Institution
Cochrane Collaboration
Nonprofit•Oxford, United Kingdom•
About: Cochrane Collaboration is a nonprofit organization based out in Oxford, United Kingdom. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Systematic review & Randomized controlled trial. The organization has 1995 authors who have published 3928 publications receiving 382695 citations.
Topics: Systematic review, Randomized controlled trial, Cochrane Library, Clinical trial, Population
Papers published on a yearly basis
Papers
More filters
••
TL;DR: Limited evidence to support the use of material incentives to improve return rates for tuberculosis diagnostic test results and adherence to antituberculosis preventive therapy is found.
Abstract: Background
Patient adherence to medications, particularly for conditions requiring prolonged treatment such as tuberculosis, is frequently less than ideal, and can result in poor treatment outcomes. Material incentives (given as cash, vouchers and tokens), have been used to improve adherence.
Objectives
To assess the effects of material incentives in people undergoing diagnostic testing, or receiving prophylactic or curative therapy, for tuberculosis.
Search methods
We undertook a comprehensive search of the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register; Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); MEDLINE; EMBASE; LILACS; Science Citation Index; and reference lists of relevant publications; to 22 June 2011.
Selection criteria
Randomized controlled trials of material incentives in patients being investigated for tuberculosis, or on treatment for latent or active disease.
Data collection and analysis
At least two authors independently screened and selected studies, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias. The effects of interventions are compared using risk ratios (RR), and presented with 95% confidence intervals (CI). The quality of the evidence was assessed using GRADE.
Main results
We identified 11 eligible studies. Ten were conducted in the USA: in adolescents (one trial), in injection drug or cocaine users (four trials), in homeless adults (three trials), and in prisoners (two trials). One additional trial recruited malnourished men receiving active treatment for tuberculosis in Timor-Leste.
Material incentives may increase the return rate for reading of tuberculin skin test results compared to normal care (two trials, 1371 participants: RR 2.16, 95% CI 1.41 to 3.29, low quality evidence).
Similarly, incentives probably improve clinic re-attendance for initiation or continuation of antituberculosis prophylaxis (three trials, 595 participants: RR 1.58, 95% CI 1.27 to 1.96, moderate quality evidence), and may improve subsequent completion of prophylaxis in some settings (three trials, 869 participants: RR 1.79, 95% CI 0.70 to 4.58, low quality evidence).
We currently don't know if incentives can improve long-term adherence and completion of antituberculosis treatment for active disease. Only one trial has assessed this and the incentive, given as a daily hot meal, was not well received by the population due to the inconvenience of attending the clinic at midday (one trial, 265 participants, RR 0.98, 95%CI 0.86 to 1.12, very low quality evidence).
Several trials have compared different forms or levels of incentive. These comparisons remain limited to single trials and robust conclusions cannot be made. In summary, cash incentives may be more effective than non-cash incentives (return for test results: one trial, 651 participants: RR 1.13, 95%CI 1.07 to 1.19, low quality evidence, adherence to tuberculosis prophylaxis: one trial, 141 participants: RR 1.26, 95%CI 1.02 to 1.56, low quality evidence) and higher amounts of cash may be more effective than lower amounts (return for test results: one trial, 404 participants: RR 1.08, 95%CI 1.01 to 1.16, low quality evidence).
Material incentives may also be more effective than motivational education at improving return for tuberculin skin test results (low quality evidence), but may be no more effective than peer counselling, or structured education at improving continuation or completion of prophylaxis (low quality evidence).
Authors' conclusions
There is limited evidence to support the use of material incentives to improve return rates for tuberculosis diagnostic test results and adherence to antituberculosis preventive therapy. The data are currently limited to trials among predominantly male drug users, homeless, and prisoner subpopulations in the USA, and therefore the results are not easily generalised to the wider adult population, or to low- and middle-income countries, where the tuberculosis burden is highest.
Further high-quality studies are needed to assess both the costs and effectiveness of incentives to improve adherence to long-term treatment of tuberculosis.
64 citations
•
30 Dec 2002TL;DR: In this article, a system for incrementally maintaining non-distributive aggregate functions in a relational database includes a data storage device in which relational database is stored and includes a database maintenance module.
Abstract: A system for incrementally maintaining non-distributive aggregate functions in a relational database includes a data storage device in which a relational database is stored. A processor communicates with the data storage device and includes a database maintenance module. The database maintenance module includes a program for incrementally maintaining non-distributive aggregate functions in a relational database. The method embodied in the program includes determining whether all functions in a relational database query are distributive. Based on this determination, a basic propagate phase graph is selectively altered to yield a new propagate phase graph. Changes to an automatic summary table are then applied thereto based on the new propagate phase graph.
64 citations
••
University of Ottawa1, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute2, American University of Beirut3, Public Health Agency of Canada4, Hospital for Sick Children5, University of Toronto6, Pan American Health Organization7, Dalhousie University8, Stanford University9, University of Adelaide10, Queen's University11, World Health Organization12, University of Western Ontario13, University of Split14, McMaster University15, University of Sydney16, University of Plymouth17, Monash University18, University of London19, Georgia State University20, Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health21, Baruch College22, RMIT University23, Mayo Clinic24, Cochrane Collaboration25, Université de Montréal26, University of Louisville27, George Mason University28
TL;DR: Consensus based guidance is provided on when to replicate and not replicate systematic reviews of systematic reviews.
Abstract: Replication is an essential part of the scientific method, yet replication of systematic reviews is too often overlooked, and done unnecessarily or poorly. Excessive replication (doing the same study repeatedly) is unethical and a cause of research wastage. This article provides consensus based guidance on when to replicate and not replicate systematic reviews.
