McMaster University

About: McMaster University is a education organization based out in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Population & Health care. The organization has 41361 authors who have published 101269 publications receiving 4251422 citations.

Impact of formal continuing medical education: do conferences, workshops, rounds, and other traditional continuing education activities change physician behavior or health care outcomes?

Abstract: ContextAlthough physicians report spending a considerable amount of time in continuing medical education (CME) activities, studies have shown a sizable difference between real and ideal performance, suggesting a lack of effect of formal CME.ObjectiveTo review, collate, and interpret the effect of formal CME interventions on physician performance and health care outcomes.Data SourcesSources included searches of the complete Research and Development Resource Base in Continuing Medical Education and the Specialised Register of the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group, supplemented by searches of MEDLINE from 1993 to January 1999.Study SelectionStudies were included in the analyses if they were randomized controlled trials of formal didactic and/or interactive CME interventions (conferences, courses, rounds, meetings, symposia, lectures, and other formats) in which at least 50% of the participants were practicing physicians. Fourteen of 64 studies identified met these criteria and were included in the analyses. Articles were reviewed independently by 3 of the authors.Data ExtractionDeterminations were made about the nature of the CME intervention (didactic, interactive, or mixed), its occurrence as a 1-time or sequenced event, and other information about its educational content and format. Two of 3 reviewers independently applied all inclusion/exclusion criteria. Data were then subjected to meta-analytic techniques.Data SynthesisThe 14 studies generated 17 interventions fitting our criteria. Nine generated positive changes in professional practice, and 3 of 4 interventions altered health care outcomes in 1 or more measures. In 7 studies, sufficient data were available for effect sizes to be calculated; overall, no significant effect of these educational methods was detected (standardized effect size, 0.34; 95% confidence interval [CI], −0.22 to 0.97). However, interactive and mixed educational sessions were associated with a significant effect on practice (standardized effect size, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.01-1.45).ConclusionsOur data show some evidence that interactive CME sessions that enhance participant activity and provide the opportunity to practice skills can effect change in professional practice and, on occasion, health care outcomes. Based on a small number of well-conducted trials, didactic sessions do not appear to be effective in changing physician performance.

A tutorial on pilot studies: the what, why and how

Abstract: Pilot studies for phase III trials - which are comparative randomized trials designed to provide preliminary evidence on the clinical efficacy of a drug or intervention - are routinely performed in many clinical areas. Also commonly know as "feasibility" or "vanguard" studies, they are designed to assess the safety of treatment or interventions; to assess recruitment potential; to assess the feasibility of international collaboration or coordination for multicentre trials; to increase clinical experience with the study medication or intervention for the phase III trials. They are the best way to assess feasibility of a large, expensive full-scale study, and in fact are an almost essential pre-requisite. Conducting a pilot prior to the main study can enhance the likelihood of success of the main study and potentially help to avoid doomed main studies. The objective of this paper is to provide a detailed examination of the key aspects of pilot studies for phase III trials including: 1) the general reasons for conducting a pilot study; 2) the relationships between pilot studies, proof-of-concept studies, and adaptive designs; 3) the challenges of and misconceptions about pilot studies; 4) the criteria for evaluating the success of a pilot study; 5) frequently asked questions about pilot studies; 7) some ethical aspects related to pilot studies; and 8) some suggestions on how to report the results of pilot investigations using the CONSORT format.

Dabigatran versus warfarin in the treatment of acute venous thromboembolism

Abstract: A total of 30 of the 1274 patients randomly assigned to receive dabigatran (2.4%), as compared with 27 of the 1265 patients randomly assigned to warfarin (2.1%), had recurrent venous thromboembolism; the difference in risk was 0.4 percentage points (95% confidence interval [CI], −0.8 to 1.5; P<0.001 for the prespecified noninferiority margin). The hazard ratio with dabigatran was 1.10 (95% CI, 0.65 to 1.84). Major bleeding episodes occurred in 20 patients assigned to dabigatran (1.6%) and in 24 patients assigned to warfarin (1.9%) (hazard ratio with dabigatran, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.45 to 1.48), and episodes of any bleeding were observed in 205 patients assigned to dabigatran (16.1%) and 277 patients assigned to warfarin (21.9%; hazard ratio with dabigatran, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.59 to 0.85). The numbers of deaths, acute coronary syndromes, and abnormal liver-function tests were similar in the two groups. Adverse events leading to discontinuation of the study drug occurred in 9.0% of patients assigned to dabigatran and in 6.8% of patients assigned to warfarin (P = 0.05). Conclusions For the treatment of acute venous thromboembolism, a fixed dose of dabigatran is as effective as warfarin, has a safety profile that is similar to that of warfarin, and does not require laboratory monitoring. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00291330.)

Management of Adults With Hospital-acquired and Ventilator-associated Pneumonia: 2016 Clinical Practice Guidelines by the Infectious Diseases Society of America and the American Thoracic Society

Abstract: It is important to realize that guidelines cannot always account for individual variation among patients. They are not intended to supplant physician judgment with respect to particular patients or special clinical situations. IDSA considers adherence to these guidelines to be voluntary, with the ultimate determination regarding their application to be made by the physician in the light of each patient's individual circumstances.These guidelines are intended for use by healthcare professionals who care for patients at risk for hospital-acquired pneumonia (HAP) and ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP), including specialists in infectious diseases, pulmonary diseases, critical care, and surgeons, anesthesiologists, hospitalists, and any clinicians and healthcare providers caring for hospitalized patients with nosocomial pneumonia. The panel's recommendations for the diagnosis and treatment of HAP and VAP are based upon evidence derived from topic-specific systematic literature reviews.