Use of alloplastic implants for correction of deviated nasal septum: Systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

To systematically reviews the safety and effectiveness of alloplastic implants (AI) in septoplasty.

METHODS

We conducted a comprehensive search in Medline, EMBASE, SCOPUS, CINAHL, and Cochrane Library databases to identify articles on septoplasty using AI. We also manually searched reference lists of included articles. Inclusion criteria involved prospective or retrospective case-series studies of adults with deviated nasal septum (DNS) who underwent septoplasty with AI, with sufficient follow-up data. Two authors independently screened articles, reviewed full manuscripts, and extracted data.

RESULTS

Out of 5370 articles, 16 met inclusion criteria, encompassing 884 patients from 14 eligible studies. Most studies had fair quality. AI materials included Polydioxanone (PDS), Polycaprolactone (PCL), Titanium, Macropore, and PolyMax. AI usage improved nasal obstruction in most patients, with 95.6 % (84.8 %-100 %) based on physical examination and 96.9 % (89.6 %-100 %) based on symptoms. AI-related complications occurred in 4.3 % (0 %-12.8 %) of cases, mostly non-serious.

CONCLUSIONS

AI use can be considered as a useful adjunct in septoplasty, with uncommon complications similar to standard procedures. However, due to limited-quality evidence, further prospective controlled studies are needed.

Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) enabling integrated primary care for complex patients: a protocol for a scoping review

INTRODUCTION

An increasing number of individuals are living with multiple chronic conditions, often combined with psychosocial complexities. For these patients with complex conditions, an integrated primary care model that provides care coordination and a team-based approach can help manage their multiple needs. Information and communication technologies (ICTs) are recognized as a critical enabler of integrated primary care. A better understanding of the use of ICTs in an integrated care setting and how ICTs are being leveraged would be beneficial to identify knowledge gaps and could lead to successful implementation for ICT-based interventions.

OBJECTIVE

This study will systematically scope the literature on the topic of ICT-enabled integrated healthcare delivery models for patients with complex care needs to identify which technologies have been used in integrated primary care settings.

METHOD

This study protocol outlines a scoping review of the peer-reviewed literature, using Arksey and O'Malley's (enhanced by Levac et al.) scoping review methodology. Peer-reviewed literature will be identified using a multi-database search strategy. The results of the search will be screened, abstracted, and charted in duplicate by six research team members.

DISCUSSION

The key findings of the study will be thematically analyzed to describe the implemented ICTs aimed for complex patients within the integrated primary care model. The finding will highlight what types of ICTs are being put in place to support these models, and how these ICTs are enabling care integration. This review will be the first step to formally identify how ICT is used to support integrated primary health care models. The results will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications, conference presentations, and special interest groups.

Relationships between ovarian hormone concentrations and mental rotations performance in naturally-cycling women

Circulating gonadal hormones have been linked to variation in the structure and function of the adult human brain, raising the question of how cognition is affected by sex hormones in adulthood. The impacts of progestogens and estrogens are of special interest due to the widespread use of hormone supplementation. Multiple studies have analyzed relationships between ovarian hormones and mental rotation performance, one of the largest known cognitive sex differences; however, results are conflicting. These discrepancies are likely due in part to modest sample sizes and reliance on self-report measures to assess menstrual cycle phase. The present study aimed to clarify the impact of progestogens and estrogens on visuospatial cognition by relating mental rotation task performance to salivary hormone concentrations. Across two studies totaling 528 naturally-cycling premenopausal women, an internal meta-analysis suggested a small, positive effect of within-subjects changes in progesterone on MRT performance (estimate = 0.44, p = 0.014), though this result should be interpreted with caution given multiple statistical analyses. Between-subjects differences and within-subject changes in estradiol did not significantly predict MRT. These results shed light on the potential cognitive effects of endogenous and exogenous hormone action, and the proximate mechanisms modulating spatial cognition.

