Search

Aims To determine if urine C-peptide/creatinine ratio is a useful tool for monitoring β-cell function in new-onset Type 1 diabetes. Methods Data were obtained from a prospective immunomodulation study in people with Type 1 diabetes ≤ 3 months from diagnosis, with a standard mixed-meal tolerance test and measurement of urine C-peptide/creatinine ratio carried out at 0, 3, 6, 9 and 12 months. The change in the insulin-dose-adjusted HbA1c level was also correlated with the change in serum/urine C-peptide level during the 12-month follow-up period. Results A significant reduction in urine C-peptide/creatinine ratio, measured after a mixed-meal, was reached at 9 months (−45.4%), whilst the reduction in stimulated serum C-peptide level reached significance after 3 months (−54.7%) in placebo-treated participants. Neither change in stimulated serum C-peptide nor change in urine C-peptide level correlated with each other, and nor did change in insulin-dose-adjusted HbA1c level in the first 6 months, but all measures correlated significantly in the second half of the 12-month follow-up period. Conclusion Mixed-meal-stimulated urine C-peptide/creatinine ratio was similar to, although less sensitive than, stimulated serum C-peptide level in monitoring β-cell function during the first year after diagnosis. Because the former is significantly less invasive, it warrants inclusion in further studies in Type 1 diabetes and may represent an attractive alternative outcome measure in cohort studies and in children. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Study design:Test-retest analysis.Objectives:To determine the intra- and inter-rater reliability of the Spine Adverse Events Severity System for Spinal Cord Injury (SAVES-SCI) in patients with traumatic SCI.Setting:Quaternary care spine program in Vancouver, Canada.Methods:Ten hypothetical patient cases were developed. The cases were completed by 10 raters (seven physicians, one nurse, one physiotherapist and one researcher) who were asked to identify and grade the severity of adverse events using SAVES-SCI twice with 1-week interval. Intra- and inter-rater reliability were calculated using kappa statistics and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC).Results:Intra-rater reliability for both identifying and grading AEs were high with all AEs (kappa greater than 0.6) except for bone implant, diathermy burn, massive blood loss, myocardial infarction, neurological deterioration, pressure ulcer, return to operating room and tracheostomy requirment. The inter-rater reliability measured with ICC were all above 0.6 for identifying and grading intraoperative, pre and postoperative AEs and consequences of SCI.Conclusions:The SAVES-SCI demonstrated acceptable intra-and inter-rater reliability for a majority of the AEs. Further clarification and definition of some of the AEs as well as provision of sample training cases for clincians would assist in reducing measurement errors. The SAVES-SCI is a useful tool to assess and capture AEs in patients with acute traumatic SCI.Sponsorship:Funded by Rick Hansen Institute and Health Canada. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective:To conduct a systematic review examining the effectiveness of knowledge translation (KT) interventions in changing clinical practice and patient outcomes.Methods:MEDLINE/PubMed, CINAHL, EMBASE and PsycINFO were searched for studies published from January 1980 to July 2012 that reported and evaluated an implemented KT intervention in spinal cord injury (SCI) care. We reviewed and summarized results from studies that documented the implemented KT intervention, its impact on changing clinician behavior and patient outcomes as well as the facilitators and barriers encountered during the implementation.Results:A total of 13 articles featuring 10 studies were selected and abstracted from 4650 identified articles. KT interventions included developing and implementing patient care protocols, providing clinician education and incorporating outcome measures into clinical practice. The methods (or drivers) to facilitate the implementation included organizing training sessions for clinical staff, introducing computerized reminders and involving organizational leaders. The methodological quality of studies was mostly poor. Only 3 out of 10 studies evaluated the success of the implementation using statistical analyses, and all 3 reported significant behavior change. Out of the 10 studies, 6 evaluated the effect of the implementation on patient outcomes using statistical analyses, with 4 reporting significant improvements. The commonly cited facilitators and barriers were communication and resources, respectively.Conclusion:The field of KT in SCI is in its infancy with only a few relevant publications. However, there is some evidence that KT interventions may change clinician behavior and improve patient outcomes. Future studies should ensure rigorous study methods are used to evaluate KT interventions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]