Search PubMed⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

T A Sheldon

Publications and source records attributed to T A Sheldon.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2000

Compression bandages and stockings for venous leg ulcers.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of compression bandaging and stockings in the treatment of venous leg ulcers. SEARCH STRATEGY: Searches of 19 databases, hand searching of journals, conference proceedings and bibliographies. Manufacturers of compression bandages and stockings and an Advisory Panel were contacted for unpublished studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Trials that evaluated compression bandaging or stockings, as a treatment for venous leg ulcers. There was no restriction on date or language. Ulcer healing was the primary endpoint. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Details of eligible studies were extracted and summarised using a data extraction sheet. Data extraction was verified by two reviewers independently. MAIN RESULTS: Twenty two trials reporting 24 comparisons were identified. Compression was more effective than no compression (4/6 trials). When multi-layered systems were compared, elastic compression was more effective than non-elastic compression (5 trials). There was no difference in healing rates between 4-layer bandaging and other high compression multi-layered systems (3 trials). There was no difference in healing rates between elastomeric multi-layered systems (4 trials). Multi-layered high compression was more effective than single layer compression (4 trials). Compression stockings were evaluated in two trials. One found a high compression stocking plus a thrombo stocking to be more effective than a short stretch bandage. The second small trial reported no difference between the compression stockings and Unna's boot. There was insufficient data to draw conclusion about the relative cost-effectiveness of different regimens. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: Compression increases ulcer healing rates compared with no compression. Multi-layered systems are more effective than single-layered systems. High compression is more effective than low compression but there are no clear differences in the effectiveness of different types of high compression.

Bandages↗
PubMed2000

Beds, mattresses and cushions for pressure sore prevention and treatment.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of pressure relieving beds, mattresses and cushions (support surfaces) in the prevention and treatment of pressure sores. SEARCH STRATEGY: Searches of 19 databases, hand searching of journals, conference proceedings, and bibliographies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials evaluating support surfaces for the prevention or treatment of pressure sores. There was no restriction on articles based on language or publication status. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data extraction and assessment of study quality was undertaken by two reviewers independently. Trials with similar patients, comparisons, and outcomes were pooled. Where pooling was inappropriate, trials are discussed in a narrative review. MAIN RESULTS PREVENTION: 29 RCTs of support surfaces for pressure sore prevention were identified. Some high specification foam mattresses were more effective than 'standard' hospital foam mattresses in moderate-high risk patients. Pressure relieving mattresses in the operating theatre reduced the incidence of pressure sores post-operatively. The relative merits of alternating and constant low pressure, and of the different alternating pressure devices are unclear. Seat cushions and simple, constant low-pressure devices have not been adequately evaluated. Limited evidence suggests that low air loss beds reduce the incidence of pressure sores in intensive care. TREATMENT: 6 RCTs of support surfaces for pressure sore treatment were identified. There is good evidence that air-fluidised and low air loss beds improve healing rates. Seat cushions have not been adequately evaluated. 2 RCTs evaluated surfaces for both prevention and treatment in the same trial. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: PREVENTION - There is good evidence of the effectiveness of high specification foam over standard hospital foam, and pressure relief in the operating theatre. Treatment - There is good evidence of the effectiveness of air-fluidised and low air loss devices as treatments. Overall, however, it is impossible to determine the most effective surface for either prevention or treatment.

Beds↗
PubMed1999

Sleep apnoea.

Explore the source record for details and available documents.

Humans↗
PubMed1999

The DiSC assay. A cost-effective guide to treatment for chronic lymphocytic leukemia?

The differential staining cytotoxicity (DiSC) assay involves in vitro drug panel testing against patient tumor cells to identify optimal therapy. This observational study investigated whether DiSC assay guided treatment could improve outcome in patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia. A cohort of 178 patients were categorized either as sensitive to drugs in vitro and receiving a sensitive drug in vivo, sensitive in vitro but not treated with a sensitive drug, or having disease resistant to all drugs tested in vitro. Response and survival for these patient categories were compared using multivariate regression techniques. Patients receiving a sensitive drug, compared with those who though having sensitivity did not, had a higher remission rate (odds ratio, 6.5; 95% CI, 2.91-14.53) and reduced death rate (hazard ratio, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.16-0.53). Having adjusted for all known confounding factors, the results suggest that in vitro drug sensitivity is an important independent prognostic variable to include in future trials, and that the DiSC assay may be a cost-effective use of health resources: the estimated incremental cost-effectiveness was 1,470 Pounds per life-year gained. A randomized controlled trial is required to confirm the benefit and estimate reliably the potential impact of assay-guided choice of therapy.

