Qualitative methods for health research , Qualitative methods for health research , کتابخانه مرکزی دانشگاه علوم پزشکی تهران

/pdf/qualitative-methods-for-health-research-4k0rnfqbnv.pdf

Qualitative methods for health research

Allergic rhinitis is a symptomatic disorder of the nose induced after allergen exposure by an IgE-mediated inflammation of the membranes lining the nose. It is a global health problem that causes major illness and disability worldwide. Over 600 million patients from all countries, all ethnic groups and of all ages suffer from allergic rhinitis. It affects social life, sleep, school and work and its economic impact is substantial. Risk factors for allergic rhinitis are well identified. Indoor and outdoor allergens as well as occupational agents cause rhinitis and other allergic diseases. The role of indoor and outdoor pollution is probably very important, but has yet to be fully understood both for the occurrence of the disease and its manifestations.

In 1999, during the Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma (ARIA) WHO workshop, the expert panel proposed a new classification for allergic rhinitis which was subdivided into 'intermittent' or 'persistent' disease.

This classification is now validated. The diagnosis of allergic rhinitis is often quite easy, but in some cases it may cause problems and many patients are still under-diagnosed, often because they do not perceive the symptoms of rhinitis as a disease impairing their social life, school and work.

The management of allergic rhinitis is well established and the ARIA expert panel based its recommendations on evidence using an extensive review of the literature available up to December 1999. The statements of evidence for the development of these guidelines followed WHO rules and were based on those of Shekelle et al. A large number of papers have been published since 2000 and are extensively reviewed in the 2008 Update using the same evidence-based system. Recommendations for the management of allergic rhinitis are similar in both the ARIA workshop report and the 2008 Update. In the future, the GRADE approach will be used, but is not yet available.

Another important aspect of the ARIA guidelines was to consider co-morbidities. Both allergic rhinitis and asthma are systemic inflammatory conditions and often co-exist in the same patients. In the 2008 Update, these links have been confirmed.

The ARIA document is not intended to be a standard-of-care document for individual countries. It is provided as a basis for physicians, health care professionals and organizations involved in the treatment of allergic rhinitis and asthma in various countries to facilitate the development of relevant local standard-of-care documents for patients.

/pdf/allergic-rhinitis-and-its-impact-on-asthma-aria-2008-update-13eqfzaw4u.pdf

Allergic rhinitis and its impact on asthma (ARIA) 2008 update (in collaboration with the World Health Organization, GA(2)LEN and AllerGen)

Authors Jan L. Brozek, MD, PhD – Department of Clinical Epidemiology & Biostatistics and Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada Jean Bousquet, MD, PhD – Service des Maladies Respiratoires, Hopital Arnaud de Villeneuve, Montpellier, France, INSERM, CESP U1018, Respiratory and Environmental Epidemiology Team, France, and WHO Collaborating Center for Rhinitis and Asthma Carlos E. Baena-Cagnani, MD – Faculty of Medicine, Catholic University of Cordoba, Cordoba, Argentina Sergio Bonini, MD – Institute of Neurobiology and Molecular Medicine – CNR, Rome, Italy and Department of Medicine, Second University of Naples, Naples, Italy G. Walter Canonica, MD – Allergy & Respiratory Diseases, DIMI, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Genoa, Genoa, Italy Thomas B. Casale, MD – Division of Allergy and Immunology, Department of Medicine, Creighton University, Omaha, Nebraska, USA Roy Gerth van Wijk, MD, PhD – Section of Allergology, Department of Internal Medicine, Erasmus Medical Centre, Rotterdam, the Netherlands Ken Ohta, MD, PhD – Division of Respiratory Medicine and Allergology, Department of Medicine, Teikyo University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan Torsten Zuberbier, MD – Department of Dermatology and Allergy, Charite Universitatsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany Holger J. Schunemann, MD, PhD, MSc – Department of Clinical Epidemiology & Biostatistics and Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada

/pdf/allergic-rhinitis-and-its-impact-on-asthma-20b4c7y0pr.pdf

Allergic Rhinitis and Its Impact on Asthma

National Sleep Foundation’s sleep time duration recommendations: methodology and results summary

During the past several decades, there has been a steady increase in the frequency of opportunistic invasive fungal infections (IFIs) in immunocompromised patients. However, there is substantial controversy concerning optimal diagnostic criteria for these IFIs. Therefore, members of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer/Invasive Fungal Infections Cooperative Group and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Mycoses Study Group formed a consensus committee to develop standard definitions for IFIs for clinical research. On the basis of a review of literature and an international consensus, a set of research-oriented definitions for the IFIs most often seen and studied in immunocompromised patients with cancer is proposed. Three levels of probability are proposed: "proven," "probable," and "possible." The definitions are intended for use in the context of clinical and/or epidemiological research, not for clinical decision making.

