A rapid and systematic review of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of debriding agents in treating surgical wounds healing by secondary intention.
(33/533)
BACKGROUND: Most surgically sutured wounds heal without any complication. However, in some cases wound healing can be delayed due to the presence of infection or wound breakdown. This can result in the wounds becoming cavity wounds and thus necessitate healing by secondary intention. Other surgical wounds that are not sutured but left to heal by secondary intention include abscess cavities such as perianal abscesses or breast abscesses. Surgical wounds healing by secondary intention are thought to heal more slowly than wounds healing by primary intention, especially if infection is present or healing is compromised by factors such as decreased blood supply, poor nutritional status or a general suppression of the immune response. Such wounds may contain dead tissue and have a moderate or high level of exudate. Debridement involves the removal of devitalised, necrotic tissue or fibrin from a wound. There are many different methods that can be used to debride a wound, which are broadly classified as surgical/sharp, biosurgical, mechanical, chemical, enzymatic and autolytic. Although it is generally agreed that the management of surgical wounds which contain devitalised tissue and are healing by secondary intention requires debridement, it is not always clear as to what is the best method or agent to use. There is currently a large selection of products with debriding properties available on the market, which vary considerably in cost. It is important that the choice of both debriding method and product is based on the best scientific evidence available, taking into account both cost and effectiveness data. OBJECTIVES: The review had two main objectives: (1) To determine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of debriding agents in treating surgical wounds healing by secondary intention. (2) To evaluate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of treating patients with surgical wounds healing by secondary intention at specialised wound care clinics as compared to conventional care. The review incorporated all debriding methods and any agent that is considered to have a debriding property. METHODS The following databases were searched using strategies designed specifically for each database: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, HMIC (Health Management Information Consortium), CCTR via the Cochrane Library, the National Research Register (NRR), the NHS Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED), and the Health Economic Evaluations Database (HEED). Additional references were identified through reviewing manufacturer and sponsor submissions made to NICE, the bibliographies of retrieved articles, and conferences proceedings on the Internet. Only randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or non-randomised controlled trials with concurrent controls and full economic evaluations were considered for inclusion. Only studies that evaluated some sort of debriding method or a specialised wound care clinic (a nurse with specialist training in wound care; care being provided by a multidisciplinary team; a fast-track referral system to other professions (e.g. dermatologist); or access to the latest health technology) were included in the review. Studies had to include participants with surgical wounds healing by secondary intention (e.g. cavity wounds, the consequences of wound dehiscence and abscesses) and report an objective measure of wound healing. Data were extracted by one reviewer and checked by a second. Quality assessment was conducted independently by two reviewers. Disagreements were resolved by consensus and, when necessary, by recourse to a third reviewer. The primary outcomes of interest were wound healing and cost. Results of data extraction and quality assessment were presented in structured tables and also as a narrative summary. In addition, where feasible, the results of individual studies were presented as forest plots. Studies were grouped according to the type of wound, debriding method and outcome measure used. RESULTS - CLINICAL EFFECTIVENESS: Seventeen trials met the inclusion criteria, all of which used the autolytic method of debridement. No studies were found that investigated sharp/surgical, biosurgical, mechanical, chemical or enzymatic debridement in the treatment of surgical wounds healing by secondary intention. No studies were found which investigated specialised wound care clinics that included the provision of care within a clinical setting (based in either primary or secondary care). The type of surgical wounds investigated by studies included in the review were those that had broken down postoperatively, perineal wounds resulting from proctolectomy or rectal excision, and those left open after pilonidal sinus excision or abscess incision, or wounds following a laparotomy. Four additional studies investigated treatment of postoperative wounds from toenail avulsions. (ABSTRACT TRUNCATED) (+info)
A rapid and systematic review of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of orlistat in the management of obesity.
