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 757 records · Page 42Linked to original sources
PubMed2002

Measuring the quality of editorial peer review.

CONTEXT: The quality of a process can only be tested against its agreed objectives. Editorial peer-review is widely used, yet there appears to be little agreement about how to measure its effects or processes. METHODS: To identify outcome measures used to assess editorial peer review as performed by biomedical journals, we analyzed studies identified from 2 systematic reviews that measured the effects of editorial peer review on the quality of the output (ie, published articles) or of the process itself (eg, reviewers' comments). RESULTS: Ten studies used a variety of instruments to assess the quality of articles that had undergone peer review. Only 1, nonrandomized study compared the quality of articles published in peer-reviewed and non-peer-reviewed journals. The others measured the effects of variations in the peer-review process or used a before-and-after design to measure the effects of standard peer review on accepted articles. Eighteen studies measured the quality of reviewers' reports under different conditions such as blinding or after training. One study compared the time and cost of different review processes. CONCLUSIONS: Until we have properly defined the objectives of peer-review, it will remain almost impossible to assess or improve its effectiveness. The research needed to understand the broader effects of peer review poses many methodologic problems and would require the cooperation of many parts of the scientific community.

Evaluation Studies as Topic↗
PubMed2001

[Underrepresentation of women among peer reviewers and textbook authors in medicine in Germany].

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: A characteristic feature of German science is the "disappearance" of women during the different ranks from high-school to professorship. The goal of the present study was to determine the proportion of women among peer reviewers of the German research council and among editors and authors of textbooks in internal medicine. METHODS: The candidate list for the election of the peer reviewers of the German research council in November 1999 was checked for the participation of women. Numbers and proportion of women among the reviewer boards for practical medicine, theoretical medicine, biological chemistry/biophysics and biology were determined. Textbooks of internal medicine in German language were checked for female editors and authors. RESULTS: 1.8% of the present reviewers and 4.3% of the candidate reviewers for the election of the reviewer board for practical medicine were female. The corresponding numbers for the reviewer board for theoretical medicine were 3.2% and 8.2%, respectively. The reviewer board for biological chemistry and biophysics had no woman among the present reviewers and 2.1% among the candidate reviewers. Corresponding proportions for the reviewer board for biology are 18.5% and 13.5%, respectively. The average percentage of women among all 4 reviewer boards which are involved in biomedical research is 5.4% among the present reviewers and 6.5% among the proposed reviewers. A similar situation of underrepresentation of women is present among authors of medical textbooks. Among 65 editors and co-editors of 19 textbooks of internal medicine was no woman at all. Among a total of 1092 authors 47 women corresponding to 4.3% were found. CONCLUSION: These numbers demonstrate that the subject of gender discrimination in higher ranks in medicine and science in Germany is far from being solved.

Authorship↗
PubMed2005

An analysis of systematic reviews indicated low incorpororation of results from clinical trial quality assessment.

OBJECTIVE: We investigated the frequency of quality assessment of randomized controlled trials within systematic reviews and the incorporation of the quality assessment in the analysis. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We included new systematic reviews of at least five trials of therapeutic or preventive interventions that appeared in issue 2, 2003, of the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. All systematic reviews in the 2002 issues of the Annals of Internal Medicine, BMJ, JAMA, and Lancet were identified in Pubmed. All reviews were assessed under unblinded conditions using preprinted extraction forms. RESULTS: Trial quality was assessed in all Cochrane reviews and most (74%) of the paper reviews. When we excluded 11 paper reviews that were also published as Cochrane review, the percentage remained similar (67%). Fifty percent of all Cochrane reviews and 61% of all paper reviews incorporated the results of the quality assessment in the analysis. CONCLUSION: Half of the reviews did not incorporate the results of the quality assessment in the analysis. Authors, peer-reviewers, and editors should no longer focus exclusively on whether quality assessment has been performed but should also concentrate on incorporation of quality assessments in the analysis of the systematic review.

Databases, Bibliographic↗
PubMed1998

The Medical Journal of Australia Internet peer-review study.

