Catalogue Search | MBRL
Search Results Heading
Explore the vast range of titles available.
MBRLSearchResults
-
DisciplineDiscipline
-
Is Peer ReviewedIs Peer Reviewed
-
Item TypeItem Type
-
SubjectSubject
-
YearFrom:-To:
-
More FiltersMore FiltersSourceLanguage
Done
Filters
Reset
3
result(s) for
"Thomas, Sera‐Melisa"
Sort by:
Risk factors for serious outcomes associated with influenza illness in high‐ versus low‐ and middle‐income countries: Systematic literature review and meta‐analysis
2018
Aim To determine factors associated with a serious outcome (hospital admission or severe outcome: critical care or death) and associated with illness caused by laboratory‐confirmed influenza, with a specific interest in low‐ and middle‐income countries (LMIC). Method Databases were searched on 11 March 2016 for reports of influenza and factors associated with mortality or morbidity in humans, with no language restrictions. Pooled risks were estimated using random‐effects models. Results Despite the heterogeneity of results across studies, known risk factors for serious disease were associated with both hospital admission and severe outcomes (critical care and/or death). In LMIC, but not in high income countries (HIC), pregnant women, people with HIV/AIDS and children < 5 years old (compared with older children) were at increased risk of a severe outcome. Also, although all patients with neurological conditions were at higher risk of severe outcomes than those without, children were at higher risk than adults and children who lived in a LMIC were at significantly higher risk than those living in HIC. Adults were more likely than children to suffer a severe outcome if they had diabetes or a hematologic condition, were obese or had liver disease. Asthma is a risk factor for hospital admission but not for severe outcomes. Conclusion Known risk factors for serious disease remain important predictors of hospital admission and severe outcomes with few differences between HIC and LMIC countries. These differences likely reflect differences in health‐seeking behaviours and health services, but high heterogeneity between studies limits conclusions about the effect size.
Journal Article
The Effectiveness of Teleglaucoma versus In-Patient Examination for Glaucoma Screening: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
by
Thomas, Sera-Melisa
,
Hutnik, Cindy
,
Costella, John
in
Cost-Benefit Analysis - economics
,
Diagnostic systems
,
Diagnostic Techniques, Ophthalmological
2014
Glaucoma is the leading cause of irreversible visual impairment in the world affecting 60.5 million people worldwide in 2010, which is expected to increase to approximately 79.6 million by 2020. Therefore, glaucoma screening is important to detect, diagnose, and treat patients at the earlier stages to prevent disease progression and vision loss. Teleglaucoma uses stereoscopic digital imaging to take ocular images, which are transmitted electronically to an ocular specialist. The purpose is to synthesize literature to evaluate teleglaucoma, its diagnostic accuracy, healthcare system benefits, and cost-effectiveness.
A systematic search was conducted to help locate published and unpublished studies. Studies which evaluate teleglaucoma as a screening device for glaucoma were included. A meta-analysis was conducted to provide estimates of diagnostic accuracy, diagnostic odds ratio, and the relative percentage of glaucoma cases detected. The improvements to healthcare service quality and cost data were assessed.
Of 11237 studies reviewed, 45 were included. Our results indicated that, teleglaucoma is more specific and less sensitive than in-person examination. The pooled estimates of sensitivity was 0.832 [95% CI 0.770, 0.881] and specificity was 0.790 [95% CI 0.668, 0.876]. The relative odds of a positive screen test in glaucoma cases are 18.7 times more likely than a negative screen test in a non-glaucoma cases. Additionally, the mean cost for every case of glaucoma detected was $1098.67 US and of teleglaucoma per patient screened was $922.77 US.
Teleglaucoma can accurately discriminate between screen test results with greater odds for positive cases. It detects more cases of glaucoma than in-person examination. Both patients and the healthcare systems benefit from early detection, reduction in wait and travel times, increased specialist referral rates, and cost savings. Teleglaucoma is an effective screening tool for glaucoma specifically for remote and under-services communities.
Journal Article
The Effectiveness of Teleglaucoma Versus In-Patient Examination. Assessment: Systematic Review, Meta-Analysis, and Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
2015
Teleglaucoma is a screening device that remotely detects glaucoma cases at earlier stages using electronically-transferred stereoscopic digital imaging. Thus, patient wait and travel times are reduced, as well as, patient load in ophthalmic clinics. The purpose is to synthesize literature to evaluate teleglaucoma: its diagnostic accuracy, the healthcare system benefits, and its cost-effectiveness. A systematic review was conducted with published and unpublished studies. A meta-analysis was conducted to provide estimates of diagnostic accuracy, diagnostic odds ratio, and the relative percentage of glaucoma cases detected. Using Markov Modelling, a cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted. Of 11237 studies reviewed, 45 were included. Teleglaucoma was more specific and less sensitive than in-person examination. The pooled estimates of sensitivity was 0.832 [95% CI 0.770, 0.881] and specificity was 0.790 [95% CI 0.668, 0.876]. The ICER calculated for teleglaucoma was $27,460/QALY. In conclusion, teleglaucoma was found to be more cost-effective than in-person examination in rural areas.
Dissertation