(34/533)
BACKGROUND: The prevalence of obesity in developed societies is increasing. Obesity is associated with an increased risk of co-morbidity, including cardiovascular disease and diabetes. Following the withdrawal of fenfluramine and dexfenfluramine, interest has focused on a novel anti-obesity drug orlistat. OBJECTIVE: To systematically assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of orlistat in the management of obesity. METHODS - SEARCH STRATEGY: Nineteen electronic databases were searched from inception to June 2000. Additionally, Internet searches were carried out, bibliographies of retrieved articles were examined and submissions were received from the manufacturer of orlistat. METHODS - INCLUSION AND EXCLUSION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the effectiveness of orlistat used for weight loss or maintenance of weight loss in overweight or obese patients were eligible for inclusion. Primary outcome measures were changes in body weight, fat content or fat distribution. Secondary outcomes were changes in obesity-related risk-factor profiles, such as lipid levels, indicators of glycaemic control and blood pressure. Studies recruiting people with eating disorders such as anorexia nervosa and bulimia nervosa were excluded. METHODS - PROCESS OF STUDY SELECTION: Assessment of titles and abstracts was performed independently by two reviewers. If either reviewer considered a reference to be relevant, the full paper was retrieved. Full papers were assessed against the review selection criteria by two independent reviewers, and disagreements were resolved through discussion. METHODS - DATA EXTRACTION: Data were extracted by one reviewer into structured summary tables and checked by a second reviewer. Any disagreements about data were resolved by discussion. METHODS - QUALITY ASSESSMENT: Each included trial was assessed against a comprehensive checklist for methodological quality. Quality assessment was performed independently by two reviewers with disagreements resolved by discussion. METHODS - METHODS OF ANALYSIS/SYNTHESIS: This report is a narrative summary, with results grouped according to study endpoint. Statistical pooling was undertaken in groups of trials that were considered to be sufficiently similar. METHODS - ESTIMATION OF QUALITY OF LIFE, COSTS AND COST-EFFECTIVENESS AND/OR COST PER QUALITY-ADJUSTED LIFE-YEAR: Relevant economic evaluations were identified from the search strategy described above. Assessment of methodological quality was undertaken using principles outlined in published guidelines. METHODS - COMPANY SUBMISSIONS: Data from company submissions were subject to the same selection and appraisal processes as other studies considered for inclusion in the review, except that only RCTs with a duration of at least 1 year were selected. RESULTS - RESULTS OF THE SEARCH STRATEGY: Fourteen RCTs (including three company submissions) and two economic evaluations (including one company submission) were included in the review. RESULTS - RESULTS OF THE QUALITY ASSESSMENT: Methodological quality of trials was moderate to good. The main problems were lack of detail on methods used to produce true randomisation, small sample sizes in some cases and failure to use intention-to-treat analysis. It is likely that maintenance of blinding was difficult due to adverse effects associated with the study medication. RESULTS - EVIDENCE OF CLINICAL EFFECTIVENESS AND COST-EFFECTIVENESS: Most of the trials showed greater weight loss and better weight maintenance with orlistat compared to placebo at all endpoints (statistically significant differences for both outcomes). Orlistat 120 mg three times daily was the optimum regimen in terms of weight loss. Most trials showed significant improvement in at least some lipid concentration parameters, and, in three RCTs, orlistat produced statistically significant reductions in blood pressure relative to placebo. In obese patients with type 2 diabetes, orlistat resulted in a significantly greater weight loss at 1 year compared with placebo, and some parameters of glycaemic control and lipid concentration also showed significantly greater improvements compared with placebo. The incidence of gastrointestinal adverse events was consistently higher in orlistat groups compared with placebo, and orlistat use was associated with lower serum levels of fat-soluble vitamins. The cost per quality-adjusted life-year for orlistat was 45,881 UK pounds. CONCLUSIONS - IMPLICATIONS FOR CLINICAL PRACTICE: Although many trials have demonstrated statistically significant differences between groups in terms of weight loss in favour of orlistat versus placebo, the differences may not always be of clinical significance. The clinical significance of between-group differences for secondary outcomes may also be debatable. Possible adverse effects should be taken into account when prescribing orlistat, particularly gastrointestinal effects. (ABSTRACT TRUNCATED) (+info)
Developing principles for health impact assessment.
