Explore the vast range of titles available.

Background Based on a critical synthesis of literature on use of the Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (PARIHS) framework, revisions and a companion Guide were developed by a group of researchers independent of the original PARIHS team. The purpose of the Guide is to enhance and optimize efforts of researchers using PARIHS in implementation trials and evaluations. Methods Authors used a planned, structured process to organize and synthesize critiques, discussions, and potential recommendations for refinements of the PARIHS framework arising from a systematic review. Using a templated form, each author independently recorded key components for each reviewed paper; that is, study definitions, perceived strengths/limitations of PARIHS, other observations regarding key issues and recommendations regarding needed refinements. After reaching consensus on these key components, the authors summarized the information and developed the Guide . Results A number of revisions, perceived as consistent with the PARIHS framework's general nature and intent, are proposed. The related Guide is composed of a set of reference tools, provided in Additional files. Its core content is built upon the basic elements of PARIHS and current implementation science. Conclusions We invite researchers using PARIHS for targeted evidence-based practice (EBP) implementations with a strong task-orientation to use this Guide as a companion and to apply the revised framework prospectively and comprehensively. Researchers also are encouraged to evaluate its use relative to perceived strengths and issues. Such evaluations and critical reflections regarding PARIHS and our Guide could thereby promote the framework's continued evolution.

Sebaceous carcinoma usually occurs in adults older than 60 years, on the eyelid, head and neck, and trunk. In this Review, we present clinical care recommendations for sebaceous carcinoma, which were developed as a result of an expert panel evaluation of the findings of a systematic review. Key conclusions were drawn and recommendations made for diagnosis, first-line treatment, radiotherapy, and post-treatment care. For diagnosis, we concluded that deep biopsy is often required; furthermore, differential diagnoses that mimic the condition can be excluded with special histological stains. For treatment, the recommended first-line therapy is surgical removal, followed by margin assessment of the peripheral and deep tissue edges; conjunctival mapping biopsies can facilitate surgical planning. Radiotherapy can be considered for cases with nerve or lymph node involvement, and as the primary treatment in patients who are ineligible for surgery. Post-treatment clinical examination should occur every 6 months for at least 3 years. No specific systemic therapies for advanced disease can be recommended, but targeted therapies and immunotherapies are being developed.

[...]they could link these three bodies of evidence to make the case for their high level of certainty regarding the net benefits of monitoring for glucocorticoid excess. [...]because a large number of health care interventions do more good than harm, sex workers will therefore have better health if they have access to services.\\n In any case, as for GRADEd recommendations, the rationale for each good practice statement should only be a mouse-click away [24].

Direct evidence comes from research that directly compares the interventions in which we are interested when applied to the populations in which we are interested and measures outcomes important to patients. Evidence can be indirect in one of four ways. First, patients may differ from those of interest (the term applicability is often used for this form of indirectness). Secondly, the intervention tested may differ from the intervention of interest. Decisions regarding indirectness of patients and interventions depend on an understanding of whether biological or social factors are sufficiently different that one might expect substantial differences in the magnitude of effect. Thirdly, outcomes may differ from those of primary interest—for instance, surrogate outcomes that are not themselves important, but measured in the presumption that changes in the surrogate reflect changes in an outcome important to patients. A fourth type of indirectness, conceptually different from the first three, occurs when clinicians must choose between interventions that have not been tested in head-to-head comparisons. Making comparisons between treatments under these circumstances requires specific statistical methods and will be rated down in quality one or two levels depending on the extent of differences between the patient populations, co-interventions, measurements of the outcome, and the methods of the trials of the candidate interventions.

In the GRADE approach, randomized trials start as high-quality evidence and observational studies as low-quality evidence, but both can be rated down if a body of evidence is associated with a high risk of publication bias. Even when individual studies included in best-evidence summaries have a low risk of bias, publication bias can result in substantial overestimates of effect. Authors should suspect publication bias when available evidence comes from a number of small studies, most of which have been commercially funded. A number of approaches based on examination of the pattern of data are available to help assess publication bias. The most popular of these is the funnel plot; all, however, have substantial limitations. Publication bias is likely frequent, and caution in the face of early results, particularly with small sample size and number of events, is warranted.

Technology‐aided remote interventions for poorly controlled symptoms may improve cancer symptom outcomes. In a randomized controlled trial, the efficacy of an automated symptom management system was tested to determine if it reduced chemotherapy‐related symptoms. Prospectively, 358 patients beginning chemotherapy were randomized to the Symptom Care at Home (SCH) intervention (n = 180) or enhanced usual care (UC) (n = 178). Participants called the automated monitoring system daily reporting severity of 11 symptoms. SCH participants received automated self‐management coaching and nurse practitioner (NP) telephone follow‐up for poorly controlled symptoms. NPs used a guideline‐based decision support system. Primary endpoints were symptom severity across all symptoms, and the number of severe, moderate, mild, and no symptom days. A secondary endpoint was individual symptom severity. Mixed effects linear modeling and negative binominal regressions were used to compare SCH with UC. SCH participants had significantly less symptom severity across all symptoms (P < 0.001). On average, the relative symptom burden reduction for SCH participants was 3.59 severity points (P < 0.001), roughly 43% of UC. With a very rapid treatment benefit, SCH participants had significant reductions in severe (67% less) and moderate (39% less) symptom days compared with UC (both P < 0.001). All individual symptoms, except diarrhea, were significantly lower for SCH participants (P < 0.05). Symptom Care at Home dramatically improved symptom outcomes. These results demonstrate that symptoms can be improved through automated home monitoring and follow‐up to intensify care for poorly controlled symptoms. We tested an automated system to decrease symptom burden during chemotherapy. Results are reported for a randomized controlled trial of Symptom Care at Home, an automated symptom monitoring and management system that included automated self‐management coaching coupled with oncology provider alerts about poorly controlled symptoms at home. Study‐based nurse practitioners provided telephone follow‐up utilizing a symptom care decision support system to intensify symptom care. The trial results clearly demonstrate that the intervention significantly improves symptom outcomes.

