Search PubMed⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “REVIEW”

Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 217 records · Page 12Linked to original sources
PubMed1987

Quality review in the Peer Review Organization Program.

Several major, national forces have created the mandate of the Peer Review Organizations (PROs) for the evaluation of the quality of care received by Medicare patients. The shift of the Medicare Program to prospective payment to hospitals has caused concern that this change in financial incentives may have adverse effects on quality. An analysis and review of the experience of the California PRO (California Medical Review, Inc.)--including the application of sanctions--suggests that corrective actions have been successful in addressing quality deficiencies. However, the relationship between those deficiencies and the prospective payment mechanism remains unclear.

California↗
PubMed2002

Reviewing the reviewers: the vague accountability of research ethics committees.

The role of research ethics committees (RECs) is currently strained by increases in the number of protocols that are in need of review, the scientific and funding complexities of the protocols, and a lack of clear standards for ethics assessment. This commentary describes the significance of these strains and calls for clarification of reviewer accountability. To maintain or, in many cases, to restore public and professional trust in the ethics of human research and in REC review of protocols, it is imperative that steps be taken to clarify the accountability of RECs and their individual members.

Critical Care↗
PubMed2000

Clinical review 115: effect of thyroxine therapy on serum lipoproteins in patients with mild thyroid failure: a quantitative review of the literature.

The objective of our study was to estimate the expected change in serum lipoprotein concentrations after treatment with T4 in patients with mild thyroid failure (i.e. subclinical hypothyroidism). Our data sources included MEDLINE, between January 1966 and May 1999, and review of references from relevant articles. There were 1,786 published studies identified, 461 abstracts reviewed, 74 articles retrieved, 24 articles evaluated against predetermined entry criteria, and 13 studies systematically reviewed and abstracted. All studies reported serum total cholesterol concentration changes during T4 treatment, 12 reported triglyceride changes, 10 reported high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol changes, and 9 reported low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol changes. There were 247 patients in 13 studies. The mean decrease in the serum total cholesterol concentration was -0.20 mmol/L (-7.9 mg/ dL), with a 95% confidence interval of -0.09 to -0.34. The decline in serum total cholesterol was directly proportional to its baseline concentration. Studies enrolling hypothyroid participants receiving suboptimal T4 doses reported significantly larger decreases in serum total cholesterol after thyroid-stimulating hormone normalization than studies enrolling previously untreated individuals with mild thyroid failure [-0.44 mmol/L (-17 mg/dL) vs. -0.14 mmol/L (-5.6 mg/dL), P = 0.05]. The change in serum LDL cholesterol concentration was -0.26 mmol/L (-10 mg/dL), with a 95% confidence interval of -0.12 to -0.41. Serum HDL and triglyceride concentrations showed no change. These results, although based on fewer than 250 patients, suggest that T4 therapy in individuals with mild thyroid failure lowers mean serum total and LDL cholesterol concentrations. The reduction in serum total cholesterol may be larger in individuals with higher pretreatment cholesterol levels and in hypothyroid individuals taking suboptimal T4 doses. There do not seem to be significant effects of T4 on serum HDL or triglyceride concentrations.

Apolipoproteins↗
PubMed2005

Realist review--a new method of systematic review designed for complex policy interventions.

Evidence-based policy is a dominant theme in contemporary public services but the practical realities and challenges involved in using evidence in policy-making are formidable. Part of the problem is one of complexity. In health services and other public services, we are dealing with complex social interventions which act on complex social systems--things like league tables, performance measures, regulation and inspection, or funding reforms. These are not 'magic bullets' which will always hit their target, but programmes whose effects are crucially dependent on context and implementation. Traditional methods of review focus on measuring and reporting on programme effectiveness, often find that the evidence is mixed or conflicting, and provide little or no clue as to why the intervention worked or did not work when applied in different contexts or circumstances, deployed by different stakeholders, or used for different purposes. This paper offers a model of research synthesis which is designed to work with complex social interventions or programmes, and which is based on the emerging 'realist' approach to evaluation. It provides an explanatory analysis aimed at discerning what works for whom, in what circumstances, in what respects and how. The first step is to make explicit the programme theory (or theories)--the underlying assumptions about how an intervention is meant to work and what impacts it is expected to have. We then look for empirical evidence to populate this theoretical framework, supporting, contradicting or modifying the programme theories as it goes. The results of the review combine theoretical understanding and empirical evidence, and focus on explaining the relationship between the context in which the intervention is applied, the mechanisms by which it works and the outcomes which are produced. The aim is to enable decision-makers to reach a deeper understanding of the intervention and how it can be made to work most effectively. Realist review does not provide simple answers to complex questions. It will not tell policy-makers or managers whether something works or not, but will provide the policy and practice community with the kind of rich, detailed and highly practical understanding of complex social interventions which is likely to be of much more use to them when planning and implementing programmes at a national, regional or local level.

Evaluation Studies as Topic↗
PubMed1990

Reviewing the reviewers: a survey of institutional ethics committees in Australia.

Completed questionnaires were received from 89 (88%) of the 101 Australian institutions identified as having an ethics committee which reviewed research on human subjects. The majority (75%) of committees complied with national requirements to include a layman, a laywoman, a minister of religion, a lawyer and a medical graduate with research experience in their membership. On average, the committees considered 41 research protocols in the year from mid 1987 to mid 1988. The proposed projects were from the medical sciences, including health services and epidemiology research (80% of projects), and the behavioural and social sciences (20% of projects). Less than half the committees monitored research projects in progress as a general practice. Most of the monitoring that was conducted was based on a report from the researcher on the progress of the study. Although monitoring, frequency of meetings, selection of committee members, member involvement in the review of their own protocols and provisions for expedited review gave cause for concern, most committees were found to follow the national guide-lines.

Australia↗
PubMed2002

Learning disabilities, dyslexia, and vision: a subject review--a rebuttal, literature review, and commentary.

BACKGROUND: In 1998, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Academy of Ophthalmology, and the American Association of Pediatric Ophthalmology and Strabismus (AAP/AAO/AAPOS) published a position paper entitled "Learning Disabilities, Dyslexia And Vision: A Subject Review," intended to support their assertion that there is no relationship between learning disabilities, dyslexia, and vision. The paper presents an unsupported opinion that optometrists (by implication) have said that vision problems cause learning disabilities and/or dyslexia and that visual therapy cures the conditions. The 1998 position paper follows two very similar and discredited papers published in 1972 and 1981. METHOD: This article critically reviews and comments on the many problems of scholarship, the inconsistencies, and the false allegations the position paper presents. Perhaps the foremost problem is that the authoring committee has ignored a veritable mountain of relevant literature that strongly argues against their assertion that vision does not relate to academic performance. It is for this reason that an overview, drawn from more than 1,400 identified references from Medline and other database sources and pertinent texts that were reviewed, is incorporated into this current article. The AAP/AAO/AAPOS paper is also examined for the Levels of Evidence that their references offer in support of their position. CONCLUSION: The AAP/AAO/AAPOS paper contains errors and internal inconsistencies. Through highly selective reference choices, it misrepresents the great body of evidence from the literature that supports a relationship between visual and perceptual problems as they contribute to classroom difficulties. The 1998 paper should be retracted because of the errors, bias, and disinformation it presents. The public assigns great trust to authorities for accurate, intellectually honest guidance, which is lacking in this AAP/AAO/AAPOS position paper.

Dyslexia↗
PubMed1991

Reviewing peer review: the NCI Clinic Alert three years later.

On May 16, 1988 the National Cancer Institute fired the opening volley in what would become two major battles--one over the treatment of node-negative breast cancer and the other over the proper protocol for disseminating vital scientific information. On this date the "Clinical Alert" was mailed to thousands of physicians in the United States. It was formulated to rapidly apprise physicians of the results of three clinical trials exploring the effects of adjuvant therapy in node-negative breast cancer. These results were perceived as scientifically compelling as well as clinically relevant. The results of the trials, the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project (NSABP) B-13 and B-14 trials and the Intergroup Study (INT) 0011, have subsequently been formally published and the results confirmed those presented in the Alert. Nevertheless, the debate over the treatment of node-negative breast cancer is far from resolved. Similarly, the debate over the vehicle employed for the dissemination of the Alert, ie, the US Mail, rages on. An unprecedented number of editorials, articles, and monographs have been published that deal with this question. At the center of this debate is the fact that the NCI elected to bypass the time honored institution of the peer reviewed journal. In effect, this debate emphasizes the need for a comprehensive review of the peer review process.

