Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 6 de 6
Mais filtros

Base de dados
Intervalo de ano de publicação
BMJ Open ; 8(9): e023097, 2018 09 17.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30224395


INTRODUCTION: Atopic dermatitis is a complex disease with differing clinical presentations. Many attempts have been made to identify uniform subtypes, or phenotypes, of atopic dermatitis in order to identify different aetiologies, improve diagnosis, estimate more accurate clinical prognoses, inform treatment andmanagement or predict treatment efficacy andeffectiveness. However, no consensus yet exists on exactly what defines these phenotypes or how many there are and whether they are genuine or statistical artefacts. This review aims to identify previously reported phenotypes of atopic dermatitis, the features used to define them and any characteristics or clinical outcomes significantly associated with them. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will search Ovid Embase, Ovid MEDLINE and Web of Science from inception to the latest available date at the time of the search for studies attempting to classify atopic dermatitis in humans using any cross-sectional or longitudinal epidemiological or interventional design. Primary outcomes are atopic dermatitis phenotypes, features used to define them and characteristics associated with them in subsequent analyses. A secondary outcome is the methodological approach used to derive them. Two reviewers will independently screen titles and abstracts for inclusion, extract data and assess study quality. We will present the results of this review descriptively and with frequencies where possible. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval is not required for this study as it is a systematic review. We will report results from this systematic review in a peer-reviewed journal. The main value of this study will be to inform further research. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42018087500.

Dermatite Atópica/classificação , Revisão Sistemática como Assunto , Humanos , Fenótipo , Prognóstico , Projetos de Pesquisa
Ecohealth ; 15(1): 209-227, 2018 03.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-29330676


Having gained momentum in the last decade, the One Health initiative promotes a holistic approach to address complex global health issues. Before recommending its adoption to stakeholders, however, it is paramount to first compile quantitative evidence of the benefit of such an approach. The aim of this scoping review was to identify and summarize primary research that describes monetary and non-monetary outcomes following adoption of a One Health approach. An extensive literature search yielded a total of 42,167 references, of which 85 were included in the final analysis. The top two biotic health issues addressed in these studies were rabies and malaria; the top abiotic health issue was air pollution. Most studies described collaborations between human and animal (n = 42), or human and environmental disciplines (n = 41); commonly reported interventions included vector control and animal vaccination. Monetary outcomes were commonly expressed as cost-benefit or cost-utility ratios; non-monetary outcomes were described using disease frequency or disease burden measurements. The majority of the studies reported positive or partially positive outcomes. This paper illustrates the variety of health challenges that can be addressed using a One Health approach, and provides tangible quantitative measures that can be used to evaluate future implementations of the One Health approach.

Saúde Ambiental/organização & administração , Saúde Única , Pesquisa/organização & administração , Saúde Ambiental/economia , Saúde Ambiental/normas , Prática Clínica Baseada em Evidências , Relações Interprofissionais , Pesquisa/normas
BMC Vet Res ; 9: 121, 2013 Jun 19.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-23777563


BACKGROUND: There are a number of different methods that can be used when estimating the size of the owned cat and dog population in a region, leading to varying population estimates. The aim of this study was to conduct a systematic review to evaluate the methods that have been used for estimating the sizes of owned cat and dog populations and to assess the biases associated with those methods.A comprehensive, systematic search of seven electronic bibliographic databases and the Google search engine was carried out using a range of different search terms for cats, dogs and population. The inclusion criteria were that the studies had involved owned or pet domestic dogs and/or cats, provided an estimate of the size of the owned dog or cat population, collected raw data on dog and cat ownership, and analysed primary data. Data relating to study methodology were extracted and assessed for biases. RESULTS: Seven papers were included in the final analysis. Collection methods used to select participants in the included studies were: mailed surveys using a commercial list of contacts, door to door surveys, random digit dialled telephone surveys, and randomised telephone surveys using a commercial list of numbers. Analytical and statistical methods used to estimate the pet population size were: mean number of dogs/cats per household multiplied by the number of households in an area, human density multiplied by number of dogs per human, and calculations using predictors of pet ownership. CONCLUSION: The main biases of the studies included selection bias, non-response bias, measurement bias and biases associated with length of sampling time. Careful design and planning of studies is a necessity before executing a study to estimate pet populations.