Résumé L’intérêt envers l’utilisation des produits du cannabis à des fins médicales chez les enfants de moins de 18 ans augmente. De nombreux produits du cannabis à des fins médicales contiennent du cannabidiol, du delta-9-tétrahydrocannabinol ou ces deux produits. Malgré les nombreuses prétentions thérapeutiques, peu d’études rigoureuses guident la posologie, l’innocuité et l’efficacité du cannabis à des fins médicales en pédiatrie clinique. Le présent document de principes passe en revue les données probantes à jour et expose les recommandations sur l’utilisation du cannabis à des fins médicales chez les enfants. Les rapports à plus long terme (deux ans) souscrivent à la tolérabilité et à l’efficacité soutenues d’un traitement au cannabidiol chez les patients ayant le syndrome de Lennox-Gastaut ou le syndrome de Dravet. Les extraits de cannabis enrichis de cannabidiol qui renferment de petites quantités de delta-9-tétrahydrocannabinol ont été évalués auprès d’un petit nombre de patients d’âge pédiatrique, et d’autres recherches devront être réalisées pour éclairer les guides de pratique clinique. Étant donné l’utilisation répandue du cannabis à des fins médicales au Canada, les pédiatres devraient être prêts à participer à des échanges ouverts et continus avec les familles au sujet de ses avantages potentiels et de ses risques, ainsi qu’à préparer des plans individuels en vue d’en surveiller l’efficacité, de réduire les méfaits et de limiter les interactions médicamenteuses.

Objetivo: Descrever o processo de implementação de uma intervenção multifacetada de tradução e intercâmbio do conhecimento para melhorar as práticas de manejo da dor, e avaliar a adoção desta intervenção pelos profissionais de saúde durante procedimentos dolorosos em neonatos. Métodos: Estudo quase-experimental tipo antes e depois, realizado em uma unidade neonatal. A intervenção Evidence-Based Practice for Improving Quality, norteada pela estrutura conceitual The Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services, foi implementada em duas etapas (preparação e implementação), e a sua adoção foi mensurada por indicadores clínicos relacionados ao manejo da dor, apresentados por meio de estatística descritiva. Resultados: Após discussão sobre práticas existentes na unidade que necessitavam de mudança; síntese das evidências científicas atuais; e dados do contexto local; os membros do Conselho de Pesquisa e Prática da unidade elaboraram e implementaram metas coerentes e factíveis para mudança da prática no manejo da dor; selecionaram estratégias de tradução e intercâmbio do conhecimento; determinaram o público-alvo e os indicadores e implementaram as intervenções. Houve uma redução em 32,8% no número de procedimentos dolorosos realizados, e aumento entre 26,6 e 50,7% na utilização das escalas de avaliação da dor e de 25,1% na administração da glicose oral. Conclusão: A intervenção multifacetada Evidence-Based Practice for Improving Quality é complexa, e possui processos que demandam conhecimento e habilidades, comprometimento dos diversos atores envolvidos, disponibilidade de tempo e investimento financeiro. Os indicadores analisados mostraram que a intervenção resultou em mudanças positivas na prática clínica no manejo da dor do neonato.

Resumo A discussão suscitada pela Medicina Baseada na Evidência (MBE) acerca da necessidade de se desenvolver instrumentos formais de apoio à decisão médica que contribuam para o reforço do seu perfil científico deu lugar à reflexão sobre a necessidade de uma maior padronização para reduzir a variação das práticas médicas. Neste artigo, é desenvolvida uma abordagem sociológica centrada na problematização da ideia de padronização, tanto a partir da análise do debate teórico como da investigação empírica significativa. Argumenta-se que os padrões não produzem efeitos uniformes e sustenta-se que a sua adaptação às circunstâncias heterogéneas da prática clínica torna difícil escamotear o papel dos processos interpretativos enquanto base para o desenvolvimento dos julgamentos envolvidos nas decisões médicas. Abstract The discussion evidence-based medicine raised about the need to develop formal instruments to support medical decision-making that contribute to strengthening its scientific profile gave rise to a reflection on the need for greater standardisation to reduce the variation in medical practices. This study develops a sociological approach that focuses on problematizing the idea of standardisation based both on the analysis of the theoretical debate and from significant empirical research. It argues that standards fail to produce uniform effects and that their adaptation to the heterogeneous circumstances of clinical practice makes it difficult to hide the role of interpretative processes as the basis to develop judgments in medical decisions.