scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Author

Renee F Wilson

Bio: Renee F Wilson is an academic researcher from Johns Hopkins University. The author has contributed to research in topics: Health care & Systematic review. The author has an hindex of 41, co-authored 92 publications receiving 8242 citations. Previous affiliations of Renee F Wilson include Ohio State University & Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine.


Papers
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
15 Jan 2008-Cancer
TL;DR: The results indicated that underrepresented populations face numerous barriers to participation in cancer‐related trials, and the available evidence had limitations in quality regarding representativeness, justification of study methods, the reliability and validity of data‐collection methods, potential for bias, and data analysis.
Abstract: Racial and ethnic minorities, older adults, rural residents, and individuals of low socioeconomic status are underrepresented among participants in cancer-related trials. The authors conducted a systematic review to determine the barriers to participation of underrepresented populations in cancer-related trials. Their search included English-language publications that reported original data on the recruitment of underrepresented groups to cancer treatment or prevention trials between 1966 and December 2005 in multiple electronic databases. They also hand-searched titles in 34 journals from January 2003 to December 2005 and they examined reference lists for eligible articles. Titles and abstracts were reviewed to identify relevant studies. Data on barriers to participation were synthesized both qualitatively and based on statistically significant associations with trial enrollment. Of 5257 studies that were cited, 65 studies were eligible for inclusion in the current analysis, including 46 studies on recruitment into cancer therapeutic trials, 15 studies on recruitment into prevention trials, and 4 studies on recruitment into both prevention and treatment trials. Numerous factors were reported as barriers to participation in cancer-related trials. However, only 20 of the studies reported statistically significant associations between hypothesized barriers and enrollment. The available evidence had limitations in quality regarding representativeness, justification of study methods, the reliability and validity of data-collection methods, potential for bias, and data analysis. The results indicated that underrepresented populations face numerous barriers to participation in cancer-related trials. The current systematic review highlighting the literature on recruitment of underrepresented populations to cancer trials and may be used as the evidence base toward developing an agenda for etiologic and intervention research to reduce the disparities in participation in cancer-related trials.

865 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: A systematic review was commissioned to summarize the comparative benefits and harms of oral agents that are used to treat type 2 diabetes and selected studies that reported on major clinical outcomes or any of the following intermediate end points or adverse events.
Abstract: Clinicians may use any of multiple oral diabetes agents to treat their diabetic patients. In their systematic review, Bolen and colleagues summarize the evidence of benefits and harms of oral agent...

818 citations

Journal Article
TL;DR: The results indicate APRNs provide effective and high-quality patient care, have an important role in improving the quality of patient care in the United States, and could help to address concerns about whether care provided by APRNs can safely augment the physician supply to support reform efforts aimed at expanding access to care.
Abstract: Advanced practice registered nurses have assumed an increasing role as providers in the health care system, particularly for underserved populations. The aim of this systematic review was to answer the following question: Compared to other providers (physicians or teams without APRNs) are APRN patient outcomes of care similar? This systematic review of published literature between 1990 and 2008 on care provided by APRNs indicates patient outcomes of care provided by nurse practitioners and certified nurse midwives in collaboration with physicians are similar to and in some ways better than care provided by physicians alone for the populations and in the settings included. Use of clinical nurse specialists in acute care settings can reduce length of stay and cost of care for hospitalized patients. These results extend what is known about APRN outcomes from previous reviews by assessing all types of APRNs over a span of 18 years, using a systematic process with intentionally broad inclusion of outcomes, patient populations, and settings. The results indicate APRNs provide effective and high-quality patient care, have an important role in improving the quality of patient care in the United States, and could help to address concerns about whether care provided by APRNs can safely augment the physician supply to support reform efforts aimed at expanding access to care.

610 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Within these limits, evidence suggests that interventions can improve perceptions of safety culture and potentially reduce patient harm.
Abstract: Developing a culture of safety is a core element of many efforts to improve patient safety and care quality. This systematic review identifies and assesses interventions used to promote safety culture or climate in acute care settings. The authors searched MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Cochrane, and EMBASE to identify relevant English-language studies published from January 2000 to October 2012. They selected studies that targeted health care workers practicing in inpatient settings and included data about change in patient safety culture or climate after a targeted intervention. Two raters independently screened 3679 abstracts (which yielded 33 eligible studies in 35 articles), extracted study data, and rated study quality and strength of evidence. Eight studies included executive walk rounds or interdisciplinary rounds; 8 evaluated multicomponent, unit-based interventions; and 20 included team training or communication initiatives. Twenty-nine studies reported some improvement in safety culture or patient outcomes, but measured outcomes were highly heterogeneous. Strength of evidence was low, and most studies were pre-post evaluations of low to moderate quality. Within these limits, evidence suggests that interventions can improve perceptions of safety culture and potentially reduce patient harm.

470 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The creation and restoration of new wetlands for mitigation of lost wetland habitat is a newly developing science/technology that is still seeking to define and achieve success of these wetlands.
Abstract: The creation and restoration of new wetlands for mitigation of lost wetland habitat is a newly developing science/technology that is still seeking to define and achieve success of these wetlands. Fundamental requirements for achieving success of wetland creation and restoration projects are: understanding wetland function; giving the system time; and allowing for the self-designing capacity of nature. Mitigation projects involving freshwater marshes should require enough time, closer to 15-20 yr than 5 yr, to judge the success or lack thereof. Restoration and creation of forested wetlands, coastal wetlands, or peatlands may require even more time. Ecosystem-level research and ecosystem modelling development may provide guidance on when created and restored wetlands can be expected to comply with criteria that measure their success. Full-scale experimentation is now be- ginning to increase our understanding of wetland function at the larger spatial scales and longer time scales than those of most ecological experiments. Predictive ecological mod- elling may enable ecologists to estimate how long it will take the mitigation wetland to achieve steady state.

458 citations


Cited by
More filters
01 Mar 2007
TL;DR: An initiative to develop uniform standards for defining and classifying AKI and to establish a forum for multidisciplinary interaction to improve care for patients with or at risk for AKI is described.
Abstract: Acute kidney injury (AKI) is a complex disorder for which currently there is no accepted definition. Having a uniform standard for diagnosing and classifying AKI would enhance our ability to manage these patients. Future clinical and translational research in AKI will require collaborative networks of investigators drawn from various disciplines, dissemination of information via multidisciplinary joint conferences and publications, and improved translation of knowledge from pre-clinical research. We describe an initiative to develop uniform standards for defining and classifying AKI and to establish a forum for multidisciplinary interaction to improve care for patients with or at risk for AKI. Members representing key societies in critical care and nephrology along with additional experts in adult and pediatric AKI participated in a two day conference in Amsterdam, The Netherlands, in September 2005 and were assigned to one of three workgroups. Each group's discussions formed the basis for draft recommendations that were later refined and improved during discussion with the larger group. Dissenting opinions were also noted. The final draft recommendations were circulated to all participants and subsequently agreed upon as the consensus recommendations for this report. Participating societies endorsed the recommendations and agreed to help disseminate the results. The term AKI is proposed to represent the entire spectrum of acute renal failure. Diagnostic criteria for AKI are proposed based on acute alterations in serum creatinine or urine output. A staging system for AKI which reflects quantitative changes in serum creatinine and urine output has been developed. We describe the formation of a multidisciplinary collaborative network focused on AKI. We have proposed uniform standards for diagnosing and classifying AKI which will need to be validated in future studies. The Acute Kidney Injury Network offers a mechanism for proceeding with efforts to improve patient outcomes.

5,467 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Trends in mean BMI have recently flattened in northwestern Europe and the high-income English-speaking and Asia-Pacific regions for both sexes, southwestern Europe for boys, and central and Andean Latin America for girls, and by contrast, the rise in BMI has accelerated in east and south Asia forboth sexes, and southeast Asia for boys.

4,317 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Properties of currently available glucose-lowering agents that may guide treatment choice in individual patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus are explored.
Abstract: Erratum to: DiabetologiaDOI 10.1007/s00125-012-2534-0In the text box ‘Properties of currently available glucose-lowering agents that may guide treatment choice in individualpatients with type 2 diabetes mellitus ’ vildagliptin was incor-rectly assigned footnote ‘a’ (Limited use in the USA/Europe)instead of footnote ‘b’ (Not licensed in the USA).

4,126 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: This revision of the consensus algorithm for the medical management of type 2 diabetes focuses on the new classes of medications that now have more clinical data and experience and addresses safety issues surrounding the thiazolidinediones.
Abstract: The consensus algorithm for the medical management of type 2 diabetes was published in August 2006 with the expectation that it would be updated, based on the availability of new interventions and new evidence to establish their clinical role. The authors continue to endorse the principles used to develop the algorithm and its major features. We are sensitive to the risks of changing the algorithm cavalierly or too frequently, without compelling new information. An update to the consensus algorithm published in January 2008 specifically addressed safety issues surrounding the thiazolidinediones. In this revision, we focus on the new classes of medications that now have more clinical data and experience.

3,807 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
09 Jan 2013-BMJ
TL;DR: The SPIRIT 2013 Explanation and Elaboration paper provides important information to promote full understanding of the checklist recommendations and strongly recommends that this explanatory paper be used in conjunction with the SPIRit Statement.
Abstract: High quality protocols facilitate proper conduct, reporting, and external review of clinical trials. However, the completeness of trial protocols is often inadequate. To help improve the content and quality of protocols, an international group of stakeholders developed the SPIRIT 2013 Statement (Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials). The SPIRIT Statement provides guidance in the form of a checklist of recommended items to include in a clinical trial protocol. This SPIRIT 2013 Explanation and Elaboration paper provides important information to promote full understanding of the checklist recommendations. For each checklist item, we provide a rationale and detailed description; a model example from an actual protocol; and relevant references supporting its importance. We strongly recommend that this explanatory paper be used in conjunction with the SPIRIT Statement. A website of resources is also available (www.spirit-statement.org). The SPIRIT 2013 Explanation and Elaboration paper, together with the Statement, should help with the drafting of trial protocols. Complete documentation of key trial elements can facilitate transparency and protocol review for the benefit of all stakeholders.

3,108 citations