Search

Objective: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to quantify risks and benefits of screening asymptomatic women for ovarian cancer., Methods: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Cochrane CENTRAL, without language restrictions, from January 1, 1979 to February 5, 2012. Eligible studies randomly assigned asymptomatic women to screening or usual care. Two reviewers independently screened studies for eligibility, extracted data using a standardized, piloted extraction form, and assessed bias and strength of inference for each outcome using the GRADE framework. Chance-corrected agreement was calculated at each step, and disagreements were resolved through consensus., Results: Ten randomized trials proved eligible. Screening did not reduce all-cause mortality (relative risk (RR)=1.0, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.96-1.06), ovarian cancer specific mortality (RR=1.08, 95% CI 0.84-1.38), or risk of diagnosis at an advanced stage (RR of diagnosis at FIGO stages III-IV=0.86, 95% CI 0.68-1.11). Transvaginal ultrasound resulted in a mean of 38 surgeries per ovarian cancer detected (95% CI 15.7-178.1) while screening with CA-125 led to 4 surgeries per ovarian cancer detected (95% CI 2.7-4.5). Surgery was associated with severe complications in 6% of women (95% CI 1%-11%). Quality of life was not affected by screening; however, women with false-positive results had increased cancer-specific distress compared to those with normal results (odds ratio (OR)=2.22, 95% CI 1.23-3.99)., Conclusions: Screening asymptomatic women for ovarian cancer does not reduce mortality or diagnosis at an advanced stage and is associated with unnecessary surgery., (© 2013.)

Background: Opioids are prescribed frequently and increasingly for the management of chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP). Current systematic reviews have a number of limitations, leaving uncertainty with regard to the benefits and harms associated with opioid therapy for CNCP. We propose to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to summarize the evidence for using opioids in the treatment of CNCP and the risk of associated adverse events., Methods and Design: Eligible trials will include those that randomly allocate patients with CNCP to treatment with any opioid or any non-opioid control group. 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. We will use the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system to evaluate confidence in the evidence on an outcome-by-outcome basis. Teams of reviewers will independently and in duplicate assess trial eligibility, abstract data, and assess risk of bias among eligible trials. To ensure interpretability of our results, we will present risk differences and measures of relative effect for all outcomes reported and these will be based on anchor-based minimally important clinical differences, when available. We will conduct a priori defined subgroup analyses consistent with current best practices., Discussion: Our review will evaluate both the effectiveness and the adverse events associated with opioid use for CNCP, evaluate confidence in the evidence using the GRADE approach, and prioritize patient-important outcomes with a focus on functional gains guided by IMMPACT recommendations. Our results will facilitate evidence-based management of patients with CNCP and identify key areas for future research., Trial Registration: Our protocol is registered on PROSPERO (CRD42012003023), http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO.

Background: Chronic pain has been estimated to affect 60% of patients with diabetes and is strongly associated with reduced activity tolerance. We systematically reviewed randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that explored interventions to improve physical activity among patients with diabetes to establish whether co-morbid chronic pain was captured at baseline or explored as an effect modifier and if trials reported a component designed to target chronic pain., Methodology/principal Findings: We searched CINAHL, Cochrane Central Registry of Controlled Trials, EMBASE, ERIC, MEDLINE, SPORTDiscus and PsycInfo from inception of each database to March 2012 for RCTs that enrolled patients with diabetes and randomly assigned them to an intervention designed to promote physical activity. Two reviewers independently selected trials and abstracted data. We identified 136 trials meeting our inclusion criteria, only one of which that reported capturing chronic pain measures at baseline. No trial reported on specific interventions to address chronic pain as a competing demand, or as an effect modifier., Conclusion/significance: Only 1 trial identified that aimed to promote physical activity among patients with diabetes reported that co-morbid chronic pain was captured at baseline. No trials reported exploring chronic pain as an effect modifier or targeting it as part of its intervention.