Multidisciplinary care for opioid dose reduction in patients with chronic non-cancer pain: A systematic realist review

CONTEXT

Opioid related deaths are at epidemic levels in many developed nations globally. Concerns about the contribution of prescribed opioids, and particularly high-dose opioids, continue to mount as do initiatives to reduce prescribing. Evidence around opioid tapering, which can be challenging and potentially hazardous, is not well developed. A recent national guideline has recognized this and recommended referral to multidisciplinary care for challenging cases of opioid tapering. However, multidisciplinary care for opioid tapering is not well understood or defined.

OBJECTIVE

Identify the existing literature on any multidisciplinary care programs that evaluate impact on opioid use, synthesize how these programs work and clarify whom they benefit.

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic rapid realist review.

DATASET

Bibliographic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Cochrane Library), grey literature, reference hand search and formal expert consultation.

RESULTS

95 studies were identified. 75% of the programs were from the United States and the majority (n = 62) were published after 2000. A minority (n = 23) of programs reported on >12 month opioid use outcomes. There were three necessary but insufficient mechanisms common to all programs: pain relief, behavior change and active medication management. Programs that did not include a combination of all three mechanisms did not result in opioid dose reductions. A concerning 20-40% of subjects resumed opioid use within one year of program completion.

CONCLUSIONS

Providing alternative analgesia is insufficient for reducing opioid doses. Even high quality primary care multidisciplinary care programs do not reduce prescribed opioid use unless there is active medication management accomplished by changing the primary opioid prescriber. Rates of return to use of opioids from these programs are very concerning in the current context of a highly potent and lethal street drug supply. This contextual factor may be powerful enough to undermine the modest benefits of opioid dose reduction via multidisciplinary care.

Stress testing journals: a quasi-experimental study of rejection rates of a previously published paper

BACKGROUND

When a journal receives a duplicate publication, the ability to identify the submitted work as previously published, and reject it, is an assay to publication ethics best practices. The aim of this study was to evaluate how three different types of journals, namely open access (OA) journals, subscription-based journals, and presumed predatory journals, responded to receiving a previously published manuscript for review.

METHODS

We performed a quasi-experimental study in which we submitted a previously published article to a random sample of 602 biomedical journals, roughly 200 journals from each journal type sampled: OA journals, subscription-based journals, and presumed predatory journals. Three hundred and three journals received a Word version in manuscript format, while 299 journals received the formatted publisher's PDF version of the published article. We then recorded responses to the submission received after approximately 1 month. Responses were reviewed, extracted, and coded in duplicate. Our primary outcome was the rate of rejection of the two types of submitted articles (PDF vs Word) within our three journal types.

RESULTS

We received correspondence back from 308 (51.1%) journals within our study timeline (32 days); (N = 46 predatory journals, N = 127 OA journals, N = 135 subscription-based journals). Of the journals that responded, 153 received the Word version of the paper, while 155 received the PDF version. Four journals (1.3%) accepted our paper, 291 (94.5%) journals rejected the paper, and 13 (4.2%) requested a revision. A chi-square test looking at journal type, and submission type, was significant (χ² (4) = 23.50, p < 0.001). All four responses to accept our article came from presumed predatory journals, 3 of which received the Word format and 1 that received the PDF format. Less than half of journals that rejected our submissions did so because they identified ethical issues such as plagiarism with the manuscript (133 (45.7%)).

CONCLUSION

Few journals accepted our submitted paper. However, our findings suggest that all three types of journals may not have adequate safeguards in place to recognize and act on plagiarism or duplicate submissions.

Do evidence summaries increase health policy-makers' use of evidence from systematic reviews? A systematic review

This review summarizes the evidence from six randomized controlled trials that judged the effectiveness of systematic review summaries on policymakers' decision making, or the most effective ways to present evidence summaries to increase policymakers' use of the evidence. This review included six randomized controlled studies. A randomized controlled study is one in which the participants are divided randomly (by chance) into separate groups to compare different treatments or other interventions. This method of dividing people into groups means that the groups will be similar and that the effects of the treatments they receive will be compared more fairly. At the time the study is done, it is not known which treatment is the better one. The researchers who did these studies invited people from Europe, North America, South America, Africa, and Asia to take part in them. Two studies looked at "policy briefs," one study looked at an "evidence summary," two looked at a "summary of findings table," and one compared a "summary of findings table" to an evidence summary. None of these studies looked at how policymakers directly used evidence from systematic reviews in their decision making, but two studies found that there was little to no difference in how they used the summaries. The studies relied on reports from decision makers. These studies included questions such as, "Is this summary easy to understand?" Some of the studies looked at users' knowledge, understanding, beliefs, or how credible (trustworthy) they believed the summaries to be. There was little to no difference in the studies that looked at these outcomes. Study participants rated the graded entry format higher for usability than the full systematic review. The graded entry format allows the reader to select how much information they want to read. The study participants felt that all evidence summary formats were easier to understand than full systematic reviews.

