Annette M. Matthews

Bio: Annette M. Matthews is an academic researcher from Oregon Health & Science University. The author has contributed to research in topics: Health care & Bipolar disorder. The author has an hindex of 5, co-authored 9 publications receiving 2215 citations. Previous affiliations of Annette M. Matthews include Portland VA Medical Center.

Selective Publication of Antidepressant Trials and Its Influence on Apparent Efficacy

Abstract: Background Evidence-based medicine is valuable to the extent that the evidence base is complete and unbiased. Selective publication of clinical trials — and the outcomes within those trials — can lead to unrealistic estimates of drug effectiveness and alter the apparent risk–benefit ratio. Methods We obtained reviews from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for studies of 12 antidepressant agents involving 12,564 patients. We conducted a systematic literature search to identify matching publications. For trials that were reported in the literature, we compared the published outcomes with the FDA outcomes. We also compared the effect size derived from the published reports with the effect size derived from the entire FDA data set. Results Among 74 FDA-registered studies, 31%, accounting for 3449 study participants, were not published. Whether and how the studies were published were associated with the study outcome. A total of 37 studies viewed by the FDA as having positive results were published; 1 stu...

Substance-impaired physicians probationary and voluntary treatment programs compared.

Abstract: We compared the characteristics and treatment outcomes of substance-impaired physicians monitored by two different programs in Oregon: a probationary program administered by the Oregon Board of Medical Examiners and the confidential, voluntary Diversion Program for Health Professionals. Demographic, substance use, and treatment outcome variables were obtained by a retrospective medical record review from 41 physicians monitored by the Oregon board and 56 physicians monitored by the diversion program during a 3-year study period. Compared with physicians monitored by the Oregon board, physicians in the diversion program were younger, more likely to be in training programs and less likely to be in hospital-based practice settings, more often reported by immediate rather than third-party contacts, more likely to choose in-state inpatient treatment than out-of-state treatment, and less likely to have concurrent mental illness diagnoses (P < .05 for all comparisons). Short-term relapse rates did not differ statistically between the groups (22.0% for the Oregon board group, 14.3% for the diversion program group). The higher number of younger physicians and physicians in training and tendency toward increased reporting by immediate contacts in the diversion program suggested earlier intervention than in the Oregon board group.

The role of antipsychotics in smoking and smoking cessation

Abstract: Persons with severe and persistent mental illnesses, e.g. schizophrenia spectrum disorders and bipolar disorder, smoke at a much higher rate than the general population. Treatment options for schizophrenia spectrum disorders and bipolar disorder often include the first-generation (typical) and second-generation (atypical) antipsychotics, which have been shown to be effective in treating both psychotic and mood symptoms. This article reviews studies examining the relationship between antipsychotic medication and cigarette smoking. These studies suggest that in persons with schizophrenia and schizoaffective disorder, typical antipsychotics may increase basal smoking and decrease people's ability to stop smoking, whereas atypical antipsychotics decrease basal smoking and promote smoking cessation. However, we found that the data available were generally of moderate quality and from small studies, and that there were conflicting findings. The review also critically assesses a number of potential mechanisms for this effect: the use of smoking as a form of self-medication for the side effects of antipsychotics, the effect of antipsychotics on smoking-related cues and the effect of antipsychotics on the appreciation of the economic cost of smoking behaviour. Gaps in the research are noted and recommendations for further study are included. More study of this important issue is needed to clarify the effect of antipsychotics on smoking behaviours.

The development of the Starr-Edwards heart valve.

Abstract: Development of the Starr-Edwards heart valve marked a new era in the treatment of valvular heart disease. Until the development of the Starr-Edwards valve, there were no published reports of patients who had lived longer than 3 months with a prosthetic valve in the mitral position. This valve was the result of a unique partnership between a young surgeon, Dr. Albert Starr, and an experienced engineer, Mr. Lowell Edwards. Working as a team, these 2 men developed and successfully implanted the 1st Starr-Edwards valve within less than 2 years of their 1st meeting. Their key to success was their willingness and ability to make repeated modifications to their design to solve each clinical problem as it arose. Their constant focus on the clinical goal aided the rapid transformation of their design from a leaflet valve to a shielded ball valve, and finally to an unshielded ball valve suitable for implantation in a human being. Along the way, they abandoned the idea of imitating the appearance of native valves, in favor of developing valves that would be clinically successful. Their work has provided help and hope for patients who otherwise would have died from the complications of rheumatic heart disease and other valvular disorders for which valve replacement is the only treatment.