64 citations
01 Feb 2020
TL;DR: In this article, a systematic review and meta-analysis update on NPPV for adults presenting with acute cardiogenic pulmonary oedema (ACPE) was performed to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of NPPVs compared to standard medical care (SMC) for adults with ACPE.
Abstract: BACKGROUND
Non-invasive positive pressure ventilation (NPPV) has been used to treat respiratory distress due to acute cardiogenic pulmonary oedema (ACPE). We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis update on NPPV for adults presenting with ACPE.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the safety and effectiveness of NPPV compared to standard medical care (SMC) for adults with ACPE. The primary outcome was hospital mortality. Important secondary outcomes were endotracheal intubation, treatment intolerance, hospital and intensive care unit length of stay, rates of acute myocardial infarction, and adverse event rates.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL (CRS Web, 20 September 2018), MEDLINE (Ovid, 1946 to 19 September 2018), Embase (Ovid, 1974 to 19 September 2018), CINAHL Plus (EBSCO, 1937 to 19 September 2018), LILACS, WHO ICTRP, and clinicaltrials.gov. We also reviewed reference lists of included studies. We applied no language restrictions.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included blinded or unblinded randomised controlled trials in adults with ACPE. Participants had to be randomised to NPPV (continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) or bilevel NPPV) plus standard medical care (SMC) compared with SMC alone.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently screened and selected articles for inclusion. We extracted data with a standardised data collection form. We evaluated the risks of bias of each study using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool. We assessed evidence quality for each outcome using the GRADE recommendations.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 24 studies (2664 participants) of adult participants (older than 18 years of age) with respiratory distress due to ACPE, not requiring immediate mechanical ventilation. People with ACPE presented either to an Emergency Department or were inpatients. ACPE treatment was provided in an intensive care or Emergency Department setting. There was a median follow-up of 13 days for hospital mortality, one day for endotracheal intubation, and three days for acute myocardial infarction. Compared with SMC, NPPV may reduce hospital mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.65, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.51 to 0.82; participants = 2484; studies = 21; I2 = 6%; low quality of evidence) with a number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) of 17 (NNTB 12 to 32). NPPV probably reduces endotracheal intubation rates (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.62; participants = 2449; studies = 20; I2 = 0%; moderate quality of evidence) with a NNTB of 13 (NNTB 11 to 18). There is probably little or no difference in acute myocardial infarction (AMI) incidence with NPPV compared to SMC for ACPE (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.16; participants = 1313; studies = 5; I2 = 0%; moderate quality of evidence). We are uncertain as to whether NPPV increases hospital length of stay (mean difference (MD) -0.31 days, 95% CI -1.23 to 0.61; participants = 1714; studies = 11; I2 = 55%; very low quality of evidence). Adverse events were generally similar between NPPV and SMC groups, but evidence was of low quality.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Our review provides support for continued clinical application of NPPV for ACPE, to improve outcomes such as hospital mortality and intubation rates. NPPV is a safe intervention with similar adverse event rates to SMC alone. Additional research is needed to determine if specific subgroups of people with ACPE have greater benefit of NPPV compared to SMC. Future research should explore the benefit of NPPV for ACPE patients with hypercapnia.
64 citations
••
University of Grenoble1, Dublin City University2, Australian National University3, University of Turku4, University of Canberra5, Université Paris-Saclay6, French Institute of Health and Medical Research7, University of Amsterdam8, Cochrane Collaboration9, Vienna University of Technology10, Queensland University of Technology11
TL;DR: An overview of the fifth edition of the CLEF eHealth evaluation lab is provided and the resources created for these tasks, evaluation methodology adopted and a brief summary of participants of this year’s challenges and results obtained are described.
Abstract: In this paper we provide an overview of the fifth edition of the CLEF eHealth evaluation lab. CLEF eHealth 2017 continues our evaluation resource building efforts around the easing and support of patients, their next-of-kins, clinical staff, and health scientists in understanding, accessing, and authoring eHealth information in a multilingual setting. This year’s lab offered three tasks: Task 1 on multilingual information extraction to extend from last year’s task on French corpora, Task 2 on technologically assisted reviews in empirical medicine as a new pilot task, and Task 3 on patient-centered information retrieval (IR) building on the 2013-16 IR tasks. In total 32 teams took part in these tasks (11 in Task 1, 14 in Task 2, and 7 in Task 3). We also continued the replication track from 2016. Herein, we describe the resources created for these tasks, evaluation methodology adopted and provide a brief summary of participants of this year’s challenges and results obtained. As in previous years, the organizers have made data and tools associated with the lab tasks available for future research and development.
64 citations
Authors
Showing all 2000 results
Name | H-index | Papers | Citations |
---|---|---|---|
Douglas G. Altman | 253 | 1001 | 680344 |
John P. A. Ioannidis | 185 | 1311 | 193612 |
Jasvinder A. Singh | 176 | 2382 | 223370 |
George A. Wells | 149 | 941 | 114256 |
Shah Ebrahim | 146 | 733 | 96807 |
Holger J. Schünemann | 141 | 810 | 113169 |
Paul G. Shekelle | 132 | 601 | 101639 |
Peter Tugwell | 129 | 948 | 125480 |
Jeremy M. Grimshaw | 123 | 691 | 115126 |
Peter Jüni | 121 | 593 | 99254 |
John J. McGrath | 120 | 791 | 124804 |
Arne Astrup | 114 | 866 | 68877 |
Mike Clarke | 113 | 1037 | 164328 |
Rachelle Buchbinder | 112 | 613 | 94973 |
Ian Roberts | 112 | 714 | 51933 |