Gatos , Cães , Animais de Estimação , Animais , Viés , Métodos Epidemiológicos/veterinária , Humanos , Propriedade/estatística & dados numéricos
PLoS One ; 8(3): e58484, 2013.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-23505516


BACKGROUND: Many research studies have been published on atopic eczema and these are often summarised in systematic reviews (SRs). Identifying SRs can be time-consuming for health professionals, and researchers. In order to facilitate the identification of important research, we have compiled an on-line resource that includes all relevant eczema reviews published since 2000. METHODS: SRs were searched for in MEDLINE (Ovid), EMBASE (Ovid), PubMed, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, DARE and NHS Evidence. Selected SRs were assessed against the pre-defined eligibility criteria and relevant articles were grouped by treatment category for the included interventions. All identified systematic reviews are included in the Global Resource of EczemA Trials (GREAT) database ( and key clinical messages are summarised here. RESULTS: A total of 128 SRs reviews were identified, including three clinical guidelines. Of these, 46 (36%) were found in the Cochrane Library. No single database contained all of the SRs found. The number of SRs published per year has increased substantially over the last thirteen years, and reviews were published in a variety of clinical journals. Of the 128 SRs, 1 (1%) was on mechanism, 37 (29%) were on epidemiology, 40 (31%) were on eczema prevention, 29 (23%) were on topical treatments, 31 (24%) were on systemic treatments, and 24 (19%) were on other treatments. All SRs included searches of MEDLINE in their search methods. One hundred six SRs (83%) searched more than one electronic database. There were no language restrictions reported in the search methods of 52 of the SRs (41%). CONCLUSIONS: This mapping of atopic eczema reviews is a valuable resource. It will help healthcare practitioners, guideline writers, information specialists, and researchers to quickly identify relevant up-to-date evidence in the field for improving patient care.

Dermatite Atópica , Recursos em Saúde , Internet , Bases de Dados Factuais , Humanos , Publicações Periódicas como Assunto , Literatura de Revisão como Assunto , Software
J Vet Med Educ ; 39(4): 404-12, 2012.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-23187034


A thorough search of the literature to find the best evidence is central to the practice of evidence-based veterinary medicine. This requires knowing which databases to search to maximize journal coverage. The aim of the present study was to compare the coverage of active veterinary journals by nine bibliographic databases to inform future systematic reviews and other evidence-based searches. Coverage was assessed using lists of included journals produced by the database providers. For 121 active veterinary journals in the "Basic List of Veterinary Medical Serials, Third Edition," the percentage coverage was the highest for Scopus (98.3%) and CAB Abstracts (97.5%). For an extensive list of 1,139 journals with significant veterinary content compiled from a variety of sources, coverage was much greater in CAB Abstracts (90.2%) than in any other database, the next highest coverage being in Scopus (58.3%). The maximum coverage of the extensive journal list that could be obtained in a search without including CAB Abstracts was 69.8%. It was concluded that to maximize journal coverage and avoid missing potentially relevant evidence, CAB Abstracts should be included in any veterinary literature search.

Bases de Dados Bibliográficas , Medicina Baseada em Evidências/normas , Publicações Periódicas como Assunto , Medicina Veterinária/normas
Trials ; 11: 77, 2010 Jul 12.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-20624287


In the course of producing the 2009 NHS Evidence--skin disorders Annual Evidence Update on Acne Vulgaris, 25 randomised controlled trials were examined. From these, at least 12 potentially serious problems of trial reporting were identified. Several trials concluded no effect of a treatment yet they were insufficiently powered to exclude potentially useful benefits. There were examples of duplicate publication and "salami publication", as well as two trials being combined and reported as one. In some cases, an incorrect "within-groups" statistical comparison was made and one trial report omitted original efficacy data and included only P values. Both of the non-inferiority studies examined failed to pre-specify a non-inferiority margin. Trials reported as "double-blind" compared treatments that were dissimilar in appearance or had differing adverse effect profiles. In one case an intention-to-treat analysis was not performed and there was a failure to account for all of the randomized participants. Trial results were made to sound more impressive by selective outcome reporting, emphasizing the statistical significance of treatment effects that were clinically insignificant, and by the use of larger-sounding odds ratios rather than rate ratios for common events. Most of the reporting problems could have been avoided by use of the CONSORT guidelines and prospective trial registration on a public clinical trials database.

Acne Vulgar/tratamento farmacológico , Bases de Dados Factuais/normas , Medicina Baseada em Evidências/normas , Revisão da Pesquisa por Pares/normas , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto/normas , Guias como Assunto , Humanos , Revisão da Pesquisa por Pares/métodos , Publicações Periódicas como Assunto/normas , Viés de Publicação , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto/métodos , Padrões de Referência