SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “experiences”

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.

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

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

255 records · Page 15Linked to original sources

PubMed2026

Distal versus proximal radial access for diagnostic cerebral angiography: comparative outcomes and learning curve analysis.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Distal transradial access (dTRA) is an alternative to proximal transradial access (pTRA) for neuroangiography, but comparative real-world data and evidence on its early learning curve remain limited. We compared procedural performance and access-site complications between dTRA and pTRA and evaluated the early learning curve of dTRA. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed 470 diagnostic cerebral angiography procedures, representing 421 unique patients, performed via radial access at a single center between January 2025 and February 2026, including 237 dTRA and 233 pTRA procedures. Baseline characteristics, including age, sex, body mass index (BMI) category, aortic arch type, and antiplatelet/anticoagulant use, procedural performance, and clinically assessed access-site events were compared between groups. Radial artery occlusion (RAO) was assessed by postoperative bedside pulse examination and confirmed with Doppler ultrasound when clinical findings were uncertain. Multivariable logistic regression was used to evaluate predictors of RAO, persistent bleeding or repeated compression, hand edema, and a composite access-site event endpoint. Because repeated procedures occurred in a subset of patients and event counts were limited, first-procedure sensitivity analysis and analyses of infrequent outcomes were interpreted cautiously. The dTRA learning process was assessed in the first 100 dTRA cases performed by a single operator using multivariable regression, cumulative sum (CUSUM) analysis, segmented trend analysis, and phase-based comparisons. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics were comparable between groups, including age, male sex, BMI category, aortic arch type, and antiplatelet/anticoagulant use. Compared with pTRA, dTRA was associated with more puncture attempts (3.0 [2.0-4.0] vs 2.0 [1.0-3.0], P < 0.001), longer puncture time (2.0 [1.0-5.0] vs 2.0 [1.0-3.0] min, P = 0.003), lower first-pass success (19.4% vs 35.2%, P < 0.001), and a higher crossover rate (11.4% vs 6.0%, P = 0.037). However, dTRA was associated with a lower clinically assessed RAO rate (2.5% vs 7.7%, P = 0.011). On multivariable analysis, pTRA was independently associated with higher odds of RAO (OR 3.27, 95% CI 1.26-8.49, P = 0.015) and the composite access-site event endpoint (OR 3.12, 95% CI 1.55-6.28, P = 0.001). Similar findings were observed in a sensitivity analysis restricted to the first procedure per patient. In the first 100 dTRA cases, cumulative dTRA experience was independently associated with shorter total procedure time (beta = -0.074 min/case, P = 0.009), while CUSUM and moving-average analyses suggested that the major learning effect occurred within approximately the first 10-15 cases. CONCLUSIONS: In this retrospective single-operator cohort, dTRA was associated with lower clinically assessed RAO than pTRA despite greater access difficulty. The early learning effect was mainly reflected in shorter total procedure time. These findings support the feasibility of dTRA but should be interpreted cautiously given the study's observational design and limited anatomical data.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