Plain language summary

Policy briefs make systematic reviews easier to understand but little evidence of impact on use of study findings: It is likely that evidence summaries are easier to understand than complete systematic reviews. Whether these summaries increase the use of evidence from systematic reviews in policymaking is not clear.What is this review about?: Systematic reviews are long and technical documents that may be hard for policymakers to use when making decisions. Evidence summaries are short documents that describe research findings in systematic reviews. These summaries may simplify the use of systematic reviews.Other names for evidence reviews are policy briefs, evidence briefs, summaries of findings, or plain language summaries. The goal of this review was to learn whether evidence summaries help policymakers use evidence from systematic reviews. This review also aimed to identify the best ways to present the evidence summary to increase the use of evidence.What are the main findings of this review?: This review included six randomized controlled studies. A randomized controlled study is one in which the participants are divided randomly (by chance) into separate groups to compare different treatments or other interventions. This method of dividing people into groups means that the groups will be similar and that the effects of the treatments they receive will be compared more fairly. At the time the study is done, it is not known which treatment is the better one.The researchers who did these studies invited people from Europe, North America, South America, Africa, and Asia to take part in them. Two studies looked at "policy briefs," one study looked at an "evidence summary," two looked at a "summary of findings table," and one compared a "summary of findings table" to an evidence summary.None of these studies looked at how policymakers directly used evidence from systematic reviews in their decision making, but two studies found that there was little to no difference in how they used the summaries. The studies relied on reports from decision makers. These studies included questions such as, "Is this summary easy to understand?"Some of the studies looked at users' knowledge, understanding, beliefs, or how credible (trustworthy) they believed the summaries to be. There was little to no difference in the studies that looked at these outcomes. Study participants rated the graded entry format higher for usability than the full systematic review. The graded entry format allows the reader to select how much information they want to read.. The study participants felt that all evidence summary formats were easier to understand than full systematic reviews.What do the findings of this review mean?: Our review suggests that evidence summaries help policymakers to better understand the findings presented in systematic reviews. In short, evidence summaries should be developed to make it easier for policymakers to understand the evidence presented in systematic reviews. However, right now there is very little evidence on the best way to present systematic review evidence to policymakers.How up to date is this review?: The authors of this review searched for studies through June 2016.