(35/533)
BACKGROUND: Policies and practice in many sectors affect health. Health impact assessment (HIA) is a way to predict these health impacts, in order to recommend improvements in policies to improve health. There has been debate about appropriate methods for this work. The Scottish Executive funded the Scottish Needs Assessment Programme to conduct two pilot HIAs and from these to develop guidance on HIA. METHODS: Case study 1 compared three possible future scenarios for developing transport in Edinburgh, based on funding levels. It used a literature review, analysis of local data and the knowledge and opinions of key informants. Impacts borne by different population groups.were compared using grids. Case study 2 assessed the health impacts of housing investment in a disadvantaged part of Edinburgh, using published literature, focus groups with community groups and interviews with professionals. RESULTS: Disadvantaged communities bore more detrimental effects from the low transport investment scenario, in the areas of: accidents; pollution; access to amenities, jobs and social contacts; physical activity; and impacts on community networks. The housing investment had greatest impact on residents' mental health, by reducing overcrowding, noise pollution, stigma and fear of crime. CONCLUSION: Although there is no single 'blueprint' for HIA that will be appropriate for all circumstances, key principles to inform future HIA were defined. HIA should be systematic; involve decision-makers and affected communities; take into account local factors; use evidence and methods appropriate to the impacts identified and the importance and scope of the policy; and make practical recommendations. (+info)
Physicians' views of the relative importance of thirty medical innovations.
(36/533)
In response to a mail survey, 225 leading general internists provided their opinions of the relative importance to patients of thirty medical innovations. They also provided information about themselves and their practices. Their responses yielded a mean score and a variability score for each innovation. Mean scores were significantly higher for innovations in procedures than in medications and for innovations to treat cardiovascular disease than for those to treat other diseases. The rankings were similar across subgroups of respondents, but the evaluations of a few innovations were significantly related to physicians' age. The greatest variability in response was usually related to the physician's patient mix. (+info)
Genetically modified plants and human health risks: Can additional research reduce uncertainties and increase public confidence?
(37/533)
So long as the risks to human health from transgenic plants remain potential rather than actual, and, in any event, appear lower than those from traditional plant breeding, hazard assessment need not be extensive. However, in view of current public attitudes to transgenic plants, it is necessary that those tests that are required, be based on logic, on sound science, and in accordance with the best scientific methodology. This is particularly the case with testing for food allergenicity. Current testing is largely indirect and based on comparisons with other known food allergens. Development of direct tests that involve interaction between the actual transgenic protein in question and the immune system is essential if confidence in the regulatory system is to be restored. (+info)
Telemedicine for the Medicare population: pediatric, obstetric, and clinician-indirect home interventions.
(38/533)
BACKGROUND: This report is a supplement to an earlier evidence report, Telemedicine for the Medicare Population, which was intended to help policymakers weigh the evidence relevant to coverage of telemedicine services under Medicare. That report focused on telemedicine programs and clinical settings that had been used with or were likely to be applied to Medicare beneficiaries. While we prepared that report, it became apparent that there are also telemedicine studies among non-Medicare beneficiaries--e.g., children and pregnant women--that could inform policymakers and provide more comprehensive evidence of the state of the science regarding telemedicine applications. In addition, the first evidence report only partially included a class of telemedicine applications (called self-monitoring/testing telemedicine) in which the beneficiary used a home computer or modern-driven telephone system to either report information or access information and support from Internet resources and indirectly interact with a clinician. Self-monitoring/testing applications in the first report required direct interaction with a clinician. The goal of this report is to systematically review the evidence in the clinical areas of pediatric and obstetric telemedicine as well as home-based telemedicine where there is indirect involvement of the health care professional. (In this report, we will refer to the latter as clinician-indirect home telemedicine.) Specifically, the report summarizes scientific evidence on the diagnostic accuracy, access, clinical outcomes, satisfaction, and cost-effectiveness of services provided by telemedicine technologies for these patient groups. It also identifies gaps in the evidence and makes recommendations for evaluating telemedicine services for these populations in the future. The evidence is clustered according to three categories of telemedicine service defined in our original report: store-and-forward, self-monitoring/testing, and clinician-interactive services. The three clinical practice areas reviewed in this report are defined as follows. The term pediatric applies to any telemedicine study in which the sample consisted wholly or partially of persons aged 18 or younger, including studies with neonatal samples. The term obstetric applies to any telemedicine study in which the sample consisted entirely of women seeking pregnancy-related care. The term clinician-indirect home telemedicine applies to home-based telemedicine (called self-monitoring/testing in our original report) where a telemedicine application used in the home has only indirect involvement by the health care professional. Interactive home telemedicine was applied in this report to all patient populations. KEY QUESTIONS: The key questions that served as a guide for reviewing the literature in the evaluation of pediatric, obstetric, and clinician-indirect home telemedicine applications were derived by consensus among the evidence-review team based on the analytic framework established for the original evidence report. For the current report, the questions were applied to studies in all three practice areas as a whole group within each of the three categories of telemedicine services: store-and-forward; self-monitoring/testing; and clinician-interactive. The specific key questions were: 1. Does telemedicine result in comparable diagnosis and appropriateness of recommendations for management? 