Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 4 de 4
Mais filtros

Base de dados
Intervalo de ano de publicação
BMJ ; 370: m2980, 2020 07 30.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32732190


OBJECTIVE: To compare the effects of treatments for coronavirus disease 2019 (covid-19). DESIGN: Living systematic review and network meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: WHO covid-19 database, a comprehensive multilingual source of global covid-19 literature, up to 1 March 2021 and six additional Chinese databases up to 20 February 2021. Studies identified as of 12 February 2021 were included in the analysis. STUDY SELECTION: Randomised clinical trials in which people with suspected, probable, or confirmed covid-19 were randomised to drug treatment or to standard care or placebo. Pairs of reviewers independently screened potentially eligible articles. METHODS: After duplicate data abstraction, a bayesian network meta-analysis was conducted. Risk of bias of the included studies was assessed using a modification of the Cochrane risk of bias 2.0 tool, and the certainty of the evidence using the grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation (GRADE) approach. For each outcome, interventions were classified in groups from the most to the least beneficial or harmful following GRADE guidance. RESULTS: 196 trials enrolling 76 767 patients were included; 111 (56.6%) trials and 35 098 (45.72%) patients are new from the previous iteration; 113 (57.7%) trials evaluating treatments with at least 100 patients or 20 events met the threshold for inclusion in the analyses. Compared with standard care, corticosteroids probably reduce death (risk difference 20 fewer per 1000 patients, 95% credible interval 36 fewer to 3 fewer, moderate certainty), mechanical ventilation (25 fewer per 1000, 44 fewer to 1 fewer, moderate certainty), and increase the number of days free from mechanical ventilation (2.6 more, 0.3 more to 5.0 more, moderate certainty). Interleukin-6 inhibitors probably reduce mechanical ventilation (30 fewer per 1000, 46 fewer to 10 fewer, moderate certainty) and may reduce length of hospital stay (4.3 days fewer, 8.1 fewer to 0.5 fewer, low certainty), but whether or not they reduce mortality is uncertain (15 fewer per 1000, 30 fewer to 6 more, low certainty). Janus kinase inhibitors may reduce mortality (50 fewer per 1000, 84 fewer to no difference, low certainty), mechanical ventilation (46 fewer per 1000, 74 fewer to 5 fewer, low certainty), and duration of mechanical ventilation (3.8 days fewer, 7.5 fewer to 0.1 fewer, moderate certainty). The impact of remdesivir on mortality and most other outcomes is uncertain. The effects of ivermectin were rated as very low certainty for all critical outcomes, including mortality. In patients with non-severe disease, colchicine may reduce mortality (78 fewer per 1000, 110 fewer to 9 fewer, low certainty) and mechanical ventilation (57 fewer per 1000, 90 fewer to 3 more, low certainty). Azithromycin, hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir-ritonavir, and interferon-beta do not appear to reduce risk of death or have an effect on any other patient-important outcome. The certainty in effects for all other interventions was low or very low. CONCLUSION: Corticosteroids and interleukin-6 inhibitors probably confer important benefits in patients with severe covid-19. Janus kinase inhibitors appear to have promising benefits, but certainty is low. Azithromycin, hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir-ritonavir, and interferon-beta do not appear to have any important benefits. Whether or not remdesivir, ivermectin, and other drugs confer any patient-important benefit remains uncertain. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: This review was not registered. The protocol is publicly available in the supplementary material. READERS' NOTE: This article is a living systematic review that will be updated to reflect emerging evidence. Updates may occur for up to two years from the date of original publication. This is the fourth version of the original article published on 30 July 2020 (BMJ 2020;370:m2980), and previous versions can be found as data supplements. When citing this paper please consider adding the version number and date of access for clarity.