Executive summary/Abstract

Background: Systematic reviews are important for decision makers. They offer many potential benefits but are often written in technical language, are too long, and do not contain contextual details which makes them hard to use for decision-making. Strategies to promote the use of evidence to decision makers are required, and evidence summaries have been suggested as a facilitator. Evidence summaries include policy briefs, briefing papers, briefing notes, evidence briefs, abstracts, summary of findings tables, and plain language summaries. There are many organizations developing and disseminating systematic review evidence summaries for different populations or subsets of decision makers. However, evidence on the usefulness and effectiveness of systematic review summaries is lacking. We present an overview of the available evidence on systematic review evidence summaries.Objectives: This systematic review aimed to 1) assess the effectiveness of evidence summaries on policy-makers' use of the evidence and 2) identify the most effective summary components for increasing policy-makers' use of the evidence.Search methods: We searched several online databases (Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Global Health Library, Popline, Africa-wide, Public Affairs Information Services, Worldwide Political Science Abstracts, Web of Science, and DfiD), websites of research groups and organizations which produce evidence summaries, and reference lists of included summaries and related systematic reviews. These databases were searched in March-April, 2016.Selection criteria: Eligible studies included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), non-randomised controlled trials (NRCTs), controlled before-after (CBA) studies, and interrupted time series (ITS) studies. We included studies of policymakers at all levels as well as health system managers. We included studies examining any type of "evidence summary", "policy brief", or other product derived from systematic reviews that presented evidence in a summarized form. These interventions could be compared to active comparators (e.g. other summary formats) or no intervention.The primary outcomes were: 1) use of systematic review summaries decision-making (e.g. self-reported use of the evidence in policy-making, decision-making) and 2) policymaker understanding, knowledge, and/or beliefs (e.g. changes in knowledge scores about the topic included in the summary). We also assessed perceived relevance, credibility, usefulness, understandability, and desirability (e.g. format) of the summaries.Results: Our database search combined with our grey literature search yielded 10,113 references after removal of duplicates. From these, 54 were reviewed in full text and we included 6 studies (reported in 7 papers, 1661 participants) as well as protocols from 2 ongoing studies. Two studies assessed the use of evidence summaries in decision-making and found little to no difference in effect. There was also little to no difference in effect for knowledge, understanding or beliefs (4 studies) and perceived usefulness or usability (3 studies). Summary of Findings tables and graded entry summaries were perceived as slightly easier to understand compared to complete systematic reviews. Two studies assessed formatting changes and found that for Summary of Findings tables, certain elements, such as reporting study event rates and absolute differences were preferred as well as avoiding the use of footnotes. No studies assessed adverse effects. The risks of bias in these studies were mainly assessed as unclear or low however, two studies were assessed as high risk of bias for incomplete outcome data due to very high rates of attrition.Authors' conclusions: Evidence summaries may be easier to understand than complete systematic reviews. However, their ability to increase the use of systematic review evidence in policymaking is unclear.

The effectiveness of evidence summaries on health policymakers and health system managers use of evidence from systematic reviews: a systematic review

Background

Systematic reviews are important for decision makers. They offer many potential benefits but are often written in technical language, are too long, and do not contain contextual details which make them hard to use for decision-making. There are many organizations that develop and disseminate derivative products, such as evidence summaries, from systematic reviews for different populations or subsets of decision makers. This systematic review aimed to (1) assess the effectiveness of evidence summaries on policymakers’ use of the evidence and (2) identify the most effective summary components for increasing policymakers’ use of the evidence. We present an overview of the available evidence on systematic review derivative products.

Methods

We included studies of policymakers at all levels as well as health system managers. We included studies examining any type of “evidence summary,” “policy brief,” or other products derived from systematic reviews that presented evidence in a summarized form. The primary outcomes were the (1) use of systematic review summaries in decision-making (e.g., self-reported use of the evidence in policymaking and decision-making) and (2) policymakers’ understanding, knowledge, and/or beliefs (e.g., changes in knowledge scores about the topic included in the summary). We also assessed perceived relevance, credibility, usefulness, understandability, and desirability (e.g., format) of the summaries.

Results

Our database search combined with our gray literature search yielded 10,113 references after removal of duplicates. From these, 54 were reviewed in full text, and we included six studies (reported in seven papers) as well as protocols from two ongoing studies. Two studies assessed the use of evidence summaries in decision-making and found little to no difference in effect. There was also little to no difference in effect for knowledge, understanding or beliefs (four studies), and perceived usefulness or usability (three studies). Summary of findings tables and graded entry summaries were perceived as slightly easier to understand compared to complete systematic reviews. Two studies assessed formatting changes and found that for summary of findings tables, certain elements, such as reporting study event rates and absolute differences, were preferred as well as avoiding the use of footnotes.

Conclusions

Evidence summaries are likely easier to understand than complete systematic reviews. However, their ability to increase the use of systematic review evidence in policymaking is unclear.

Trial registration

The protocol was published in the journal Systematic Reviews (2015;4:122)

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13012-016-0530-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Overcoming barriers to engaging socio-economically disadvantaged populations in CHD primary prevention: a qualitative study

Background

Preventative medicine has become increasingly important in efforts to reduce the burden of chronic disease in industrialised countries. However, interventions that fail to recruit socio-economically representative samples may widen existing health inequalities. This paper explores the barriers and facilitators to engaging a socio-economically disadvantaged (SED) population in primary prevention for coronary heart disease (CHD).

Methods

The primary prevention element of Have a Heart Paisley (HaHP) offered risk screening to all eligible individuals. The programme employed two approaches to engaging with the community: a) a social marketing campaign and b) a community development project adopting primarily face-to-face canvassing. Individuals living in areas of SED were under-recruited via the social marketing approach, but successfully recruited via face-to-face canvassing. This paper reports on focus group discussions with participants, exploring their perceptions about and experiences of both approaches.

Results

Various reasons were identified for low uptake of risk screening amongst individuals living in areas of high SED in response to the social marketing campaign and a number of ways in which the face-to-face canvassing approach overcame these barriers were identified. These have been categorised into four main themes: (1) processes of engagement; (2) issues of understanding; (3) design of the screening service and (4) the priority accorded to screening. The most immediate barriers to recruitment were the invitation letter, which often failed to reach its target, and the general distrust of postal correspondence. In contrast, participants were positive about the face-to-face canvassing approach. Participants expressed a lack of knowledge and understanding about CHD and their risk of developing it and felt there was a lack of clarity in the information provided in the mailing in terms of the process and value of screening. In contrast, direct face-to-face contact meant that outreach workers could explain what to expect. Participants felt that the procedure for uptake of screening was demanding and inflexible, but that the drop-in sessions employed by the community development project had a major impact on recruitment and retention.

Conclusion

Socio-economically disadvantaged individuals can be hard-to-reach; engagement requires strategies tailored to the needs of the target population rather than a population-wide approach.

Extrapolation of linear motion

We investigated observers' ability to extrapolate a linear trajectory of a moving point, in order to determine how effectively the visual system can combine orientation and position information for moving stimuli. Observers saw a probe dot moving along a straight line toward a stationary target dot. The probe dot extinguished before reaching the target, and the observers' task was to judge whether an extrapolation of the trajectory of the probe would pass to the left or right of the target. Performance was measured as a function of probe velocity, length of the visible trajectory, and location of the target. The empirical results indicated that over a range of conditions, performance on this task is qualitatively similar to, but somewhat less accurate than, that on an analogous task with static stimuli. A four-component model is presented to account for the results. The model specifies an accurate extraction of probe motion parameters, extrapolation of the motion by an ideal observer, and limitations on the input to these processes in the form of visual field spatial inhomogeneity and temporal decay of position information.

Developing teaching skills through individual consultation

The authors, an educational specialist and a nursing instructor, describe their collaborative Teaching Consultation Process. They discuss the rationale for teaching development and the Teaching Consultation Process model. Finally, they highlight the impact of this model of consultation in nursing education.

A check on nurses' knowledge and sense of responsibility for discharge planning

Nurse educators and managers have identified discharge planning as a critical step in the nursing process. Appropriate discharge planning has the potential to facilitate the patients' return to wellness and to provide a cost effective measure of health care. Staff nurses' and nurse administrators' knowledge of discharge planning is identified, as well as both groups' perceptions of the staff nurse responsibility relative to discharge planning. The results showed that staff nurses have significantly less knowledge than nurse administrators. A discharge planning program for implementation by staff development personnel is reported.

Metallothionein immunoreactivity in the liver and kidney of copper injected rats

Adult male rats were injected intraperitoneally with copper sulphate in physiological saline (3 mg copper/kg body wt). Metallothionein-I (MT-I) levels in liver, kidney, plasma and red blood cells were measured by radioimmunoassay (RIA), prior to the injection and after 7, 16 and 24 h. Copper and zinc levels in liver and kidneys were also monitored. Concentrations of MT-I in liver and kidneys showed a rapid increase and remained elevated for 24 h. Copper concentrations also increased in both tissues but zinc levels remained constant in the kidney and rose only slightly in the liver. MT-I levels increased gradually in plasma but decreased in the red blood cells. Immunochemistry of liver and kidney, using the direct peroxidase technique with antiserum to rat MT-I, revealed an increase in staining in both tissues after copper administration, consistent with the RIA results. The change in distribution of immunoreactive material with time after copper injection indicates a role for MT in the sequestration and excretion of copper in acutely loaded animals.