average" quality while the rest were classified as "low" quality. The "Editorial Independence" (70.46 ± 35.7) and "Scope and Purpose" (64.78 ± 12.5) domains received the highest mean scores, while the "Applicability" (32.58 ± 13.5) and "Rigor of Development" (35.04 ± 9.0) domains received the lowest mean scores. ICC statistical analysis showed high magnitude of agreement between reviewers with a range of (0.790-0.988). CONCLUSIONS: Reflecting upon our quality appraisal, it is evident that the quality and methodologic rigor of BTcP guidelines can be improved upon in the future. Our findings also elucidate the existing variability/discrepancies among guidelines in diagnostic criteria and management of BTcP.


Asunto(s)
Dolor Irruptivo , Dolor en Cáncer , Neoplasias , Dolor Irruptivo/diagnóstico , Dolor Irruptivo/tratamiento farmacológico , Dolor en Cáncer/terapia , Bases de Datos Factuales , Humanos , Neoplasias/complicaciones , Guías de Práctica Clínica como Asunto
4.
Braz J Otorhinolaryngol ; 88(4): 625-632, 2022.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33879419

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: Several clinical practice guidelines have been produced and disseminated for the evaluation of a neck mass. However, to date, the quality and methodologic rigor of these clinical practice guidelines have not been appraised. Therefore, this study set out to identify and assess the methodologic quality of national and international guidelines for the evaluation and management of neck masses in adults. METHODS: We conducted a comprehensive search of EMBASE, MEDLINE/PubMed, SCOPUS and grey literature sources until September 2020. The quality of these guidelines was assessed by four reviewers using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation, 2nd edition (AGREE II). Domain scores were considered acceptable quality if they scored >60%, and Intraclass Correlation Coefficients (ICC) were calculated to assess agreement among the appraisers. RESULTS: Seven guidelines were assessed for evaluation. Among these, only the American Academy of Otolaryngology (AAO), Cancer Care Manitoba (CCMB), and the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) achieved an overall rating of "high". The remaining four guidelines achieved ratings of either "average" or "low". The "Scope and Purpose" domain achieved the highest mean score (94.4%±5.0%), and lowest was "Applicability" (51.5%±29.2%). ICC analysis showed substantial to very good agreement across all domains (0.75-0.98). CONCLUSION: These findings highlight the variability in methodologic quality of guidelines for the evaluation and management of adult neck mass. The results from this analysis highlight the need to improve guidelines development process for this topic and may guide the selection and use of these guidelines in clinical practice.


Asunto(s)
Academias e Institutos , Faringe , Adulto , Humanos , Estados Unidos
5.
Am J Otolaryngol ; 41(6): 102694, 2020.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32854041

RESUMEN

PURPOSE: Head and neck surgeons are among the highest risk for COVID-19 exposure, which also brings great risk to their mental wellbeing. In this study, we aim to evaluate mental health symptoms among head and neck surgeons in Brazil surrounding the time it was declared the epicenter of the virus. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A cross-sectional, survey-based study evaluating burnout, anxiety, distress, and depression among head and neck surgeons in Brazil, assessed through the single-item Mini-Z burnout assessment, 7-item Generalized Anxiety Disorder scale, 22-item Impact of Event Scale-Revised, and 2-item Patient Health Questionnaire, respectively. RESULTS: 163 physicians completed the survey (74.2% males). Anxiety, distress, burnout, and depression symptoms were reported in 74 (45.5%), 43 (26.3%), 24 (14.7%), and 26 (16.0%) physicians, respectively. On multivariable analysis, female physicians were more likely to report a positive screening for burnout compared to males (OR 2.88, CI [1.07-7.74]). Physicians 45 years or older were less likely to experience anxiety symptoms than those younger than 45 years (OR 0.40, CI [0.20-0.81]). Physicians with no self-reported prior psychiatric conditions were less likely to have symptoms of distress compared to those with such history (OR 0.11, CI [0.33-0.38]). CONCLUSION: Head and neck surgeons in Brazil reported symptoms of burnout, anxiety, distress and depression during our study period within the COVID-19 pandemic. Institutions should monitor these symptoms throughout the pandemic. Further study is required to assess the long-term implications for physician wellness.


Asunto(s)
Ansiedad/epidemiología , Agotamiento Profesional/epidemiología , Infecciones por Coronavirus/epidemiología , Depresión/epidemiología , Estrés Laboral/epidemiología , Otorrinolaringólogos/psicología , Neumonía Viral/epidemiología , Cirujanos/psicología , Adulto , Factores de Edad , Anciano , Betacoronavirus , Brasil/epidemiología , COVID-19 , Estudios Transversales , Femenino , Humanos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Pandemias , SARS-CoV-2 , Factores Sexuales , Estrés Psicológico/epidemiología , Encuestas y Cuestionarios
SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA