scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Author

Timothy S. Carey

Bio: Timothy S. Carey is an academic researcher from University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. The author has contributed to research in topics: Health care & Back pain. The author has an hindex of 54, co-authored 200 publications receiving 11886 citations. Previous affiliations of Timothy S. Carey include Memorial Hospital of South Bend & Durham University.


Papers
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The prevalence of chronic, impairing LBP has risen significantly in North Carolina, with continuing high levels of disability and health care use, and a substantial portion of the rise in LBP care costs over the past 2 decades may be related to this rising prevalence.
Abstract: Background National or state-level estimates on trends in the prevalence of chronic low back pain (LBP) are lacking. The objective of this study was to determine whether the prevalence of chronic LBP and the demographic, health-related, and health care–seeking characteristics of individuals with the condition have changed over the last 14 years. Methods A cross-sectional, telephone survey of a representative sample of North Carolina households was conducted in 1992 and repeated in 2006. A total of 4437 households were contacted in 1992 and 5357 households in 2006 to identify noninstitutionalized adults 21 years or older with chronic (>3 months), impairing LBP or neck pain that limits daily activities. These individuals were interviewed in more detail about their health and health care seeking. Results The prevalence of chronic, impairing LBP rose significantly over the 14-year interval, from 3.9% (95% confidence interval [CI], 3.4%-4.4%) in 1992 to 10.2% (95% CI, 9.3%-11.0%) in 2006. Increases were seen for all adult age strata, in men and women, and in white and black races. Symptom severity and general health were similar for both years. The proportion of individuals who sought care from a health care provider in the past year increased from 73.1% (95% CI, 65.2%-79.8%) to 84.0% (95% CI, 80.8%-86.8%), while the mean number of visits to all health care providers were similar (19.5 [1992] vs 19.4 [2006]). Conclusions The prevalence of chronic, impairing LBP has risen significantly in North Carolina, with continuing high levels of disability and health care use. A substantial portion of the rise in LBP care costs over the past 2 decades may be related to this rising prevalence.

1,346 citations

01 Mar 2002
TL;DR: Systematic approaches to assessing the strength of scientific evidence allow evaluation of either individual articles or entire bodies of research on a particular subject, for use in making evidence-based health-care decisions.
Abstract: Authors' objectives Health care decisions are increasingly being made on research-based evidence, rather than on expert opinion or clinical experience alone. This report examines systematic approaches to assessing the strength of scientific evidence. Such systems allow evaluation of either individual articles or entire bodies of research on a particular subject, for use in making evidence-based health-care decisions. Identification of methods to assess health care research results is a task that Congress directed the Tel: +64 3 364 1145Research and Quality to undertake as part of the Healthcare Research and Quality Act of 1999.

856 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The times to functional recovery, return to work, and complete recovery from low back pain were similar among patients seen by all six groups of practitioners, but there were marked differences in the use of health care services.
Abstract: Background Patients with back pain receive quite different care from different types of health care practitioners. We performed a prospective observational study to determine whether the outcomes of and charges for care differ among primary care practitioners, chiropractors, and orthopedic surgeons. Methods Two hundred eight practitioners in North Carolina were randomly selected from six strata: urban primary care physicians (n = 39), rural primary care physicians (n = 48), urban chiropractors (n = 32), rural chiropractors (n = 32), orthopedic surgeons (n = 29), and primary care providers at a group-model health maintenance organization (HMO) (n = 28). The practitioners enrolled consecutive patients with acute low back pain. The patients were contacted by telephone periodically for up to 24 weeks to assess functional status, work status, use of health care services, and satisfaction with the care received. Results The status at six months was ascertained for 1555 of the 1633 patients enrolled in the study...

527 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
14 Apr 1999-JAMA
TL;DR: Evaluating the efficacy of 5 categories of drugs used to treat alcohol dependence found some evidence that drinking frequency is reduced but minimal evidence to support improved continuous abstinence rates, and recent reports documenting that naltrexone and acamprosate are more effective than placebo justify clinical interest in use of these medications for alcohol-dependent patients.
Abstract: ContextAlcoholism affects approximately 10% of Americans at some time in their lives. Treatment consists of psychosocial interventions, pharmacological interventions, or both, but which drugs are most effective at enhancing abstinence and preventing relapse has not been systematically reviewed.ObjectiveTo evaluate the efficacy of 5 categories of drugs used to treat alcohol dependence—disulfiram, the opioid antagonists naltrexone and nalmefene, acamprosate, various serotonergic agents (including selective serotonergic reuptake inhibitors), and lithium.Data SourcesReports of randomized controlled trials, nonrandomized trials, and other study designs in English, French, and German identified from multiple searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and specialized databases; hand searching bibliographies of review articles; searches for unpublished literature; and discussions with investigators in the field.Study SelectionWe included all studies on alcohol-dependent human subjects aged 18 years or older from all inpatient and outpatient settings between 1966 and December 1997 that met our inclusion criteria.Data ExtractionWe abstracted the following information: study design and blinding, diagnostic instrument and severity assessment, drug interventions and cointerventions, demographic and comorbidity details about patients, compliance, and numerous outcome measures (eg, relapse, return to drinking, drinking or nondrinking days, time to first drink, alcohol consumed per unit of time, craving). We graded quality of the individual articles (scale, 0-100) independently from the strength of evidence for each drug class (A, strong and consistent evidence of efficacy in studies of large size and/or high quality; B, mixed evidence of efficacy; C, evidence of lack of efficacy; and I, insufficient evidence).Data SynthesisOf 375 articles evaluated, we abstracted and analyzed data from 41 studies and 11 follow-up or subgroup studies. Naltrexone (grade A) reduces the risk of relapse to heavy drinking and the frequency of drinking compared with placebo but does not substantially enhance abstinence, ie, avoidance of any alcohol consumption. Acamprosate (grade A, from large-scale studies in Europe) reduces drinking frequency, although its effects on enhancing abstinence or reducing time to first drink are less clear. Controlled studies of disulfiram (grade B) reveal a mixed outcome pattern—some evidence that drinking frequency is reduced but minimal evidence to support improved continuous abstinence rates. The limited data on serotonergic agents were not very promising (grade I), although most studies were confounded by high rates of comorbid mood disorders. Lithium lacks efficacy (grade C) in the treatment of primary alcohol dependence.ConclusionsRecent reports documenting that naltrexone and acamprosate are more effective than placebo in the treatment of alcoholism justify clinical interest in use of these medications for alcohol-dependent patients. Use of disulfiram is widespread but less clearly supported by the clinical trial evidence; however, targeted studies on supervised administration of disulfiram may be warranted. Use of existing serotonergic agents or lithium for patients with primary alcohol dependence does not appear to be supported by the efficacy data available at this time; these medications may still have a positive effect in patients with coexisting psychiatric disorders.

463 citations


Cited by
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
18 Oct 2011-BMJ
TL;DR: The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias aims to make the process clearer and more accurate.
Abstract: Flaws in the design, conduct, analysis, and reporting of randomised trials can cause the effect of an intervention to be underestimated or overestimated. The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias aims to make the process clearer and more accurate

22,227 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
19 Jun 2004-BMJ
TL;DR: A system for grading the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations that can be applied across a wide range of interventions and contexts is developed, and a summary of the approach from the perspective of a guideline user is presented.
Abstract: Users of clinical practice guidelines and other recommendations need to know how much confidence they can place in the recommendations Systematic and explicit methods of making judgments can reduce errors and improve communication We have developed a system for grading the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations that can be applied across a wide range of interventions and contexts In this article we present a summary of our approach from the perspective of a guideline user Judgments about the strength of a recommendation require consideration of the balance between benefits and harms, the quality of the evidence, translation of the evidence into specific circumstances, and the certainty of the baseline risk It is also important to consider costs (resource utilisation) before making a recommendation Inconsistencies among systems for grading the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations reduce their potential to facilitate critical appraisal and improve communication of these judgments Our system for guiding these complex judgments balances the need for simplicity with the need for full and transparent consideration of all important issues

7,608 citations

01 Feb 2009
TL;DR: This Secret History documentary follows experts as they pick through the evidence and reveal why the plague killed on such a scale, and what might be coming next.
Abstract: Secret History: Return of the Black Death Channel 4, 7-8pm In 1348 the Black Death swept through London, killing people within days of the appearance of their first symptoms. Exactly how many died, and why, has long been a mystery. This Secret History documentary follows experts as they pick through the evidence and reveal why the plague killed on such a scale. And they ask, what might be coming next?

5,234 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Decision aids reduced the proportion of undecided participants and appeared to have a positive effect on patient-clinician communication, and those exposed to a decision aid were either equally or more satisfied with their decision, the decision-making process, and the preparation for decision making compared to usual care.
Abstract: Background Decision aids are intended to help people participate in decisions that involve weighing the benefits and harms of treatment options often with scientific uncertainty. Objectives To assess the effects of decision aids for people facing treatment or screening decisions. Search methods For this update, we searched from 2009 to June 2012 in MEDLINE; CENTRAL; EMBASE; PsycINFO; and grey literature. Cumulatively, we have searched each database since its start date including CINAHL (to September 2008). Selection criteria We included published randomized controlled trials of decision aids, which are interventions designed to support patients' decision making by making explicit the decision, providing information about treatment or screening options and their associated outcomes, compared to usual care and/or alternative interventions. We excluded studies of participants making hypothetical decisions. Data collection and analysis Two review authors independently screened citations for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. The primary outcomes, based on the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS), were: A) 'choice made' attributes; B) 'decision-making process' attributes. Secondary outcomes were behavioral, health, and health-system effects. We pooled results using mean differences (MD) and relative risks (RR), applying a random-effects model. Main results This update includes 33 new studies for a total of 115 studies involving 34,444 participants. For risk of bias, selective outcome reporting and blinding of participants and personnel were mostly rated as unclear due to inadequate reporting. Based on 7 items, 8 of 115 studies had high risk of bias for 1 or 2 items each. Of 115 included studies, 88 (76.5%) used at least one of the IPDAS effectiveness criteria: A) 'choice made' attributes criteria: knowledge scores (76 studies); accurate risk perceptions (25 studies); and informed value-based choice (20 studies); and B) 'decision-making process' attributes criteria: feeling informed (34 studies) and feeling clear about values (29 studies). A) Criteria involving 'choice made' attributes: Compared to usual care, decision aids increased knowledge (MD 13.34 out of 100; 95% confidence interval (CI) 11.17 to 15.51; n = 42). When more detailed decision aids were compared to simple decision aids, the relative improvement in knowledge was significant (MD 5.52 out of 100; 95% CI 3.90 to 7.15; n = 19). Exposure to a decision aid with expressed probabilities resulted in a higher proportion of people with accurate risk perceptions (RR 1.82; 95% CI 1.52 to 2.16; n = 19). Exposure to a decision aid with explicit values clarification resulted in a higher proportion of patients choosing an option congruent with their values (RR 1.51; 95% CI 1.17 to 1.96; n = 13). B) Criteria involving 'decision-making process' attributes: Decision aids compared to usual care interventions resulted in: a) lower decisional conflict related to feeling uninformed (MD -7.26 of 100; 95% CI -9.73 to -4.78; n = 22) and feeling unclear about personal values (MD -6.09; 95% CI -8.50 to -3.67; n = 18); b) reduced proportions of people who were passive in decision making (RR 0.66; 95% CI 0.53 to 0.81; n = 14); and c) reduced proportions of people who remained undecided post-intervention (RR 0.59; 95% CI 0.47 to 0.72; n = 18). Decision aids appeared to have a positive effect on patient-practitioner communication in all nine studies that measured this outcome. For satisfaction with the decision (n = 20), decision-making process (n = 17), and/or preparation for decision making (n = 3), those exposed to a decision aid were either more satisfied, or there was no difference between the decision aid versus comparison interventions. No studies evaluated decision-making process attributes for helping patients to recognize that a decision needs to be made, or understanding that values affect the choice. C) Secondary outcomes Exposure to decision aids compared to usual care reduced the number of people of choosing major elective invasive surgery in favour of more conservative options (RR 0.79; 95% CI 0.68 to 0.93; n = 15). Exposure to decision aids compared to usual care reduced the number of people choosing to have prostate-specific antigen screening (RR 0.87; 95% CI 0.77 to 0.98; n = 9). When detailed compared to simple decision aids were used, fewer people chose menopausal hormone therapy (RR 0.73; 95% CI 0.55 to 0.98; n = 3). For other decisions, the effect on choices was variable. The effect of decision aids on length of consultation varied from 8 minutes shorter to 23 minutes longer (median 2.55 minutes longer) with 2 studies indicating statistically-significantly longer, 1 study shorter, and 6 studies reporting no difference in consultation length. Groups of patients receiving decision aids do not appear to differ from comparison groups in terms of anxiety (n = 30), general health outcomes (n = 11), and condition-specific health outcomes (n = 11). The effects of decision aids on other outcomes (adherence to the decision, costs/resource use) were inconclusive. Authors' conclusions There is high-quality evidence that decision aids compared to usual care improve people's knowledge regarding options, and reduce their decisional conflict related to feeling uninformed and unclear about their personal values. There is moderate-quality evidence that decision aids compared to usual care stimulate people to take a more active role in decision making, and improve accurate risk perceptions when probabilities are included in decision aids, compared to not being included. There is low-quality evidence that decision aids improve congruence between the chosen option and the patient's values. New for this updated review is further evidence indicating more informed, values-based choices, and improved patient-practitioner communication. There is a variable effect of decision aids on length of consultation. Consistent with findings from the previous review, decision aids have a variable effect on choices. They reduce the number of people choosing discretionary surgery and have no apparent adverse effects on health outcomes or satisfaction. The effects on adherence with the chosen option, cost-effectiveness, use with lower literacy populations, and level of detail needed in decision aids need further evaluation. Little is known about the degree of detail that decision aids need in order to have a positive effect on attributes of the choice made, or the decision-making process.

5,042 citations