2. Does the availability of telemedicine provide comparable access to care? 3. Does telemedicine result in comparable health outcomes? 4. Does telemedicine result in comparable patient or clinician satisfaction with care? 5. Does telemedicine result in comparable costs of care and/or cost-effectiveness? METHODS: We searched for peer-reviewed literature using several bibliographic databases. In addition, we conducted hand searches of leading telemedicine journals and identified key papers from the reference lists of journal articles. For our original evidence report on telemedicine for the Medicare population, we designed a search to find any publications about telemedicine and used it to search the MEDLINE, CINAHL, and HealthSTAR databases for all years the databases were available. Through this process, we captured studies of pediatric, obstetric, and clinician-indirect home telemedicine; however, they were excluded from the original report since they were outside its scope. For this supplemental report, we reviewed our original search results and identified studies relevant to this report. We identified additional studies from the reference lists of included papers and from hand searching two peer-reviewed telemedicine publications, the Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare and Telemedicine Journal. We critically appraised the included studies for each study area and key question and discussed the strengths and limitations of the most important studies at weekly meetings of the research team. We also developed recommendations for research to address telemedicine knowledge gaps. To match these gaps with the capabilities of specific research methods, we classified the telemedicine services according to the type of evidence that would be needed to determine whether the specific goals of covering such services had been met. We emphasized the relationship between the type and level of evidence found in the systematic review of effectiveness and the types of studies that might be funded to address the gaps in knowledge in this growing field of research. FINDINGS: We identified a total of 28 eligible studies. In the new clinical areas, we found few studies in store-and-forward telemedicine. There is some evidence of comparable diagnosis and management decisions made using store-and-forward telemedicine from the areas of pediatric dental screening, pediatric ophthalmology, and neonatalogy. In self-monitoring/testing telemedicine for the areas of pediatrics, obstetrics, and clinician-indirect home telemedicine, there is evidence that access to care can be improved when patients and families have the opportunity to receive telehealth care at home rather than in-person care in a clinic or hospital. Access is particularly enhanced when the telehealth system enables timely communication between patients or families and care providers that allows self-management and necessary adjustments that may prevent hospitalization. There is some evidence that this form of telemedicine improves health outcomes, but the study sample sizes are usually small, and even when they are not, the treatment effects are small. There is also some evidence for the efficacy of clinician-interactive telemedicine, but the studies do not clearly define which technologies provide benefit or cost-efficiency. Some promising areas for diagnosis include emergency medicine, psychiatry, and cardiology. Most of the studies measuring access to care provide evidence that it is improved. Although none of these studies were randomized controlled trials, they provide some evidence of access improvement over prior conditions. Clinician-interactive telemedicine was the only area for which any cost studies were found. The three cost studies did not adequately demonstrate that telemedicine reduces costs of care (except comparing only selected costs). No study addressed cost-effectiveness. CONCLUSIONS: This supplemental report covering the areas of pediatrics, obstetrics, and indirect-clinician home telemedicine echoes the findings of our initial report for the Medicare domain, which is that while the use of telemedicine is small but growing, the evidence for its efficacy is incomplete. Many of the studies are small and/or methodologically limited, so it cannot be determined whether telemedicine is efficacious. Future studies should focus on the use of telemedicine in conditions where burden of illness and/or barriers to access for care are significant. Use of recent innovations in the design of randomized controlled trials for emerging technologies would lead to higher quality studies. Journals publishing telemedicine evaluation studies must set high standards for methodologic quality so that evidence reports need not rely on studies with marginal methodologies. (+info)
Should transplantation be a part of a health care system?
(39/533)
The inclusion of organ transplantation in our health care system raises several questions about the basis for the decision and the process by which it was approved. To function, our health care system requires not only an adequate method for technical evaluation, but also a means for ensuring informed public support for the policies that determine what services are available. In the future, this approval process could lead to the exclusion of a treatment because the system as a whole would not be able to afford its cost. This exclusion could have important implications for the philosophy of medicine and the work of the clinical investigator. (+info)