[Use of health services for immigrants and native population: a systematic review]. / Frecuentación de las consultas de medicina general y especializada por población inmigrante y autóctona: una revisión sistemática.

BACKGROUND: Spain was among the top immigration destinations globally between 1990 and 2005, becoming in 2006 in the European country with the highest net migration. As a result of the migration process and the living conditions in the host countries, immigrants' health may be affected. Limited research has investigated access and use of health services for this population. The aim of this study was to describe the scientific evidence on the use of general and specialist medical services for the immigrant population compared to the native. METHODS: Systematic review. It has carried out a search of the national and international scientific literature of comparative studies on the use of general and specialist medical services among immigrant and native since 1994-2013. It was used the MEDLINE database as well as a manual search, no language limit or type of study. The methodological quality of the 29 studies included was evaluated. Subject, context, methodological and extrinsic characteristics were collected for comparison of the included studies. RESULTS: We selected 29 studies on the general practitioners' (9 from Spain) and 15 of specialist physician (7 from Spain), they mainly used health surveys as a source of information. Analyze both the attendance and contact with the general practitioner / specialist by nationality or country of birth (among others), mostly by adjusting variables of need and / or socioeconomic. CONCLUSION: Overall, the immigrant population in Spain have a similar use of general medical services than the native population, and less or similar use of the specialist physician services. These results are in line with studies in other countries.

Frecuentación de las consultas de medicina general y especializada por población inmigrante y autóctona: una revisión sistemática / Use of health services for immigrants and native population: a systematic review

Fundamentos: España pasó a ser en 2006 el país europeo con mayor saldo migratorio. Un aspecto poco estudiado es el acceso y utilización de los servicios sanitarios de esta población. El objetivo de este estudio fue describir la evidencia científica sobre si existen diferencias en la utilización de los servicios de medicina general y especializada entre la población inmigrante con respecto a la autóctona. Métodos: Revisión sistemática. Se llevó a cabo una búsqueda de la literatura científica nacional e internacional de estudios que comparaban la utilización de los servicios de medicina general y especializada entre inmigrantes y autóctonos desde 1994 hasta 2013. Se utilizó para ello la base de datos MEDLINE además de una búsqueda manual, sin límite de lengua ni tipo de estudio. Se evaluó la calidad metodológica de los 29 trabajos finalmente incluidos. Se recopilaron características de los sujetos, del contexto, metodológicas y extrínsecas para comparar los estudios incluidos. Resultados: Se seleccionaron 29 estudios relativos a consulta de medicina general (9 realizados en España) y 15 sobre consulta a especialistas (7 de España) los cuales utilizan principalmente las encuestas de salud como fuente de información. Analizaron tanto la frecuentación como el contacto con el médico general y/o especialista según la nacionalidad o el país de nacimiento (entre otros), ajustando en su mayoría por variables de necesidad y/o socioeconómica. Conclusiones: En líneas generales, en España la población inmigrante hace el mismo uso de los servicios de medicina general que la autóctona y un menor o igual uso de los servicios de medicina especializada. Los resultados de los estudios realizados en otros países van en la misma línea (AU)

Background: Spain was among the top immigration destinations globally between 1990 and 2005, becoming in 2006 in the European country with the highest net migration. As a result of the migration process and the living conditions in the host countries, immigrants' health may be affected. Limited research has investigated access and use of health services for this population. The aim of this study was to describe the scientific evidence on the use of general and specialist medical services for the immigrant population compared to the native. Methods: Systematic review. It has carried out a search of the national and international scientific literature of comparative studies on the use of general and specialist medical services among immigrant and native since 1994-2013. It was used the MEDLINE database as well as a manual search, no language limit or type of study. The methodological quality of the 29 studies included was evaluated. Subject, context, methodological and extrinsic characteristics were collected for comparison of the included studies. Results: We selected 29 studies on the general practitioners' (9 from Spain) and 15 of specialist physician (7 from Spain), they mainly used health surveys as a source of information. Analyze both the attendance and contact with the general practitioner / specialist by nationality or country of birth (among others), mostly by adjusting variables of need and / or socioeconomic. Conclusion: Overall, the immigrant population in Spain have a similar use of general medical services than the native population, and less or similar use of the specialist physician services. These results are in line with studies in other countries (AU)

Guía de uso de ClinicalTrials.gov

Guía de recursos de información de la Axencia de Avaliación de Tecnoloxías Sanitarias de Galicia que contiene una descripción de la base de datos, cómo buscar información y visualización de resultados.

[Effectiveness of spinal manipulation in treating whiplash injuries]. / Efectividad de las técnicas de manipulación espinal en la "lesión por latigazo" (whiplash).

OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy of spinal manipulation treatments in patients with whiplash injuries. DESIGN: Systematic review. DATA SOURCES: A systematic search was conducted between January 2000 and May 2006 in CINAHL, the Cochrane Library, EMBASE, MEDLINE, CRD (Center for Reviews and Dissemination), Spanish Index Medicus, and PEDro. Reports of Physiotherapy congresses between 2000 and 2005 were reviewed. INCLUSION CRITERIA: studies of patients with whiplash injuries who were treated with spinal manipulations, either exclusively or combined with other therapies. Outcomes were expressed in at least one of the following: pain, global perceived effect or range of movement (ROM). Only 9 of the first screening (290) were analyzed. DATA EXTRACTION: The studies were independently selected by 2 reviewers. Methodological quality was assessed on the basis of the recommendations of the Agency for Health Technology Evaluation. The lack of data and their heterogeneity made any statistical analysis impossible. RESULTS: Of the 9 studies analyzed, 7 were systematic reviews and 2 were primary studies. No review showed evidence of the efficacy of spinal manipulations versus other therapies. The results were often explained vaguely and inadequately. CONCLUSIONS: There is not enough evidence to suggest that spinal manipulation is an effective treatment for whiplash. Though in the short term it seems to improve pain, any long-term benefit or clinical or economic advantages versus conventional therapies could not be determined.

Efectividad de las técnicas de manipulación espinal en la «lesión por latigazo» (whiplash) / Effectiveness of spinal manipulation in treating whiplash injuries

Objetivo. Evaluar la eficacia de las manipulaciones espinales en pacientes con «síndrome del latigazo cervical» (whiplash) (SLC). Diseño. Revisión sistemática. Fuentes de datos. Búsqueda sistemática desde enero de 2000 hasta mayo de 2006 en: CINAHL, The Cochrane Library, EMBASE, MEDLINE, Centre for Reviews and Dissemination Index Medicus, PEDro y libros de ponencias de congresos de fisioterapia desde 2000 hasta 2005. Selección de estudios. Criterios de inclusión: estudios de pacientes con SLC y tratamiento basado en manipulaciones espinales exclusivas o combinadas con otras técnicas. Los resultados debían expresarse en al menos uno de los siguientes términos: dolor, efecto general percibido o amplitud de movimientos. Extracción de datos. Los artículos fueron seleccionados por 2 revisores de forma independiente. El análisis de la calidad metodológica se realizó siguiendo las recomendaciones de la Agencia de Evaluación de Tecnologías Sanitarias. La escasez y variedad de los datos encontrados imposibilitaron su análisis estadístico. Resultados. De 290 documentos encontrados se analizaron 9: 7 eran revisiones y 2, estudios primarios. En general, ninguna de las revisiones mostraba pruebas de que las técnicas manipulativas fueran más efectivas que otros tratamientos. La exposición de los resultados era en muchos casos vaga y defectuosa. Conclusiones. No se han encontrado pruebas suficiente de que las manipulaciones espinales sean un tratamiento efectivo del SLC. Aunque parece que a corto plazo produce una mejoría del dolor, no se puede confirmar su evolución a largo plazo, ni sus ventajas clínicas o económicas frente a los tratamientos convencionales

Objective. To assess the efficacy of spinal manipulation treatments in patients with whiplash injuries. Design. Systematic review. Data sources. A systematic search was conducted between January 2000 and May 2006 in CINAHL, the Cochrane Library, EMBASE, MEDLINE, CRD (Center for Reviews and Dissemination), Spanish Index Medicus, and PEDro. Reports of Physiotherapy congresses between 2000 and 2005 were reviewed. Study selection. Inclusion criteria: studies of patients with whiplash injuries who were treated with spinal manipulations, either exclusively or combined with other therapies. Outcomes were expressed in at least one of the following: pain, global perceived effect or range of movement (ROM). Only 9 of the first screening (290) were analyzed. Data extraction. The studies were independently selected by 2 reviewers. Methodological quality was assessed on the basis of the recommendations of the Agency for Health Technology Evaluation. The lack of data and their heterogeneity made any statistical analysis impossible. Results. Of the 9 studies analyzed, 7 were systematic reviews and 2 were primary studies. No review showed evidence of the efficacy of spinal manipulations versus other therapies. The results were often explained vaguely and inadequately. Conclusions. There is not enough evidence to suggest that spinal manipulation is an effective treatment for whiplash. Though in the short term it seems to improve pain, any long-term benefit or clinical or economic advantages versus conventional therapies could not be determined