Institution
Chelsea and Westminster Hospital NHS Foundation Trust
Healthcare•London, United Kingdom•
About: Chelsea and Westminster Hospital NHS Foundation Trust is a healthcare organization based out in London, United Kingdom. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Population & Reproductive health. The organization has 978 authors who have published 925 publications receiving 24043 citations.
Topics: Population, Reproductive health, Men who have sex with men, Health care, Randomized controlled trial
Papers published on a yearly basis
Papers
More filters
••
Aarhus University1, French Institute of Health and Medical Research2, Washington University in St. Louis3, Tufts Medical Center4, University of Rochester5, Queen's University6, Helsinki University Central Hospital7, Karolinska Institutet8, Oslo University Hospital9, Aarhus University Hospital10, University of the Witwatersrand11, Churchill Hospital12, Johns Hopkins University13, Chelsea and Westminster Hospital NHS Foundation Trust14, Imperial College London15, California Pacific Medical Center16, University of Edinburgh17, Florey Institute of Neuroscience and Mental Health18, Greenwich Hospital19, University of Sydney20, University of Dundee21, University of California, San Diego22
TL;DR: The results support a revision of the NeuPSIG recommendations for the pharmacotherapy of neuropathic pain and allow a strong recommendation for use and proposal as first-line treatment in neuropathicPain for tricyclic antidepressants, serotonin-noradrenaline reuptake inhibitors, pregabalin, and gabapentin.
Abstract: Summary Background New drug treatments, clinical trials, and standards of quality for assessment of evidence justify an update of evidence-based recommendations for the pharmacological treatment of neuropathic pain. Using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and E valuation (GRADE), we revised the Special Interest Group on Neuropathic Pain (NeuPSIG) recommendations for the pharmacotherapy of neuropathic pain based on the results of a systematic review and meta-analysis. Methods Between April, 2013, and January, 2014, NeuPSIG of the International Association for the Study of Pain did a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised, double-blind studies of oral and topical pharmacotherapy for neuropathic pain, including studies published in peer-reviewed journals since January , 1966, and unpublished trials retrieved from ClinicalTrials.gov and websites of pharmaceutical companies. We used number needed to treat (NNT) for 50% pain relief as a primary measure and assessed publication bias; NNT was calculated with the fi xed-eff ects Mantel-Haenszel method. Findings 229 studies were included in the meta-analysis. Analysis of publication bias suggested a 10% overstatement of treatment eff ects. Studies published in peer-reviewed journals reported greater eff ects than did unpublished studies (r² 9·3%, p=0·009). T rial outcomes were generally modest: in particular, combined NNTs were 6·4 (95% CI 5·2–8·4) for serotonin-noradrenaline reuptake inhibitors, mainly including duloxetine (nine of 14 studies); 7·7 (6·5–9·4) for pregabalin; 7·2 (5·9–9·21) for gabapentin, including gabapentin extended release and enacarbil; and 10·6 (7·4–19·0) for capsaicin high-concentration patches. NNTs were lower for tricyclic antidepressants, strong opioids, tramadol, and botulinum toxin A, and undetermined for lidocaine patches. Based on GRADE, fi nal quality of evidence was moderate or high for all treatments apart from lidocaine patches; tolerability and safety, and values and preferences were higher for topical drugs; and cost was lower for tricyclic antidepressants and tramadol. These fi ndings permitted a strong recommendation for use and proposal as fi rst-line treatment in neuropathic pain for tricyclic antidepressants, serotonin-noradrenaline reuptake inhibitors, pregabalin, and gabapentin; a weak recommendation for use and proposal as second line for lidocaine patches, capsaicin high-concentration patches, and tramadol; and a weak recommendation for use and proposal as third line for strong opioids and botulinum toxin A. Topical agents and botulinum toxin A are recommended for peripheral neuropathic pain only. Interpretation Our results support a revision of the NeuPSIG recommendations for the pharmacotherapy of neuropathic pain. Inadequate response to drug treatments constitutes a substantial unmet need in patients with neuropathic pain. Modest effi cacy, large placebo responses, heterogeneous diagnostic criteria, and poor phenotypic profi ling probably account for moderate trial outcomes and should be taken into account in future studies. Funding NeuPSIG of the International Association for the Study of Pain.
2,512 citations
••
TL;DR: A modified and improved SCARE checklist is presented, after a Delphi consensus exercise was completed to update the SCARE guidelines.
2,195 citations
••
Chelsea and Westminster Hospital NHS Foundation Trust1, Public Health England2, University College London3, Central and North West London NHS Foundation Trust4, Brighton and Sussex University Hospitals NHS Trust5, Central Manchester University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust6, Imperial College Healthcare7, Hull York Medical School8, Barts Health NHS Trust9, University of Cambridge10, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust11, Heart of England NHS Foundation Trust12, University of Liverpool13
TL;DR: In this high incidence population, daily tenofovir–emtricitabine conferred even higher protection against HIV than in placebo-controlled trials, refuting concerns that effectiveness would be less in a real-world setting.