The efficacy of modified psychodynamic psychotherapy for patients with schizophrenia-spectrum disorders in Germany: a prospective, single-centre, assessor-blinded, parallel-group, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: People with schizophrenia-spectrum disorders have difficulties in interpersonal functioning that remain insufficiently addressed by standard care. Despite long-standing clinical use, psychodynamic psychotherapy has little empirical support compared with other psychosocial treatments for people with schizophrenia-spectrum disorders. We evaluated the efficacy of Modified Psychodynamic Psychotherapy for Schizophrenia (MPP-S), a manualised treatment tailored to the interpersonal vulnerability characteristic of this population, plus treatment as usual (TAU), compared with TAU alone. METHODS: This prospective, single-centre, assessor-blinded, parallel-group, randomised controlled trial was conducted at the Psychiatric University Hospital of the Charité at St Hedwig Hospital in Berlin, Germany. Participants were outpatients aged 18-64 years who were diagnosed with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder and exclusion criteria included organic brain disorder, somatic illness affecting cerebral function, and current or past alcohol or illicit drug misuse requiring addiction-specific treatment. Participants were randomly assigned 1:1 in blocks of ten to MPP-S (minimum 30 sessions) plus TAU or TAU alone. Outcome assessors were masked, but participants and therapists were not. The primary outcome was psychosocial functioning, measured using the Mini International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health Rating for Limitations of Activities and Participation in Psychological Disorders (Mini-ICF-APP) and evaluated at baseline and prespecified post-treatment (24 months) and follow-up (36 months) assessments. Analyses followed the intention-to-treat principle. Linear mixed models were used to analyse incomplete longitudinal data under a missing-at-random assumption. People with lived experience were not formally involved in the design, conduct, or reporting of this study. This trial was preregistered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02576613) and is complete. FINDINGS: From Oct 12, 2015, to Dec 7, 2021, 130 participants (57 [44%] female and 73 [56%] male) were randomly assigned to either MPP-S plus TAU (n=65) or TAU alone (n=64). One participant withdrew consent to data analysis. Regarding the primary outcome of psychosocial functioning, linear mixed models showed significant group-by-time interactions favouring the intervention: estimated marginal means indicated adjusted between-group differences in Mini-ICF-APP scores of -3·45 (95% CI -5·51 to -1·40; p=0·0011) at 24 months and -4·07 (-6·19 to -1·94; p=0·0002) at 36 months. The frequency of adverse events was similar between groups. There were three serious adverse events: two participants died by suicide (one in the MPP-S plus TAU group who did not start psychotherapy and one in the TAU alone group) and one participant in the MPP-S plus TAU group was admitted to a forensic hospital. INTERPRETATION: MPP-S added to TAU could improve psychosocial functioning compared with TAU alone. Our findings suggest efficacy and possible long-term benefits of psychodynamic psychotherapy for schizophrenia-spectrum disorders and indicate its potential role alongside other psychotherapeutic and psychosocial treatments. FUNDING: Berlin Institute of Health, Deutsche Gesellschaft für Psychoanalyse, Psychotherapie, Psychosomatik und Tiefenpsychologie, International Psychoanalytic University Berlin, and Köhler-Stiftung.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Methods for defining equity-stratifying variables: a systematic review of validation studies.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Disease burden is often disproportionally higher among those who are socially disadvantaged by factors defined in the PROGRESS-Plus framework (ie, Place of residence, Race/ethnicity/culture/language, Occupation, Gender/sex, Religion, Education, Socioeconomic status, and Social capital, with "Plus" covering features like age and disability). The accuracy and applicability of case definitions to identify these variables from administrative and clinical health data are unknown. We conducted a systematic review to explore how equity-stratifying variables, as categorized by the PROGRESS-Plus framework, have been defined and validated in epidemiologic studies using administrative health, population-level, or electronic health record (EHR) data. METHODS: Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science, and Google Scholar were searched from the inception of the databases to 2024 for validation studies of equity-stratifying variables in adults using administrative health datasets, health registries, or EHR data. Titles and abstracts, followed by relevant full-text articles, were screened in duplicate by two reviewers for eligibility. The data sources utilized, algorithms employed, and their associated performance measures were extracted and synthesized from included studies. Given substantial heterogeneity in study design, equity-stratifying variable definition, and performance metrics, meta-analysis was not possible. RESULTS: Of the 9099 unique citations screened, 188 full texts were reviewed and 116 were included in this review. Most studies were published between 2019 and 2024 (n = 64, 55%) and were validation studies of race/ethnicity definitions that used race/ethnicity codes or surname list algorithms (n = 66, 57%). No studies examined religion. Regarding the reported performance measure estimates, the race/ethnicity/culture/language equity-stratifying variables category had the largest variability across sensitivity, positive predictive value (PPV), and Cohen's Kappa. Occupation validation studies had the lowest variation in sensitivity and PPV. CONCLUSION: Despite an increasing number of publications reporting on the validation of equity-stratifying variables relevant to the PROGRESS-Plus framework, performance measures varied widely across studies. The significant heterogeneity in equity-stratifying variable definitions and methods used to validate them support the need for further rigorous validation of equity-stratifying variables in administrative and clinical health data. PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY: Disease burden is often higher in people who experience financial hardships, lower level of education, discrimination due to race/ethnicity, and unstable housing. These social factors can be considered health equity factors and are important for understanding health inequalities. Health researchers often use large datasets, such as hospital or electronic health records (EHRs), to study these health equity factors. However, it is not clear how accurately these data sources capture information about people's social circumstances and how these factors are defined. In this study, we reviewed existing research to understand how health equity factors have been defined across health data sources and how accurate they are at measuring aspects of health equity and social disadvantage. Of the more than 9000 studies we identified, we included 116 that met our criteria for this systematic review. Most included studies focused on identifying race and ethnicity, often using codes or surname-based methods. We found that the accuracy of these methods varied widely across studies, meaning results may not always be reliable or comparable. Overall, our findings show that there are inconsistencies in how social factors are defined and measured in health data. This makes it difficult to fully understand and address health inequalities using routinely collected health data. More work is needed to develop and validate better quality and more consistent methods for capturing these important social factors.

Humans↗