Breast Neoplasms↗
PubMed1996

Small bowel carcinoid: review of a single institution experience and review of the literature.

We have undertaken a review of the small bowel carcinoids treated at Georgia Baptist Medical Center during the last 27 years in order to evaluate the clinical behavior, diagnostic approaches, treatment options, and prognosis of these neoplasms. A retrospective analysis of the tumor registry at Georgia Baptist Medical Center was undertaken. A total of 148 cases of carcinoid tumors were identified. Of these, 34 were located in the small bowel. Twenty-eight of these cases were diagnosed at our institution. The others were referred for oncology care. The patient records were reviewed for sex, race, age at presentation, location, 5-HIAA status, coexistent neoplasms, multifocality, size, metastatic status, clinical presentation, diagnostic intervention, extension, adjuvant therapy, treatment intervention, and survival. A review of the available literature was undertaken to analyze the historical results in the aforementioned categories. In retrospect, many of these tumors had been clinically active for some time. The authors outline a more aggressive workup in order to avoid acute, in extremis, and late stage presentation. We present an analysis of traditional views on survival and prognosis as related to the size and spread of small bowel carcinoid. We expect that this information will assist in the development of definitive treatment, effective adjuvant therapy, and symptomatic relief for this often frustrating neoplasm.

Adult↗
PubMed1998

CDR review's editorial process in 1997 and the introduction of blinded peer review prepare the way for Communicable Disease and Public Health.

Openness about a journal's editorial process fosters confidence among its authors and readers. The time taken to accomplish steps in the Communicable Disease Report (CDR) Review's editorial process to be accomplished is described for papers published in 1997, and compared with similar data on papers published in 1995 and 1996. Over half of the papers published in 1997 had been submitted less than six months earlier. The introduction of blinded peer review was associated with an increase in quality of reviewers' reports. Communicable Disease and Public Health will follow the same procedures.

Bibliometrics↗
PubMed1984

Peer review: a review of the literature on the American experience 1972-1982.

The literature on peer review since its establishment by law in the United States of America in 1972 is examined. Important lessons for Australian psychiatrists and health care administrators emerge. The Professional Standards Review Organisations have been a costly bureaucratic exercise and the results have been doubtful in terms of cutting health costs. It is suggested that other mechanisms be explored in Australia particularly continuing education of practising psychiatrists.

Cost Control↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Predicting student success: a 10-year review using integrative review and meta-analysis.

This article describes research funded by a Dean's New Investigator Award conducted to describe and evaluate nursing education research on predictors of retention, graduation, and National Council Licensure Examination success of baccalaureate-degree nursing students through an integrative review and meta-analysis of nursing research. The sample (n = 47) for the integrative review included all nursing research conducted within the years 1981 to 1990 related to predicting student success that had at least one nurse author and was published in US nursing journals or dissertations from a US university. Four studies from the corpus were appropriate to be treated meta-analytically. Ninety-four per cent of the studies were descriptive, used convenience samples, and most often identified quantitative measures, including American College Test, Scholastic Aptitude Test, and grade point average as predictor variables. Findings of the integrative review showed grade point averages in nursing and science courses as the greatest cognitive predictors of student success and parental education and age as the greatest demographic predictors. The meta-analysis portion of the study showed significant effectiveness of interventions used in the experimental studies. The Fail-Safe N (NFS) was used to assess the comprehensiveness and exhaustiveness of the literature searches. The NFS = 162 studies indicated that it would require 162 studies to overturn the conclusions.

Achievement↗
PubMed1986

Regional Review Boards of Ontario: a medico-legal review.