BACKGROUND: Peer review of medical papers is a confidential consultancy between the reviewer and the journal editor, and has been criticised for its potential bias and inadequacy. We explored the potential of the internet for open peer review to see whether this approach improved the quality and outcome of peer review. METHODS: Research and review articles that had been accepted for publication in The Medical Journal of Australia (MJA) were published together with the reviewers' reports on the worldwide web, with the consent of authors and referees. Selected readers' e-mailed comments were electronically published as additional commentary; authors could reply or revise their paper in response to readers' comments. Articles were edited and published in print after this open review. FINDINGS: 60 (81%) of 74 authors agreed to take part in the study, together with 150 (92%) of 162 reviewers. There was no significant difference in the performance of commissioned reviewers before and during the study. Four articles were not included because of insufficient time before print publication. Of the remaining 56 papers, 28 received 52 comments from 42 readers (2% of readers submitted comments). Most readers' comments were short and specific, and seven articles were changed by the authors in response. INTERPRETATION: Open peer review is acceptable to most authors and reviewers. Postpublication review by readers on the internet is no substitute for commissioned prepublication review, but can provide editors with valuable input from individuals who would not otherwise be consulted. Readers also gain insight into the processes of peer review and publication.

Attitude↗
PubMed2004

What is the point of databases of reviews for dermatology if all they compile is "insufficient evidence"?

BACKGROUND: The use of review databases for dermatology has been questioned because of the impression that these reviews frequently report finding insufficient evidence to guide therapeutic recommendations. OBJECTIVE: We sought to determine the number of review database entries most relevant to dermatology (addressing diseases with skin manifestations whereby a dermatologist may be the primary caregiver) and the percentage of these entries that report sufficient evidence to guide clinical decision making. METHODS: We conducted computerized searches and analysis of reviews in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effectiveness. Database entries were categorized using the face value reports of the original reviewers as: (1) finding sufficient evidence to inform clinical decisions; (2) finding insufficient evidence; or (3) unable to classify with regard to degree of evidence found. RESULTS: Of all review database entries, 3% (54/1235 in Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and 65/2208 in the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effectiveness) were deemed relevant to dermatology. In all, 14 entries from the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effectiveness were in the process of being written and not available for further evaluation. Of the remaining entries, 40% (42/105) reported finding sufficient evidence. Of the 10 most common dermatologic diagnoses, 8 were addressed in 30% (31/105) of these reviews. Of entries addressing common dermatologic diagnoses, 32% (10/31) reported finding sufficient evidence. CONCLUSIONS: Although few (3%) entries in review databases currently address dermatology topics, entries address many (8/10) of the top 10 dermatology diagnoses. Contrary to popular belief, a substantial number (40%) of such reviews report sufficient evidence to inform clinical decisions making.

Databases, Bibliographic↗
PubMed1995

Effect of utilization review in a fee-for-service health insurance plan.

BACKGROUND: Although utilization review is widely used to control health care costs, its effect on patterns of health care is uncertain. METHODS: In 1989, New York City and its unions temporarily replaced actual utilization review with sham review for half the participants in the city's fee-for-service health insurance plan. We compared the health services provided to 3702 enrollees whose requests were subjected to utilization review (the review group) with the services provided to 3743 enrollees whose requests received sham review and were automatically approved for insurance coverage (the nonreview group). The enrollees, physicians, and hospitals were all unaware of the group assignments. RESULTS: During the study period (mean duration, eight months), the members of the review group underwent 1255 procedures in 20 categories of procedures for which second opinions were required (such as breast, cataract, foot, hernia, and hip-replacement surgery, as well as hysterectomy and coronary bypass surgery), and the members of the nonreview group underwent 1365 procedures (P = 0.02). The members of the review group had 124 fewer procedures in doctors' offices and hospital outpatient departments (P = 0.002). In the following year, the members of the review group underwent 248 procedures from the 20 categories, and the members of the nonreview group underwent 234 (P = 0.46). No other differences in patterns of care were found between the groups, including rates of hospital admission to medical-surgical, substances-abuse, or psychiatric units; average lengths of hospital stay; the percentage of enrollees who received preadmission testing; or rates of use of home care. During the study period, the mean age-adjusted insurance payments per person were $7,355 in the review group and $6,858 in the nonreview group (P = 0.06). CONCLUSIONS: The utilization-review program reduced the performance of diagnostic and surgical procedures for which second opinions were required and did not merely delay them until the following year. Otherwise, the program had little effect. Alternatively, actual review and sham review may both have decreased the use of hospital services, with patients or their physicians choosing more efficient treatment when they believed that care would be reviewed.