Aged↗
PubMed1999

Systematic reviews and meta-analysis: a structured review of the methodological literature.

OBJECTIVE: To systematically review methods for systematic review/meta-analysis in order to identify the different methodological and statistical methods that have been proposed. A summary of the main findings is presented here, with emphasis given to health services research topics. METHODS: A thorough systematic search for methodological papers was carried out using a variety of methods, including the use of electronic databases. Approximately 1000 potentially relevant references were identified, a number of them from education, psychology and sociology. RESULTS: After briefly reviewing the procedural methods required to carry out a review, and the basic statistical methods used to combine study estimates, less established methods are discussed. These include methods for dealing with publication bias, meta-regression, meta-analysis of individual patient data, the synthesis of non-randomized evidence alone and in combination with randomized studies. Bayesian modelling and economic evaluation through meta-analysis. Recommendations for meta-analytical practice are given; these are either distilled from previous guidelines, or constructed where there appears to be a broad consensus across the literature. CONCLUSIONS: It is hoped that this review will provide a consistent and comprehensive, but concise, description of the methods available for synthesizing evidence, that it will promote better quality reviews of the results of health services research and identify specific areas which require methodological development.

Bayes Theorem↗
PubMed1998

Evidence-informed patient choice. Practical issues of involving patients in decisions about health care technologies.

Evidence-informed patient choice involves providing people with research-based information about the effectiveness of health care options and promoting their involvement in decisions about their treatment. Although the concept seems desirable, the processes and outcomes of evidence-informed patient choice are poorly understood, and it should be carefully evaluated.

Attitude to Health↗
PubMed1998

Do specialists do it better? The impact of specialization on the processes and outcomes of care for cancer patients.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of specialization on processes and outcomes of care for cancer patients. DATA SOURCE: Papers published in English between 1980 and 1995 and identified through MEDLINE and Embase (MeSH terms: NEOPLASM (exploded), and PHYSICIAN PRACTICE PATTERNS (or DECISION MAKING, ATTITUDE OF HEALTH PERSONNEL, QUALITY OF HEALTH CARE, DELIVERY OF HEALTH CARE, HEALTH EDUCATION or OUTCOME ASSESSMENT HEALTH CARE), or through the reference lists of review articles. STUDY SELECTION: Studies providing information on the association between quality of care indicators for cancer patients and clinician/centre degree of specialization. A total of 47 papers concerning 46 empirical studies were considered. DATA EXTRACTION: For studies using process of care indicators, the proportion of specific procedures performed by specialists and non-specialists was abstracted. For studies using outcome indicators (e.g., mortality), the effect of specialization was quantified in terms of odds ratio (OR) expressing relative reduction in risk of death. The quality of individual studies using process or outcome indicators was assessed according to study design, avoidance of selection bias in patient identification and data analysis, degree of adjustment of the comparison between clinicians/centres with different levels of specialization. DATA SYNTHESIS: Specialized centres/clinicians fared better both when process and outcome indicators were used. While the former varied widely in different studies and their clinical relevance was often questionable, mortality was consistently lower when care was provided by specialized centres/clinicians, with the effect size being greater in smaller studies. For breast cancer, where all the studies were of sufficiently good quality, a pooled estimate of the effect of specialization was performed which showed that specialized cancer care was associated with an 18% (95% CI: 12%-23%) reduction in mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the fact that care provided by specialized centres/clinicians appeared to be better both when assessed in relation to process indicators and to mortality, this evidence should be considered far from conclusive because of major methodological flaws in these studies. Relative to current efforts to promote evidence-based policy-making, this review underscores the limited capability of scientific information to provide reliable guidelines for structuring better health care systems.

Confidence Intervals↗