The functioning of the Regional Review Boards of Ontario (RRB) or their equivalents in other provinces has not been previously reviewed. This study reviews socio-demographic and clinical data of 248 patients seen between 1974 and 1983 by the RRB. The RRB heard 132 applications as 116 were withdrawn. The results are compared with 173 matched inpatient controls. Applications by psychiatrists were infrequently withdrawn or revoked. Long delays between the time of application and the hearing, and a trend towards increasing numbers of applications were noted. Schizophrenia and affective disorder were the most prevalent diagnosis with alcohol abuse and organic brain syndrome being less common among applicants. An increase in duration of stay and transfer to chronic care institutions were found among applicants. Results suggest that RRB's are not 'rubber stamping bodies' and should be more readily available and should have increased public accountability. Future changes to the Mental Health Act should be based on scientific data.

Commitment of Persons with Psychiatric Disorders↗
PubMed2006

First CytoJournal Peer-Reviewer's Retreat in 2006 - open access, peer-review, and impact factor.

CytoJournal organized its first Peer-Reviewer's Retreat of 2006 during the United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology Annual Meeting at Atlanta on Feb 12, 2006. The major topics discussed were open access, peer review, and impact factors. Representative participants volunteered to join the task force to prepare an instructional guide for peer-reviewing cytopathology manuscripts. Concern about the impact factor for CytoJournal was discussed. A feedback to its readers and authors was recommended. Impact factor calculation needs at least three years of journal statistics. It is only possible after two years from the time a journal is first accepted by Thomson-ISI for citation tracking. CytoJournal is still too new for an impact factor to be calculated. However, general progress of CytoJournal suggests an encouraging pattern for high impact factor.

Journal Article↗
PubMed1997

Mental health review tribunals. A follow-up of reviewed patients.

BACKGROUND: Mental health legislation allows for treatment needs to override civil liberty. Mental health review tribunals act as a counterbalance. This study examines the long-term outcome of patients reviewed by a tribunal, and in particular whether the tribunal, in its concern for civil liberty, might be discharging patients prematurely. METHOD: All non-offender patients from a defined catchment area reviewed by the tribunal between the inception of the 1983 Mental Health Act and 31 December 1991 were followed-up until 31 May 1993. RESULTS: Those discharged by the tribunal did not differ significantly from those refused discharge in subsequent survival period in the community, in readmission rate or in final outcome. CONCLUSIONS: Within the limitations of a non-experimental study, the main hypothesis was not supported. An intensive study of family and personal life in the three months after discharge would cast useful additional light on the soundness of tribunal decisions.

Commitment of Persons with Psychiatric Disorders↗
PubMed2005

Content validation of instruments: are the perspectives of Anglo reviewers different from those of Hispanic/Latino and American Indian reviewers?

This article reports on the content validation of eight quantitative instruments developed to evaluate the interventions and outcomes for a Nursing Workforce Diversity Grant. During the expert review phase of the content validation process, response patterns to certain instrument items differed, effectively separating the reviewers into two groups. The response patterns of the Hispanic/Latino and American Indian experts were aligned with one another. The responses of the Anglo reviewers were also aligned with one another but not with the responses of the other group, which evaluated as highly relevant instrument items that were organized around five themes: the Importance of a Personal Relationship with Students of Color; the Effect of Isolation from Home and Family; the Importance of Culture and Ethnicity in Personal Identity; the Need for Collaborative, Interactive Learning and a Curriculum of Inclusion; and the Presence of Prejudice, Discrimination, and Racism.

Cross-Cultural Comparison↗
PubMed1988

The concept of a Clinical Review Secretariat--evolution of a clinical review programme at Dandenong and District Hospital.

In 1986 a Clinical Review Secretariat was established at Dandenong and District Hospital. It comprises a Director, co-ordinator and secretary, all on a part-time basis. The main role of the secretariat in the evaluation of patient care is that of a facilitator with the provision of organisational and computer skills with secretarial back-up and co-ordination of clinical review activities. The clinical review programme is continually evolving, however, almost two years after its inception it is felt that much has been achieved.

Hospital Bed Capacity, 300 to 499↗