Defining Opportunistic Invasive Fungal Infections in Immunocompromised Patients with Cancer and Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplants: An International Consensus

It's about integrating individual clinical expertise and the best external evidence

Evidence based medicine, whose philosophical origins extend back to mid-19th century Paris and earlier, remains a hot topic for clinicians, public health practitioners, purchasers, planners, and the public. There are now frequent workshops in how to practice and teach it (one sponsored by the BMJ will be held in London on 24 April); undergraduate1 and postgraduate2 training programmes are incorporating it3 (or pondering how to do so); British centres for evidence based practice have been established or planned in adult medicine, child health, surgery, pathology, pharmacotherapy, nursing, general practice, and dentistry; the Cochrane Collaboration and Britain's Centre for Review and Dissemination in York are providing systematic reviews of the effects of health care; new evidence based practice journals are being launched; and it has become a common topic in the lay media. But enthusiasm has been mixed with some negative reaction.4 5 6 Criticism has ranged from evidence based medicine being old hat to it being a dangerous innovation, perpetrated by the arrogant to serve cost cutters and suppress clinical freedom. As evidence based medicine continues to evolve and adapt, now is a useful time to refine the discussion of what it is and what it is not.

Evidence based medicine is the conscientious, explicit, and judicious use of current best evidence in making decisions about the care of individual patients. The …

/pdf/evidence-based-medicine-what-it-is-and-what-it-isn-t-2l2r350v4h.pdf

Evidence based medicine: what it is and what it isn't.

Evidence based medicine: What it is and what it isn't (reprinted from BMJ, vol 312, pg 71-72, 1996)

There is within medicine, somewhere beneath the pessimism and discouragement resulting from the disarray of the health care system and its stupendous cost, an undercurrent of almost outrageous optimism about what may lie ahead for the treatment of human disease if only we can keep learning.

https://ebm.bmj.com/content/ebmed/1/7/196.full.pdf

Transferring evidence from research into practice: 1. The role of clinical care research evidence in clinical decisions

Evidence based medicine - Reply

MRI is integral to the diagnosis of multiple sclerosis (MS) and is important for clinical prognostication. Quantitative volumetric reporting tools (QReports) can improve the accuracy and objectivity of MRI-based assessments. Several QReports are commercially available; however, validation can be difficult to establish and does not currently follow a common pathway. To aid evidence-based clinical decision-making, we performed a systematic review of commercial QReports for use in MS including technical details and published reports of validation and in-use evaluation.We categorized studies into three types of testing: technical validation, for example, comparison to manual segmentation, clinical validation by clinicians or interpretation of results alongside clinician-rated variables, and in-use evaluation, such as health economic assessment.We identified 10 companies, which provide MS lesion and brain segmentation and volume quantification, and 38 relevant publications. Tools received regulatory approval between 2006 and 2020, contextualize results to normative reference populations, ranging from 620 to 8000 subjects, and require T1- and T2-FLAIR-weighted input sequences for longitudinal assessment of whole-brain volume and lesions. In MS, six QReports provided evidence of technical validation, four companies have conducted clinical validation by correlating results with clinical variables, only one has tested their QReport by clinician end-users, and one has performed a simulated in-use socioeconomic evaluation.We conclude that there is limited evidence in the literature regarding clinical validation and in-use evaluation of commercial MS QReports with a particular lack of clinician end-user testing. Our systematic review provides clinicians and institutions with the available evidence when considering adopting a quantitative reporting tool for MS. 

/pdf/commercial-volumetric-mri-reporting-tools-in-multiple-1oxyn6tv.pdf

Jam Gray

Papers

Evidence based medicine: what it is and what it isn't.

Evidence based medicine: What it is and what it isn't (reprinted from BMJ, vol 312, pg 71-72, 1996)

Transferring evidence from research into practice: 1. The role of clinical care research evidence in clinical decisions

Evidence based medicine - Reply

Commercial volumetric MRI reporting tools in multiple sclerosis: a systematic review of the evidence