Managed Care, Attitudes, and Career Choices of Internal Medicine Residents

Abstract: The influence of managed care on internal medicine residents’ attitudes and career choices has not yet been determined and could be substantial. In a survey of 1,390 third-year internal medicine residents, 21% believed that managed care was the best model of health care for the United States, and 31% stated they would be satisfied working in a managed care system. Those from high managed care communities (>30% penetration) were only slightly more accepting of managed care, but were more likely to choose general internal medicine as a career (54%, p=.0009) than those from communities with lower managed care penetration.

The PRISMA Statement for Reporting Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Studies That Evaluate Health Care Interventions: Explanation and Elaboration

Abstract: Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are essential to summarize evidence relating to efficacy and safety of health care interventions accurately and reliably. The clarity and transparency of these reports, however, is not optimal. Poor reporting of systematic reviews diminishes their value to clinicians, policy makers, and other users. Since the development of the QUOROM (QUality Of Reporting Of Meta-analysis) Statement—a reporting guideline published in 1999—there have been several conceptual, methodological, and practical advances regarding the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Also, reviews of published systematic reviews have found that key information about these studies is often poorly reported. Realizing these issues, an international group that included experienced authors and methodologists developed PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses) as an evolution of the original QUOROM guideline for systematic reviews and meta-analyses of evaluations of health care interventions. The PRISMA Statement consists of a 27-item checklist and a four-phase flow diagram. The checklist includes items deemed essential for transparent reporting of a systematic review. In this Explanation and Elaboration document, we explain the meaning and rationale for each checklist item. For each item, we include an example of good reporting and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies and methodological literature. The PRISMA Statement, this document, and the associated Web site (http://www.prisma-statement.org/) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration

Abstract: Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are essential to summarise evidence relating to efficacy and safety of healthcare interventions accurately and reliably. The clarity and transparency of these reports, however, are not optimal. Poor reporting of systematic reviews diminishes their value to clinicians, policy makers, and other users. Since the development of the QUOROM (quality of reporting of meta-analysis) statement—a reporting guideline published in 1999—there have been several conceptual, methodological, and practical advances regarding the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Also, reviews of published systematic reviews have found that key information about these studies is often poorly reported. Realising these issues, an international group that included experienced authors and methodologists developed PRISMA (preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses) as an evolution of the original QUOROM guideline for systematic reviews and meta-analyses of evaluations of health care interventions. The PRISMA statement consists of a 27-item checklist and a four-phase flow diagram. The checklist includes items deemed essential for transparent reporting of a systematic review. In this explanation and elaboration document, we explain the meaning and rationale for each checklist item. For each item, we include an example of good reporting and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies and methodological literature. The PRISMA statement, this document, and the associated website (www.prisma-statement.org/) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation.

Abstract: Protocols of systematic reviews and meta-analyses allow for planning and documentation of review methods, act as a guard against arbitrary decision making during review conduct, enable readers to assess for the presence of selective reporting against completed reviews, and, when made publicly available, reduce duplication of efforts and potentially prompt collaboration. Evidence documenting the existence of selective reporting and excessive duplication of reviews on the same or similar topics is accumulating and many calls have been made in support of the documentation and public availability of review protocols. Several efforts have emerged in recent years to rectify these problems, including development of an international register for prospective reviews (PROSPERO) and launch of the first open access journal dedicated to the exclusive publication of systematic review products, including protocols (BioMed Central's Systematic Reviews). Furthering these efforts and building on the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses) guidelines, an international group of experts has created a guideline to improve the transparency, accuracy, completeness, and frequency of documented systematic review and meta-analysis protocols--PRISMA-P (for protocols) 2015. The PRISMA-P checklist contains 17 items considered to be essential and minimum components of a systematic review or meta-analysis protocol.This PRISMA-P 2015 Explanation and Elaboration paper provides readers with a full understanding of and evidence about the necessity of each item as well as a model example from an existing published protocol. This paper should be read together with the PRISMA-P 2015 statement. Systematic review authors and assessors are strongly encouraged to make use of PRISMA-P when drafting and appraising review protocols.

Recommendations for examining and interpreting funnel plot asymmetry in meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials

Abstract: Funnel plots, and tests for funnel plot asymmetry, have been widely used to examine bias in the results of meta-analyses. Funnel plot asymmetry should not be equated with publication bias, because it has a number of other possible causes. This article describes how to interpret funnel plot asymmetry, recommends appropriate tests, and explains the implications for choice of meta-analysis model