Study Design: Questionnaire survey., Objective: To explore spine surgeons' attitudes toward the involvement of nonphysician clinicians (NPCs) to screen patients with low back or low back-related leg pain referred for surgical assessment., Summary of Background Data: Although the utilization of physician assistants is common in several healthcare systems, the attitude of spine surgeons toward the independent assessment of patients by NPCs remains uncertain., Methods: We administered a 28-item survey to all 101 surgeon members of the Canadian Spine Society, which inquired about demographic variables, patient screening efficiency, typical wait times for both assessment and surgery, important components of low back-related complaints history and examination, indicators for assessment by a surgeon, and attitudes toward the use of NPCs to screen patients with low back and leg pain referred for elective surgical assessment., Results: Eighty-five spine surgeons completed our survey, for a response rate of 84.1%. Most respondents (77.6%) were interested in working with an NPC to screen patients with low back-related complaints referred for elective surgical assessment. Perception of suboptimal wait time for consultation and poor screening efficiency for surgical candidates were associated with greater surgeon interest in an NPC model of care. We achieved majority consensus regarding the core components for a low back-related complaints history and examination, and findings that would support surgical assessment. A majority of respondents (75.3%) agreed that they would be comfortable not assessing patients with low back-related complaints referred to their practice if indications for surgery were ruled out by an NPC., Conclusion: The majority of Canadian spine surgeons were open to an NPC model of care to assess and triage nonurgent or emergent low back-related complaints. Clinical trials to establish the effectiveness and acceptance of an NPC model of care by all stakeholders are urgently needed.

Background: Fibromyalgia is associated with substantial socioeconomic loss and, despite considerable research including numerous randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and systematic reviews, there exists uncertainty regarding what treatments are effective. No review has evaluated all interventional studies for fibromyalgia, which limits attempts to make inferences regarding the relative effectiveness of treatments., Methods/design: We will conduct a network meta-analysis of all RCTs evaluating therapies for fibromyalgia to determine which therapies show evidence of effectiveness, and the relative effectiveness of these treatments. We will acquire eligible studies through a systematic search of CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE, AMED, HealthSTAR, PsychINFO, PapersFirst, ProceedingsFirst, and the Cochrane Central Registry of Controlled Trials. Eligible studies will randomly allocate patients presenting with fibromyalgia or a related condition to an intervention or a control. Teams of reviewers will, independently and in duplicate, screen titles and abstracts and complete full text reviews to determine eligibility, and subsequently perform data abstraction and assess risk of bias of eligible trials. We will conduct meta-analyses to establish the effect of all reported therapies on patient-important outcomes when possible. To assess relative effects of treatments, we will construct a random effects model within the Bayesian framework using Markov chain Monte Carlo methods., Discussion: Our review will be the first to evaluate all treatments for fibromyalgia, provide relative effectiveness of treatments, and prioritize patient-important outcomes with a focus on functional gains. Our review will facilitate evidence-based management of patients with fibromyalgia, identify key areas for future research, and provide a framework for conducting large systematic reviews involving indirect comparisons.

Problem Addressed: Family physicians provide most of the care for the frail elderly population, but many challenges and barriers can lead to difficulties with fragmented, ineffective, and inefficient services., Objective of Program: To improve the quality, efficiency, and coordination of care for the frail elderly living in the community and to enhance geriatric and interprofessional skills for providers and learners., Program Description: The Seniors Collaborative Care Program used an interprofessional, shared-care, geriatric model. The feasibility of the program was evaluated through a pilot study conducted between November 2008 and June 2009 at Stonechurch Family Health Centre, part of the McMaster Family Health Team. The core team comprised a nurse practitioner, an FP, and a registered practical nurse. Additional team members included a pharmacist, a dietitian, a social worker, and a visiting geriatrician. Twenty-five seniors were evaluated through the pilot program. Patients were assessed within 5 weeks of initial contact. Patients and practitioners valued timely, accessible, preventive, and multidisciplinary aspects of care. The nurse practitioner's role was prominent in the program, while the geriatrician's clinical role was focused efficiently., Conclusion: The family health team is ideally positioned to deliver shared care for the frail elderly. Our model allowed for a short referral time and easy access, which might allow seniors to remain in their environment of choice.

Although not typical, there appears to be a growing trend of chiropractors working within collaborative care settings. We use a case report to highlight features of patient care and education related to chiropractic practice within a collaborative care model. This paper hopes to offer some insight into how a chiropractor might fit into a collaborative setting and what training might help them to function effectively. The case report used is an example where a chiropractor provided a secondary diagnosis and complementary care not previously considered by the allied team resulting in symptom control and return to work by the patient. By the nature of a chiropractor's ability to provide a primary or secondary musculoskeletal diagnosis, they have the capacity to offer an additive approach to patient care within collaborative care models. However, chiropractors wishing to work in these environments, such as a family health team, would benefit from further education.