Biomedical subjects
Anne-Marie Glenny
Publications and source records attributed to Anne-Marie Glenny.
No "gold standard" critical appraisal tool for allied health research.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Evaluation of screening strategies for improving oral cancer mortality: a Cochrane systematic review.
Worldwide, oral cancer has one of the lowest survival rates. It is well recognized that survival rates are improved if the disease is treated in its early stages. The aim of this study was to assess the effectiveness of screening methods in decreasing the mortality of oral cancer. A systematic review on the effectiveness of oral cancer screening was performed using all publications in MEDLINE, CANCERLIT, EMBASE, and Cochrane CCTR between 1966 and September 2002. The evidence was evaluated using the standardized methodology of the Cochrane Collaboration. The search strategy revealed 1,389 citations. From these, 100 potentially relevant articles were selected for review. However, only one randomized controlled study using visual examination as the method for screening fulfilled the selection criteria. Given the limitation of evidence and the potential methodological weakness in the included study, it is valid to say that there is no evidence to recommend inclusion or exclusion of screening programs for oral cancer using visual examination in the general population. In addition, no robust evidence exists that indicates whether other screening methods including toluidine blue, fluorescence imaging, or brush biopsy are either beneficial or harmful. Further high-quality studies to assess the efficacy and effectiveness of screening are required. Additional investigations aimed at elucidating the natural history of oral cancer and evaluating the effectiveness of prevention and opportunistic screening in high-risk groups are needed. A greater understanding of the genetic basis of oral cancer is an essential prerequisite to the development of molecular markers for screening.
Stabilization splint therapy for the treatment of temporomandibular myofascial pain: a systematic review.
The aim of this review is to establish the effectiveness of stabilization splint (SS) therapy in reducing symptoms in patients with myofascial pain. Searching of electronic databases, handsearching of relevant key journals, and screening of reference lists of included studies were undertaken. There was no language restriction, and unpublished research was sought. The selection criteria were randomized controlled trials comparing splint therapy to either no treatment or another active treatment. Data extraction and validity assessment were carried out independently and in duplicate. Studies were grouped according to treatment type. Twenty potentially relevant Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) were identified. Only twelve met the inclusion criteria. There is insufficient evidence either for or against the use of stabilization splint therapy over other active interventions for the treatment of temporomandibular myofascial pain. However, it appears that stabilization splint therapy may be beneficial for reducing pain severity at rest and on palpation and depression when compared to no treatment. The authors suggested the need for well conducted RCTs that pay attention to method of allocation, blind outcome assessment, sample size, and duration of follow-up. Various measures were adopted to assess the outcomes of treatment. Standardization of the methods used to measure outcomes of the treatment of myofascial pain should be established in future RCTs.
Validity of indirect comparison for estimating efficacy of competing interventions: empirical evidence from published meta-analyses.
OBJECTIVE: To determine the validity of adjusted indirect comparisons by using data from published meta-analyses of randomised trials. DESIGN: Direct comparison of different interventions in randomised trials and adjusted indirect comparison in which two interventions were compared through their relative effect versus a common comparator. The discrepancy between the direct and adjusted indirect comparison was measured by the difference between the two estimates. DATA SOURCES: Database of abstracts of reviews of effectiveness (1994-8), the Cochrane database of systematic reviews, Medline, and references of retrieved articles. RESULTS: 44 published meta-analyses (from 28 systematic reviews) provided sufficient data. In most cases, results of adjusted indirect comparisons were not significantly different from those of direct comparisons. A significant discrepancy (P<0.05) was observed in three of the 44 comparisons between the direct and the adjusted indirect estimates. There was a moderate agreement between the statistical conclusions from the direct and adjusted indirect comparisons (kappa 0.51). The direction of discrepancy between the two estimates was inconsistent. CONCLUSIONS: Adjusted indirect comparisons usually but not always agree with the results of head to head randomised trials. When there is no or insufficient direct evidence from randomised trials, the adjusted indirect comparison may provide useful or supplementary information on the relative efficacy of competing interventions. The validity of the adjusted indirect comparisons depends on the internal validity and similarity of the included trials.
The cochrane oral health group trials register: electronic searching and beyond.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Interventions for the treatment of burning mouth syndrome: a systematic review.
AIMS: To carry out a systematic review of previous studies to determine the effectiveness of any intervention vs placebo for relief of symptoms and improvement in quality of life of patients with burning mouth syndrome (BMS) and to assess the quality of the studies. METHODS: Electronic databases, conference proceedings, and bibliographies of identified publications were searched (up to September 2001) to identify relevant literature, irrespective of language of publication. Randomized controlled trials and controlled clinical trials of interventions used for the treatment of BMS in comparison to a placebo were included. The primary outcome was relief of burning/discomfort. The screening of studies, validity assessment, and data extraction were undertaken independently and in duplicate. Since statistical pooling of data was inappropriate, a qualitative assessment was undertaken. RESULTS: Seven trials, evaluating antidepressants, cognitive behavioral therapy, analgesics, hormone replacement therapy, and vitamin complexes, met the inclusion criteria. None of the trials was able to provide conclusive evidence of effectiveness. However, cognitive behavioral therapy may be beneficial in reducing the intensity of the symptoms. CONCLUSION: Given that the research evidence is, as yet, unable to provide clear, conclusive evidence of an effective intervention, clinicians need to provide support and understanding when dealing with BMS sufferers. Psychological interventions that help patients to cope with symptoms may be of some use, but promising and new approaches to treatment still need to be evaluated in good-quality randomized controlled trials.
The Cochrane Collaboration: the Oral Health Group.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.