RESUMEN
No disponible
Asunto(s)
Humanos , Masculino , Femenino , Adulto , Persona de Mediana Edad , Anciano , Síndromes de la Apnea del Sueño/terapia , Presión de las Vías Aéreas Positiva Contínua/métodos , Telemedicina/métodos , Infecciones por Coronavirus/fisiopatología , Neumonía Viral/fisiopatología , Telemedicina/tendencias , Pandemias , Betacoronavirus , Cumplimiento y Adherencia al Tratamiento , Presión de las Vías Aéreas Positiva Contínua/economía , Análisis Costo-BeneficioRESUMEN
No disponible
Asunto(s)
Humanos , Publicaciones Periódicas como Asunto/tendencias , Salud Pública/tendencias , Colaboración Intersectorial , España , Conducta CooperativaAsunto(s)
Publicaciones Periódicas como Asunto , Salud Pública , Conducta Cooperativa , Objetivos , Historia del Siglo XIX , Historia del Siglo XX , Historia del Siglo XXI , Humanos , Difusión de la Información , Internet , Publicaciones Periódicas como Asunto/historia , Salud Pública/historia , Edición/historia , Edición/tendencias , EspañaRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Obesity hypoventilation syndrome (OHS) is treated with either non-invasive ventilation (NIV) or CPAP, but there are no long-term cost-effectiveness studies comparing the two treatment modalities. OBJECTIVES: We performed a large, multicentre, randomised, open-label controlled study to determine the comparative long-term cost and effectiveness of NIV versus CPAP in patients with OHS with severe obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA) using hospitalisation days as the primary outcome measure. METHODS: Hospital resource utilisation and within trial costs were evaluated against the difference in effectiveness based on the primary outcome (hospitalisation days/year, transformed and non-transformed in monetary term). Costs and effectiveness were estimated from a log-normal distribution using a Bayesian approach. A secondary analysis by adherence subgroups was performed. RESULTS: In total, 363 patients were selected, 215 were randomised and 202 were available for the analysis. The median (IQR) follow-up was 3.01 (2.91-3.14) years for NIV group and 3.00 (2.92-3.17) years for CPAP. The mean (SD) Bayesian estimated hospital days was 2.13 (0.73) for CPAP and 1.89 (0.78) for NIV. The mean (SD) Bayesian estimated cost per patient/year in the NIV arm, excluding hospitalisation costs, was 2075.98 (91.6), which was higher than the cost in the CPAP arm of 1219.06 (52.3); mean difference 857.6 (105.5). CPAP was more cost-effective than NIV (99.5% probability) because longer hospital stay in the CPAP arm was compensated for by its lower costs. Similar findings were observed in the high and low adherence subgroups. CONCLUSION: CPAP is more cost-effective than NIV; therefore, CPAP should be the preferred treatment for patients with OHS with severe OSA. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01405976.
Asunto(s)
Presión de las Vías Aéreas Positiva Contínua/economía , Análisis Costo-Beneficio , Síndrome de Hipoventilación por Obesidad/terapia , Anciano , Teorema de Bayes , Femenino , Humanos , Tiempo de Internación/estadística & datos numéricos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Ventilación no Invasiva , Síndrome de Hipoventilación por Obesidad/fisiopatología , Polisomnografía , Índice de Severidad de la Enfermedad , España , EspirometríaRESUMEN
No disponible
Asunto(s)
Humanos , Eficiencia , Sistemas de Evaluación de las Publicaciones , Publicaciones Periódicas como Asunto/normas , Políticas Editoriales , Indicadores de Producción Científica , Acceso a la InformaciónRESUMEN
Peer review in the scientific publication is widely used as a method to identify valuable knowledge. Editors have the task of selecting appropriate reviewers. We assessed the reasons given by potential reviewers for declining a request to review, and the factors associated with acceptance, taking into account the difference in the sex of the reviewer. This is a descriptive study of the review requests from a public health journal (Gaceta Sanitaria) with an enforced gender policy. The dependent variables were requests, response to requests, reasons potential reviewers gave for declining requests and time to review. We carried out a descriptive analysis of these indicators and applied logistic regression to analyze factors (professional and research/review experience) associated with having done at least one review in 2014-2015. Results were stratified by sex. Journal editors sent 1,775 requests to 773 potential reviewers; 52.3% of whom reviewed at least one manuscript. Of the 396 declined requests (22.3%), the most common reasons were lack of time and of experience (88.1%). No differences were observed by sex. In the multivariate analysis, having reviewed for the journal in previous years showed the strongest association with acceptance. Specific analyses of data on requests reviewers may be useful for improving the acceptance rates to review. This study did not show gender differences in several indicators of the reviewing process.
Asunto(s)
Revisión de la Investigación por Pares/normas , Publicaciones Periódicas como Asunto/estadística & datos numéricos , Publicaciones Periódicas como Asunto/normas , Salud Pública , Políticas Editoriales , Humanos , Profesionalismo , Investigación Cualitativa , Factores Sexuales , Sexismo/estadística & datos numéricos , España , Factores de TiempoRESUMEN
No disponible
Asunto(s)
Humanos , Investigación Biomédica/tendencias , Gestión del Conocimiento , Difusión de la Información , Salud Pública/tendencias , Conducta Cooperativa , Publicaciones Periódicas como Asunto/tendenciasRESUMEN
No disponible
Asunto(s)
Humanos , Publicaciones Periódicas como Asunto/tendencias , Políticas Editoriales , Gestión de la Información en Salud/organización & administraciónRESUMEN
No disponible
Asunto(s)
Humanos , Publicaciones Periódicas como Asunto/estadística & datos numéricos , 50230 , Atención a la Salud/estadística & datos numéricos , Factor de Impacto de la RevistaRESUMEN
No disponible
Asunto(s)
Humanos , Edición , Publicaciones Periódicas como Asunto , Salud Pública , EspañaRESUMEN
No disponible