Case Management↗
PubMed2002

How relevant are the systematic reviews in the cochrane library to emergency medical practice?

STUDY OBJECTIVES: The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR), one of the databases in the Cochrane Library, is a compilation of regularly updated systematic reviews with meta-analytic summary statistics. We conducted a study of the CDSR to evaluate the relevance of this database to emergency medical practice. METHODS: Using criteria that were determined a priori, 2 reviewers independently screened the titles of 795 completed reviews from the April 2000 CDSR for possible relevance to emergency medicine practice. Five reviewers independently ranked summaries of these reviews for degree of relevance. Agreement was measured using kappa statistics. Disagreements were resolved by consensus or adjudication. RESULTS: Screening of 795 completed reviews identified 136 (17%) as "possibly" and 151 (19%) as "likely" relevant (simple agreement, 74%; kappa=0.82). Further independent assessment indicated 95 (12%) of the 151 "likely" systematic reviews were directly relevant to emergency medicine practice, whereas 44 (6%) were indirectly relevant (simple agreement, 77%; kappa=0.45). Cochrane Review Groups producing the most emergency medicine-relevant systematic reviews included acute respiratory infections (14 [10%]), injuries (14 [10%]), pregnancy and childbirth (13 [10%]), stroke (12 [10%]), and airways (11 [8%]). In contrast, only 1 (0.1%) of the reviews produced by the Heart Review Group was considered directly relevant to emergency medicine practice. CONCLUSION: More than one third of CDSR reviews have some relevance, and 12% are directly relevant, to emergency medical practice or discharge planning. Although certain conditions are well covered, other key emergency medicine areas are not. Emergency physicians should consider the Cochrane Library an important evidence-based resource for emergency medicine therapeutic interventions and should examine ways of increasing the number of reviews relevant to emergency medicine.

Databases, Factual↗
PubMed2002

The effect of dedicated methodology and statistical review on published manuscript quality.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: We examine how dedicated methodology and statistical review affects the quality of manuscripts published in Annals of Emergency Medicine. DESIGN: The dedicated reviewers developed a manuscript scoring form based on previously used instruments. The form contained 84 unique elements. Eight items sought the presence of state-of-the-art features (eg, formal exploration of the sensitivity of results to assumptions); the others sought substandard quality. Two raters independently scored each original research publication appearing in 4 consecutive issues of Annals for the presence or absence of each relevant item. We then reviewed the formal methodology and statistical review and all subsequent correspondence between authors and editors to determine whether the methodology and statistical review provided guidance regarding each of the 84 items and whether the advice was incorporated into the final manuscript. RESULTS: There were 32 original research articles. One was never subjected to methodology and statistical review. Reviewers agreed on 94% of all items; single-item agreement ranged from 77% to 100%. State-of-the-art features were present in 31 (14%) of 217 ratings; the methodology and statistical review had commented on 13 (42%) of these. State-of-the-art features were absent in 186 (86%) ratings; the methodology and statistical review had commented on 33 (18%) of these. Substandard features were deemed present in 166 (12%) of 1,519 ratings; the methodology and statistical review had commented on 82 (44%) of these. Substandard features were absent in 1,333 (88%) ratings; the methodology and statistical review had commented on 132 (10%) of these. We found no fatal flaws in the published manuscripts. CONCLUSION: Methodology reviewers often failed to comment on deficiencies that they had classified as substandard when designing this study. Reviews also did not encourage inclusion of state-of-the-art abstract, article, and references features. When reviews identified areas in need of improvement, only half of the comments led to improved manuscripts. In the other half, authors either rebuked the suggestions or the editors did not act when suggestions were ignored.

Peer Review, Research↗
PubMed2003

Considering resistance in systematic reviews of antibiotic treatment.

CONTEXT: Microorganisms resistant to antibiotic drugs are a threat to the health and chances of survival of patients. Systematic reviews on antibiotic drugs that ignore the topic of resistance present readers with a skewed view, emphasizing short-term efficacy or effectiveness while ignoring long-term consequences. OBJECTIVES: To examine whether systematic reviews of antibiotic treatment consider resistance; if not, to find out whether data on resistance were reported in the original trials; and based on that, to offer a framework for taking resistance into account in systematic reviews. DATA SOURCES: The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (the Cochrane Library, 2001, issue 2); and MEDLINE, 1996-2000. STUDY SELECTION: (i) Systematic reviews or meta-analyses of antimicrobial therapy, published during 1996-2000. (ii) Randomized, controlled trials abstracted in systematic reviews that addressed a topic highly relevant to antibiotic resistance. DATA EXTRACTION: We examined each systematic review, and each article, to see whether the implications of resistance were discussed; and whether data on resistance were collected. RESULTS: Out of 111 systematic reviews, only 44 (40%) discussed resistance. Ten reviews (9%) planned or performed collection of data on the response of patients with susceptible or resistant isolates. In 22 systematic reviews (20%), collection of data on induction of resistance was planned or performed. The topic of 41 reviews was judged highly relevant to resistance, and these reviews extracted data from 337 articles, out of which we retrieved 279 articles (83%). In 201 (72%) articles, resistance was discussed or data pertaining to it were collected. Ninety-seven articles (35%) gave actual data on resistance of pathogens to the study drugs, 71 articles (25%) data on efficacy of antibiotic drugs in patients with susceptible and resistant pathogens, and 55 articles (20%) provided data on infection or colonization with resistant strains during treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Most systematic reviews on antibiotic treatment ignored the issue of resistance, although many of the original articles referred to it and some reported relevant data. Reviewers should collect data on resistance and discuss the implications in their discussion and sections concerned with policy implications.

Anti-Bacterial Agents↗
PubMed2005

The integrative review: updated methodology.

AIM: The aim of this paper is to distinguish the integrative review method from other review methods and to propose methodological strategies specific to the integrative review method to enhance the rigour of the process. BACKGROUND: Recent evidence-based practice initiatives have increased the need for and the production of all types of reviews of the literature (integrative reviews, systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and qualitative reviews). The integrative review method is the only approach that allows for the combination of diverse methodologies (for example, experimental and non-experimental research), and has the potential to play a greater role in evidence-based practice for nursing. With respect to the integrative review method, strategies to enhance data collection and extraction have been developed; however, methods of analysis, synthesis, and conclusion drawing remain poorly formulated. DISCUSSION: A modified framework for research reviews is presented to address issues specific to the integrative review method. Issues related to specifying the review purpose, searching the literature, evaluating data from primary sources, analysing data, and presenting the results are discussed. Data analysis methods of qualitative research are proposed as strategies that enhance the rigour of combining diverse methodologies as well as empirical and theoretical sources in an integrative review. CONCLUSION: An updated integrative review method has the potential to allow for diverse primary research methods to become a greater part of evidence-based practice initiatives.

Data Collection↗
PubMed2001

Quality of Cochrane reviews: assessment of sample from 1998.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the quality of Cochrane reviews. DESIGN: Ten methodologists affiliated with the Cochrane Collaboration independently examined, in a semistructured way, the quality of reviews first published in 1998. Each review was assessed by two people; if one of them noted any major problems, they agreed on a common assessment. Predominant types of problem were categorised. SETTING: Cyberspace collaboration coordinated from the Nordic Cochrane Centre. STUDIES: All 53 reviews first published in issue 4 of the Cochrane Library in 1998. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Proportion of reviews with various types of major problem. RESULTS: No problems or only minor ones were found in most reviews. Major problems were identified in 15 reviews (29%). The evidence did not fully support the conclusion in nine reviews (17%), the conduct or reporting was unsatisfactory in 12 reviews (23%), and stylistic problems were identified in 12 reviews (23%). The problematic conclusions all gave too favourable a picture of the experimental intervention. CONCLUSIONS: Cochrane reviews have previously been shown to be of higher quality and less biased on average than other systematic reviews, but improvement is always possible. The Cochrane Collaboration has taken steps to improve editorial processes and the quality of its reviews. Meanwhile, the Cochrane Library remains a key source of evidence about the effects of healthcare interventions. Its users should interpret reviews cautiously, particularly those with conclusions favouring experimental interventions and those with many typographical errors.

Bias↗
PubMed2005

Assessment of methodological quality of primary studies by systematic reviews: results of the metaquality cross sectional study.

OBJECTIVES: To describe how the methodological quality of primary studies is assessed in systematic reviews and whether the quality assessment is taken into account in the interpretation of results. DATA SOURCES: Cochrane systematic reviews and systematic reviews in paper based journals. STUDY SELECTION: 965 systematic reviews (809 Cochrane reviews and 156 paper based reviews) published between 1995 and 2002. DATA SYNTHESIS: The methodological quality of primary studies was assessed in 854 of the 965 systematic reviews (88.5%). This occurred more often in Cochrane reviews than in paper based reviews (93.9% v 60.3%, P < 0.0001). Overall, only 496 (51.4%) used the quality assessment in the analysis and interpretation of the results or in their discussion, with no significant differences between Cochrane reviews and paper based reviews (52% v 49%, P = 0.58). The tools and methods used for quality assessment varied widely. CONCLUSIONS: Cochrane reviews fared better than systematic reviews published in paper based journals in terms of assessment of methodological quality of primary studies, although they both largely failed to take it into account in the interpretation of results. Methods for assessment of methodological quality by systematic reviews are still in their infancy and there is substantial room for improvement.

Cross-Sectional Studies↗
PubMed2004

Doubling the impact: publication of systematic review articles in orthopaedic journals.

BACKGROUND: Investigators aim to publish their research papers in top journals to disseminate their findings to the widest possible audience. Systematic reviews of the literature occupy the highest position in currently proposed hierarchies of evidence. We hypothesized that the number of citations (a measure of scholarly interest) for systematic reviews (or meta-analyses) published in leading orthopaedic journals would be greater than the number of citations for narrative reviews published in the same journals. METHODS: We identified fifteen journals that had high Science Citation Index impact factors for the orthopaedic subspecialty and were believed to have a higher yield of studies and reviews of scientific merit and clinical relevance. For the year 2000, six research associates applied methodological criteria to each article in each issue of the fifteen journals to determine whether the article was scientifically sound (rigorous versus nonrigorous). Of the 3916 articles identified, 2331 were original or review articles. We queried the ISI (Institute for Scientific Information) Web of Science database to ascertain, as of March 2003, the number of subsequent citations to each one of the reviews after its original publication in all journals that published both narrative and systematic reviews. RESULTS: Of the 2331 articles published across the fifteen journals in the year 2000, 110 were review articles. Only seventeen (15%) of the 110 reviews met our criteria for systematic reviews with rigor. Rigorous systematic reviews received more than twice the mean number of citations compared with other systematic or narrative reviews (13.8 compared with 6.0, p = 0.008). The rigor of a review was a significant predictor of the number of citations in other orthopaedic journals (p = 0.01). In addition, rigor was significantly associated with the number of citations in nonorthopaedic journals (p = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that journal editors and authors can improve the relevance and scholarly interest in their reviews (as shown by the number of citations) by meeting standard guidelines for methodological rigor.

Humans↗
PubMed1994

The effects of blinding on acceptance of research papers by peer review.

OBJECTIVE: To study whether reviewers aware of author identity are biased in favor of authors with more previous publications. DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial. SETTING: Editorial office of the Journal of Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics. PARTICIPANTS: Two "blinded" and two "nonblinded" reviewers assigned to 57 consecutive manuscripts submitted between September 1991 and March 1992. OUTCOME MEASURES: Spearman rank correlation coefficients were used to compare the sum of rating scores of 1 to 5 (1, accept; 5, reject) given by the two blinded reviewers, the two nonblinded reviewers, and the editors to the number of articles published previously by the first and senior authors (as determined from requested curricula vitae). Blinded reviewers were sent a questionnaire asking whether they could determine the identity of the authors, how they knew, and whether they thought binding changed the quality or difficulty of their review. RESULTS: The Wilcoxon Sign Rank Test disclosed no differences between blinded and nonblinded scores. The number of previous articles by the senior author was significantly correlated (P < .01) with blinded scores (r = -.45) and editors' decisions (r = -.45), but not with nonblinded scores; the number of articles by the first author was correlated (P < .05) with editors' decisions (r = -.35) but not with blinded or nonblinded scores. Fifty (46%) of 108 blinded reviewers correctly guessed the identity of the authors, mostly from self-references and knowledge of the work; 86% believed blinding did not change the quality of their review, and 73% believed it did not change the difficulty of performing a review. CONCLUSIONS: Blinded reviewers and editors in this study, but not nonblinded reviewers, gave better scores to authors with more previous articles. These results suggest that blinded reviewers may provide more unbiased reviews and that nonblinded reviewers may be affected by various types of bias.

Authorship↗
PubMed1991

New indications for already-approved drugs: an analysis of regulatory review times.

A survey of the U.S. pharmaceutical industry was conducted to obtain data on the length of the review process for supplemental indications of already-approved new chemical entities (NCEs). Responses were received from 51 firms and covered supplemental indications of 348 NCEs that were approved during 1963 to 1988. Since extensive toxicity and safety evaluation would generally not be required for supplemental indication reviews, one would expect supplemental indications, on average, to be reviewed more quickly than applications for the associated original indications. The mean +/- standard deviation review time for the 172 supplemental indications in the sample is 21.5 +/- 18 months; the average review time for the associated 94 original indications is 23.5 +/- 18 months. The difference in average review times is not statistically significant. Analysis of review times for indications grouped by Food and Drug Administration (FDA) reviewing division showed a statistically significant difference between supplemental and associated original indication review times only in the cardio-renal division. In that division, average review times were longer for supplemental indications (25.6 vs. 19.3 mo; P less than .05). Analysis of time trends showed a significant increase in average supplemental indication review time for 1985 to 1988 approvals relative to the average associated original indication review time (P less than .01) and to average supplemental indication review time for earlier time periods (P less than .01). These results suggest the need for a close examination of the supplemental indication review policy of the FDA.

Drug Evaluation↗
PubMed1996

Diagnostic tests for temporomandibular disorders: an assessment of the methodologic quality of research reviews.

SUMMARY. The objective of this study was to assess review articles of temporomandibular disorder (TMD) diagnostic tests for methodological quality and to establish the need for a systematic reviewing process. Computerized bibliographic database searches from 1983 to December 1996, information requests from authors, and review of reference lists of all retrieved reports were used to identify relevant reviews. After applying selection criteria, two investigators independently reviewed the articles. Each review article was evaluated independently for methodological quality. Agreement between reviewers was measured using quadratic weighted kappa.Forty-five of 53 review articles met the selection criteria. No review described the search methods, selection criteria, demonstrably avoided selection bias or pooled data of primary studies. Three of 45 articles assessed the internal validity and reliability of the studies included in their review. Major to extensive methodological flaws were noted across all reviews.This critique of methodologic quality in TMD diagnostic review articles supports the need for a systematic reviewing process. Clinicians turning to diagnostic reviews to aid them in synthesizing a large body of literature may wish to apply the described methodologic criteria to separate 'valid' from 'invalid' reviews. Copyright 1996 Harcourt Publishers Ltd.

Journal Article↗
PubMed2006

Exploring community nurses' perceptions of life review in palliative care.

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: This exploratory study aimed to identify community nurses' understanding of life review as a therapeutic intervention for younger people requiring palliative care. The objectives set out to: (i) Describe the participants' understanding of reminiscence and life review (ii) Detail their current ideas regarding a structured approach to using life review in the community setting. (iii) Outline their understanding of the possible advantages and limitations of life review in relation to palliative care. (iv) Identify future training requirements. BACKGROUND: The literature review illustrated how the eighth developmental stage of Erikson's theory, ego-integrity vs. despair, is a 'crisis' often faced by older people entering the final stage of life. Life review is considered a useful therapeutic intervention in the resolution of this crisis. Younger terminally ill people in the palliative stage of an illness may face the same final crises due to their reduced lifespan. Therefore, this study explored the benefits and limitations of life review as an intervention in palliative care. METHOD: The study used a purposive sample of community nurses responsible for delivering generic and specialist palliative care. A qualitative method of data collection in the form of three focus group interviews was used. Subsequent data were manually analysed, categorized and coded with associations between the themes identified. RESULTS: The findings suggested that community nurses have limited knowledge pertaining to the use of life review and tend to confuse the intervention with reminiscence. Furthermore, they believed that life review could potentially cause harm to practitioners engaged in listening to another person's life story. However, the participants concur that with appropriate training they would find life review a useful intervention to use in palliative care. CONCLUSIONS: The results led to the identification of a number of key recommendations: Community nurses require specific education in the technicalities of life review and additional interpersonal skills training. The need for formalized support through clinical supervision is also recognized and discussed. Finally, suggestions are offered regarding the need to generate wider evidence and how, possibly, to integrate life review into existing palliative care services. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: This study has demonstrated that community nurses are keen to extend the support offered to younger terminally ill people who are in the palliative stage of their illness. Despite having limited knowledge of life the main components and underpinning theory pertaining to life review participants could appreciate the potential of life review as a therapeutic intervention in palliative care and were keen to learn more about its use and gain the necessary knowledge and skills.

Adult↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Identifying adverse drug events: development of a computer-based monitor and comparison with chart review and stimulated voluntary report.

BACKGROUND: Adverse drug events (ADEs) are both common and costly. Most hospitals identify ADEs using spontaneous reporting, but this approach lacks sensitivity; chart review identifies more events but is expensive. Computer-based approaches to ADE identification appear promising, but they have not been directly compared with chart review and they are not widely used. OBJECTIVES: To develop a computer-based ADE monitor, and to compare the rate and type of ADEs found with the monitor with those discovered by chart review and by stimulated voluntary report. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study in one tertiary-care hospital. PARTICIPANTS: All patients admitted to nine medical and surgical units in a tertiary-care hospital over an eight-month period. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Adverse drug events identified by the computer-based monitor, by chart review, and by stimulated voluntary report. METHODS: A computer-based monitoring program identified alerts, which were situations suggesting that an ADE might be present (e.g., an order for an antidote such as naloxone). A trained reviewer then examined patients' hospital records to determine whether an ADE had occurred. The results of the computer-based monitoring strategy were compared with two other ADE detection strategies: intensive chart review and stimulated voluntary report by nurses and pharmacists. The monitor and the chart review strategies were independent, and the reviewers were blinded. RESULTS: The computer monitoring strategy identified 2,620 alerts, of which 275 were determined to be ADEs. The chart review found 398 ADEs, whereas voluntary report detected 23. Of the 617 ADEs detected by at least one method, 76 ADEs were detected by both computer monitor and chart review. The computer monitor identified 45 percent; chart review, 65 percent; and voluntary report, 4 percent. The ADEs identified by computer monitor were more likely to be classified as "severe" than were those identified by chart review (51 versus 42 percent, p = .04). The positive predictive value of computer-generated alerts was 16 percent during the first eight weeks of the study; rule modifications increased this to 23 percent in the final eight weeks. The computer strategy required 11 person-hours per week to execute, whereas chart review required 55 person-hours per week and voluntary report strategy required 5. CONCLUSIONS: The computer-based monitor identified fewer ADEs than did chart review but many more ADEs than did stimulated voluntary report. The overlap among the ADEs identified using different methods was small, suggesting that the incidence of ADEs may be higher than previously reported and that different detection methods capture different events. The computer-based monitoring system represents an efficient approach for measuring ADE frequency and gauging the effectiveness of ADE prevention programs.

Adverse Drug Reaction Reporting Systems↗