1,472 citations
••
Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust1, Newcastle University2, University of Exeter3, University of Cambridge4, Chelsea and Westminster Hospital NHS Foundation Trust5, Imperial College London6, Royal Liverpool and Broadgreen University Hospital NHS Trust7, Pennine Acute Hospitals NHS Trust8, University of Manchester9, King's College London10, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust11, Barts Health NHS Trust12, Queen Mary University of London13, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust14, University of Leeds15, Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland16, Western General Hospital17, University of Edinburgh18, University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust19, Glasgow Royal Infirmary20, University of Glasgow21, Queen Elizabeth Hospital Birmingham22, University of Birmingham23, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust24, University College London25, Brighton and Sussex University Hospitals NHS Trust26, Brighton and Sussex Medical School27, University of Wolverhampton28, University Hospital of Wales29
TL;DR: Comprehensive up-to-date guidance is provided regarding indications for, initiation and monitoring of immunosuppressive therapies, nutrition interventions, pre-, peri- and postoperative management, as well as structure and function of the multidisciplinary team and integration between primary and secondary care.
Abstract: Ulcerative colitis and Crohn’s disease are the principal forms of inflammatory bowel disease. Both represent chronic inflammation of the gastrointestinal tract, which displays heterogeneity in inflammatory and symptomatic burden between patients and within individuals over time. Optimal management relies on understanding and tailoring evidence-based interventions by clinicians in partnership with patients. This guideline for management of inflammatory bowel disease in adults over 16 years of age was developed by Stakeholders representing UK physicians (British Society of Gastroenterology), surgeons (Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland), specialist nurses (Royal College of Nursing), paediatricians (British Society of Paediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition), dietitians (British Dietetic Association), radiologists (British Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology), general practitioners (Primary Care Society for Gastroenterology) and patients (Crohn’s and Colitis UK). A systematic review of 88 247 publications and a Delphi consensus process involving 81 multidisciplinary clinicians and patients was undertaken to develop 168 evidence- and expert opinion-based recommendations for pharmacological, non-pharmacological and surgical interventions, as well as optimal service delivery in the management of both ulcerative colitis and Crohn’s disease. Comprehensive up-to-date guidance is provided regarding indications for, initiation and monitoring of immunosuppressive therapies, nutrition interventions, pre-, peri- and postoperative management, as well as structure and function of the multidisciplinary team and integration between primary and secondary care. Twenty research priorities to inform future clinical management are presented, alongside objective measurement of priority importance, determined by 2379 electronic survey responses from individuals living with ulcerative colitis and Crohn’s disease, including patients, their families and friends.
1,140 citations
••
TL;DR: The 2008 BHIVA Guidelines have been updated to incorporate all the new relevant information since the last iteration and all the peer-reviewed publications and important, potentially treatment-changing abstracts from the last 2 years have been reviewed.
Abstract: The 2008 BHIVA Guidelines have been updated to incorporate all the new relevant information (including presentations at the 15th Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections 2008) since the last iteration. The guidelines follow the methodology outlined below and all the peer-reviewed publications and important, potentially treatment-changing abstracts from the last 2 years have been reviewed.
The translation of data into clinical practice is often difficult even with the best possible evidence (i.e. two randomized controlled trials) because of trial design, inclusion criteria and precise surrogate marker endpoints (see Appendix). The recommendations based upon expert opinion have the least good evidence but perhaps provide an important reason for writing the guidelines to produce a consensual opinion about current practice. It must, however, be appreciated that such opinion is often wrong and should not stifle research to challenge it.
Similarly, although the Writing Group seeks to provide guidelines to optimize treatment, such care needs to be individualized and we have not constructed a document that we would wish to see used as a ‘standard’ for litigation.
1,107 citations
Authors
Showing all 984 results
Name | H-index | Papers | Citations |
---|---|---|---|
Azeem Majeed | 102 | 788 | 80560 |
Paris P. Tekkis | 81 | 318 | 20369 |
Tom Bourne | 71 | 464 | 17758 |
Mark Bower | 65 | 420 | 15164 |
Andrew S.C. Rice | 64 | 231 | 19232 |
Mark R. Johnson | 57 | 403 | 11374 |
Neena Modi | 56 | 282 | 9209 |
Paul Johnson | 56 | 240 | 13991 |
Anton Pozniak | 53 | 241 | 13079 |
Derek Bell | 51 | 318 | 11566 |
Graeme Moyle | 48 | 222 | 8796 |
Pallav L. Shah | 47 | 248 | 8342 |
Sonal Arora | 44 | 138 | 6513 |
Sundhiya Mandalia | 41 | 138 | 5907 |
Michael R. Loebinger | 39 | 139 | 5393 |