Antivirais/uso terapêutico , Betacoronavirus/isolamento & purificação , Infecções por Coronavirus/terapia , Pneumonia Viral/terapia , Respiração Artificial/estatística & dados numéricos , Monofosfato de Adenosina/análogos & derivados , Monofosfato de Adenosina/uso terapêutico , Alanina/análogos & derivados , Alanina/uso terapêutico , Betacoronavirus/patogenicidade , COVID-19 , Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S./estatística & dados numéricos , China/epidemiologia , Infecções por Coronavirus/diagnóstico , Infecções por Coronavirus/tratamento farmacológico , Infecções por Coronavirus/mortalidade , Infecções por Coronavirus/virologia , Bases de Dados Factuais/estatística & dados numéricos , Combinação de Medicamentos , Medicina Baseada em Evidências/métodos , Medicina Baseada em Evidências/estatística & dados numéricos , Glucocorticoides/uso terapêutico , Humanos , Hidroxicloroquina/uso terapêutico , Lopinavir/uso terapêutico , Metanálise em Rede , Pandemias , Pneumonia Viral/diagnóstico , Pneumonia Viral/mortalidade , Pneumonia Viral/virologia , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto , Ritonavir/uso terapêutico , SARS-CoV-2 , Índice de Gravidade de Doença , Padrão de Cuidado , Resultado do Tratamento , Estados Unidos/epidemiologia
BMJ Open ; 9(10): e028781, 2019 10 18.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31630100


OBJECTIVES: Scientific literacy is assumed necessary for appraising the reliability of health claims. Using a national science achievement test, we explored whether students located at the lower quartile on the latent trait (scientific literacy) scale were likely to identify a health claim in a fictitious brief news report, and whether students located at or above the upper quartile were likely to additionally request information relevant for appraising that claim. DESIGN: Secondary analysis of cross-sectional survey data. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: 2229 Norwegian 10th grade students (50% females) from 97 randomly sampled lower secondary schools who performed the test during April-May 2013. OUTCOME MEASURES: Using Rasch modelling, we linked item difficulty and student proficiency in science to locate the proficiencies associated with different percentiles on the latent trait scale. Estimates of students' proficiency, the difficulty of identifying the claim and the difficulty of making at least one request for information to appraise that claim, were reported in logits. RESULTS: Students who reached the lower quartile (located at -0.5 logits) on the scale were not likely to identify the health claim as their proficiency was below the difficulty estimate of that task (0.0 logits). Students who reached the upper quartile (located at 1.4 logits) were likely to identify the health claim but barely proficient at making one request for information (task difficulty located at 1.5 logits). Even those who performed at or above the 90th percentile typically made only one request for information, predominantly methodological aspects. CONCLUSIONS: When interpreting the skill to request relevant information as expressing students' proficiency in critical appraisal of health claims, we found that only students with very high proficiency in science possessed that skill. There is a need for teachers, healthcare professionals and researchers to collaborate to create learning resources for developing these lifelong learning skills.

Publicidade , Letramento em Saúde , Meios de Comunicação de Massa , Estudantes , Adolescente , Estudos Transversais , Feminino , Humanos , Masculino , Noruega , Instituições Acadêmicas , Inquéritos e Questionários
Int J Technol Assess Health Care ; 28(1): 44-51, 2012 Jan.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-22617736


OBJECTIVES: Telemedicine applications could potentially solve many of the challenges faced by the healthcare sectors in Europe. However, a framework for assessment of these technologies is need by decision makers to assist them in choosing the most efficient and cost-effective technologies. Therefore in 2009 the European Commission initiated the development of a framework for assessing telemedicine applications, based on the users' need for information for decision making. This article presents the Model for ASsessment of Telemedicine applications (MAST) developed in this study. METHODS: MAST was developed through workshops with users and stakeholders of telemedicine. RESULTS: Based on the workshops and using the EUnetHTA Core HTA Model as a starting point a three-element model was developed, including: (i) preceding considerations, (ii) multidisciplinary assessment, and (iii) transferability assessment. In the multidisciplinary assessment, the outcomes of telemedicine applications comprise seven domains, based on the domains in the EUnetHTA model. CONCLUSIONS: MAST provides a structure for future assessment of telemedicine applications. MAST will be tested during 2010-13 in twenty studies of telemedicine applications in nine European countries in the EC project Renewing Health.

Modelos Organizacionais , Software , Avaliação da Tecnologia Biomédica/métodos , Telemedicina/métodos , Tomada de Decisões , Atenção à Saúde , Educação , Europa (Continente) , Humanos , Desenvolvimento de Programas , Qualidade da Assistência à Saúde , Avaliação da Tecnologia Biomédica/economia , Avaliação da Tecnologia Biomédica/organização & administração , Telemedicina/economia , Telemedicina/organização & administração