Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 3 de 3
Filtrar
Mais filtros










Base de dados
Intervalo de ano de publicação
1.
PLoS One ; 14(5): e0215221, 2019.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31120888

RESUMO

Poor reporting quality may contribute to irreproducibility of results and failed 'bench-to-bedside' translation. Consequently, guidelines have been developed to improve the complete and transparent reporting of in vivo preclinical studies. To examine the impact of such guidelines on core methodological and analytical reporting items in the preclinical anesthesiology literature, we sampled a cohort of studies. Preclinical in vivo studies published in Anesthesiology, Anesthesia & Analgesia, Anaesthesia, and the British Journal of Anaesthesia (2008-2009, 2014-2016) were identified. Data was extracted independently and in duplicate. Reporting completeness was assessed using the National Institutes of Health Principles and Guidelines for Reporting Preclinical Research. Risk ratios were used for comparative analyses. Of 7615 screened articles, 604 met our inclusion criteria and included experiments reporting on 52 490 animals. The most common topic of investigation was pain and analgesia (30%), rodents were most frequently used (77%), and studies were most commonly conducted in the United States (36%). Use of preclinical reporting guidelines was listed in 10% of applicable articles. A minority of studies fully reported on replicates (0.3%), randomization (10%), blinding (12%), sample-size estimation (3%), and inclusion/exclusion criteria (5%). Statistics were well reported (81%). Comparative analysis demonstrated few differences in reporting rigor between journals, including those that endorsed reporting guidelines. Principal items of study design were infrequently reported, with few differences between journals. Methods to improve implementation and adherence to community-based reporting guidelines may be necessary to increase transparent and consistent reporting in the preclinical anesthesiology literature.

2.
Can J Cardiol ; 34(7): 850-862, 2018 Jul.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-29960614

RESUMO

Worldwide, more than 230 million adults have major noncardiac surgery each year. Although surgery can improve quality and duration of life, it can also precipitate major complications. Moreover, a substantial proportion of deaths occur after discharge. Current systems for monitoring patients postoperatively, on surgical wards and after transition to home, are inadequate. On the surgical ward, vital signs evaluation usually occurs only every 4-8 hours. Reduced in-hospital ward monitoring, followed by no vital signs monitoring at home, leads to thousands of cases of undetected/delayed detection of hemodynamic compromise. In this article we review work to date on postoperative remote automated monitoring on surgical wards and strategy for advancing this field. Key considerations for overcoming current barriers to implementing remote automated monitoring in Canada are also presented.

3.
Syst Rev ; 5: 18, 2016 Feb 01.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-26831725

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Steroids are often combined with local anesthetic (LA) and injected to reduce pain associated with various chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP) complaints. The biological rationale behind injection of a steroid solution is unclear, and it is uncertain whether the addition of steroids offers any additional benefits over injection of LA alone. We propose to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to summarize the evidence for using steroids and LA vs. LA alone in the treatment of CNCP. METHODS: An experienced librarian will perform a comprehensive search of EMBASE, MEDLINE, and the Cochrane Central Registry of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) databases with search terms for clinical indications, LA, and steroid agents. We will review bibliographies of all relevant published reviews in the last 5 years for additional studies. Eligible trials will be published in English and randomly allocate patients with CNCP to treatment with steroid and LA injection therapy or injection with LA alone. We will use the guidelines published by the Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials (IMMPACT) to inform the outcomes that we collect and present. Teams of reviewers will independently and in duplicate assess trial eligibility, abstract data, and assess risk of bias among eligible trials. We will prioritize intention to treat analysis and, when possible, pool outcomes across trials using random effects models. We will report our findings as risk differences, weighted mean differences, or standardized mean differences for individual outcomes. Further, to ensure interpretability of our results, we will present risk differences and measures of relative effect for pain reduction based on anchor-based minimally important clinical differences. We will conduct a priori defined subgroup analyses and use the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system to evaluate the certainty of the evidence on an outcome-by-outcome basis. DISCUSSION: Our review will evaluate both the effectiveness and the adverse events associated with steroid plus LA vs. LA alone for CNCP, evaluate the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach, and prioritize patient-important outcomes guided by IMMPACT recommendations. Our results will facilitate evidence-based management of patients with chronic non-cancer pain and identify key areas for future research. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42015020614.


Assuntos
Corticosteroides , Anestésicos Locais , Dor Crônica/tratamento farmacológico , Humanos , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto , Revisão Sistemática como Assunto
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA