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 973 records · Page 54Linked to original sources

Private cost containment. The effects of utilization review programs on health care use and expenditures.

Utilization review has been regarded as one of the most promising approaches to the containment of health care costs. We analyzed insurance claims data on 222 groups of employees and dependents for 1984 and 1985 to evaluate the effects of utilization review programs instituted by a large private insurance carrier. The utilization review programs we studied were compulsory; patients who did not follow established utilization review procedures were subject to financial penalties. Controlling for employee characteristics, health care market area factors, and benefit-plan features, we found that utilization review reduced admissions by 12.3 percent, inpatient days by 8.0 percent, hospital expenditures by 11.9 percent, and total medical expenditures by 8.3 percent. When only groups that had relatively high admission rates before adopting utilization review were analyzed, it was found that they had a 34 percent reduction in patient days and a 30 percent reduction in hospital expenditures. The savings-to-cost ratio of utilization review for groups overall was highly favorable--approximately 8 to 1. Private utilization review programs of the type we studied appear to be effective in reducing hospital use and decreasing medical expenditures. This study did not address the possible effects of such programs on the health status of patients.

Cost Control↗

Proposed criteria for independent peer reviewers.

Because of the complexity of craniomandibular claims, it is difficult for insurance adjusters to keep up with all of the advances and techniques regarding craniomandibular disorders. Insurance companies have found that they can process claims more quickly and economize by having claims reviewed. Because of this, independent insurance reviews have become routine for TMJ claims. Many practitioners contend that the current review system appears to be lacking in impartiality, criteria for reviewers, and standardized fees for various geographical locations. The author offers suggestions for objective reviews that ensure the use of qualified and responsible reviewers. Setting guidelines for reviewers will bring about more equitable reviews and assist in dismantling the confusion surrounding head and neck claims.

Humans↗

Systematic reviews and their application to research in speech and language therapy: a response to T. R. Pring's 'Ask a silly question: two decades of troublesome trials' (2004).

BACKGROUND: The advent of evidence-based healthcare has seen a rise in the use of systematic reviews to bring together the findings from research studies. The use of systematic reviews in speech and language therapy (SLT) was criticized in this journal in 2004 by T. R. Pring. It was claimed that their findings are misleading due to the potential inclusion of biased data, and uninformative due to a lack of detail in the reporting of interventions. It is argued that outcome research should be carried out in a series of phases in which small-scale research precedes large-scale research. This, it is argued, is most likely to demonstrate statistically significant effects and also help to ensure that therapies become sufficiently defined so that clinicians can apply them in practice. AIMS: This paper argues that the above criticism of systematic reviews is based on a narrow conception of their capabilities: on the popular misapprehension that all systematic reviews answer effectiveness questions using only experimental studies and contain meta-analyses. Different methods for systematic reviews are described and their application within clinical outcome research is discussed with reference to a phased structure for empirical enquiry. MAIN CONTRIBUTION: Systematic reviews seek to identify and synthesize information within a given topic area. They are used to answer a wide range of research questions and the studies they include are not limited exclusively to experimental designs. Methods of synthesis can include both statistical approaches, such as meta-analysis, and 'qualitative' approaches, such as meta-ethnography and thematic analysis. Knowledge of the current state of research is essential for a sequentially phased approach within outcome research to operate. Since systematic reviews are summaries of research activity, they can provide this knowledge and should therefore be considered a valuable tool within outcome research. CONCLUSIONS: A systematic review using 'qualitative' and/or statistical methods for combining studies can be carried out within or across any of the phases within outcome research. Far from being uninformative, this can help bring together what is, and what is not, known and indicate the kinds of therapies that may be beneficial in the clinical setting and therapies which would benefit from further research and development.

Evidence-Based Medicine↗

An analysis of review articles published in primary care journals.

Review articles play an important role in synthesizing primary research for dissemination to clinicians. In a previous study it was found that many review articles appearing in leading peer-reviewed general medical journals are not prepared systematically. Given that review articles feature prominently in primary care journals, this study assessed the extent to which review articles published in the seven main primary care journals during 1991 had been assembled using a systematic and scientific approach. A total of 28 review articles were identified covering a wide range of subject areas. However, when standard criteria were used to assess their methodological rigour, only 25% of the articles had a total score of more than 8 points (out of a possible 16). The validity of any conclusions or recommendations made in a poorly assembled review need to be carefully examined. Improving the methodological standards by which reviews are assembled in primary care journals should be seen as both a challenge and a priority.

Family Practice↗

Criteria for the systematic review of health promotion and public health interventions.

Systematic reviews of public health interventions are fraught with challenges. Complexity is inherent; this may be due to multi-component interventions, diverse study populations, multiple outcomes measured, mixed study designs utilized and the effect of context on intervention design, implementation and effectiveness. For policy makers and practitioners to use systematic reviews to implement effective public health programmes, systematic reviews must include this information, which seeks to answer the questions posed by decision makers, including recipients of programmes. This necessitates expanding the traditional evaluation of evidence to incorporate the assessment of theory, integrity of interventions, context and sustainability of the interventions and outcomes. Unfortunately however, the critical information required for judging both the quality of a public health intervention and whether or not an intervention is worthwhile or replicable is missing from most public health intervention studies. When the raw material is not available in primary studies the systematic review process becomes even more challenging. Systematic reviews, which highlight these critical gaps, may act to encourage better reporting in primary studies. This paper provides recommendations to reviewers on the issues to address within a public health systematic review and, indirectly, provides advice to researchers on the reporting requirements of primary studies for the production of high quality systematic reviews.

Humans↗

An experience of utilization review in Europe: sequel to a BIOMED project.

OBJECTIVE: To develop and test a utilization review screening tool for use in European hospitals. SETTING: In 1993 a group of researchers financed by a European Union grant reviewed the use of utilization review in Europe. They quickly noticed a lack of specifically designed instruments able to take into account the health care and cultural differences across Europe, and available for use in different health care systems. Hence, they embarked upon the task of developing and testing a utilization review screening tool for use in European hospitals. RESULTS: The European Union-Appropriateness Evaluation Protocol's list of reasons was developed and assessed. This is a common taxonomy that classifies days identified as unnecessary and provides a list of levels of care to identify patients' needs. This new protocol not only substitutes for the multiple previous local versions of the Appropriateness Evaluation Protocol, but will also facilitate comparisons of the varying experiences in European countries. MAIN FINDINGS: Development of utilization review in Europe has been carried out mostly on a voluntary basis and the main objective was not control. The experience varies widely: from France, where utilization review is still developing and research has been implemented by local teams, to Portugal, where utilization review programmes have been initiated by government authorities. At this point different initiatives in quality improvement, and more specifically in utilization review, are being developed within the European context.

Europe↗

Systematic reviews: the heart of evidence-based practice.

Research utilization approaches in nursing recently have been replaced by evidence-based practice (EBP) approaches. The heart of the new EBP paradigm is the systematic review. Systematic reviews are carefully synthesized research evidence designed to answer focused clinical questions. Systematic reviews (also known as evidence summaries and integrative reviews) implement recently developed scientific methods to summarize results from multiple research studies. Specific strategies are required for success in locating systematic reviews. Major sources of systematic reviews for use by advanced practice nurses in acute and critical care are the Online Journal of Knowledge Synthesis for Nursing, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and the Cochrane Library. This discussion describes systematic reviews as the pivotal point in today's paradigm of EBP and guides the advanced practice nurse in locating and accessing systematic reviews for use in practice.

Evidence-Based Medicine↗

Peer review: issues in physical medicine and rehabilitation.

Peer review, although the standard for evaluating scientific research, is not without flaws. Peer reviewers have been shown to be inconsistent and to miss major strengths and deficiencies in studies. Both reviewer and author biases, including conflicts of interest and positive outcome publication biases, are frequent topics of study and debate. Additional concerns have been raised regarding inappropriate authorship and adequate reporting of the ethical process involving human and animal experimentation. Despite these issues, a good peer review can provide positive feedback to authors and improve the quality of research reported in medical journals. This article reviews some issues and points of concern regarding the peer-review process, and it suggests guidelines for new (and established) reviewers in the area of physical medicine and rehabilitation. It also provides suggestions for editorial considerations and improvements in the peer-review process for physical medicine and rehabilitation research journals.

Ethics, Research↗

Characterisation of HIV-1 Gag Cytotoxic T-Lymphocyte Epitopes in the Southern African Region-A Systematic Review.

During early HIV-1 infection, robust Cytotoxic T-lymphocyte (CTL) responses are mostly targeted at immunodominant Gag p24 epitopes to reduce HIV-1 viraemia to a set-point. The aim of this study was to review the current body of knowledge on HIV-1 Gag CTL epitopes in the southern African region where subtype C is prevalent. Peer-reviewed records were obtained from three databases: PubMed Central, Web of Science Core Collection, and Scopus, using the following search terms: HIV subtype C Gag epitopes, and HIV clade C Gag epitopes. The search results were restricted to countries within the southern African region, and only data published in English and between the years 2000-2025 were considered for this review. The search from the three databases produced a total of 2103 peer-reviewed records, and 49 records were included in the review. The majority of studies (58.44%) were conducted in South Africa, followed by Botswana (15.58%), Zambia (10.39%), Malawi (7.79%), Zimbabwe (6.49%) and Angola (1.30%). There were no studies identified from other southern African countries. A total of 60 Gag CTL epitopes were identified, of which 17 (28.33%) were located within the matrix protein (p17), 33 (55.00%) within the capsid protein (p24), and 4 (6.67%) within the Gag polyprotein (p2p7p1p6). The commonly detected immunodominant epitopes were mostly located within the Gag p24 protein; and included TPQDLNTML (TL9, Gag p24 48-56) and TSTLQEQIGW (TW10, Gag p24 108-117) present at 16.00% and 13.3%, respectively. The proportion of HLA-A, B and C allotypes in this systematic review were 18%, 78%, and 4%, respectively. The more common HLA-B allotypes that restrict immunodominant Gag epitopes and facilitate better control of HIV-1 were HLA-B*57, -B*58:01, -B*42:01 and -B*81:01. This systematic review has provided important insights into the description of immunodominant Gag epitopes and HLA-I alleles that contribute to the control of HIV-1 viraemia in the southern African region. It has also exposed that some CTL epitopes identified in the southern African studies are not reported on the Los Alamos HIV database (LANL HIV database). This highlights a need to have this database updated with this information as it is used as a reference for epitopes. This review could provide insights into the design of an epitope-based HIV-1 vaccine that would also be effective in the southern African region.

Humans↗

Checklists for review articles.

Preparing a review entails many judgments. The focus of the review must be decided. Studies that are relevant to the focus of the review must be identified, selected for inclusion and critically appraised. Information must be collected and synthesised from the relevant studies, and conclusions must be drawn. Checklists can help prevent important errors in this process. Reviewers, editors, content experts, and users of reviews all have a role to play in improving the quality of published reviews and promoting the appropriate use of reviews by decisionmakers. It is essential that both providers and users appraise the validity of review articles.

Data Interpretation, Statistical↗

What are the most effective ways of improving population health through transport interventions? Evidence from systematic reviews.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To review systematic review literature that describes the effectiveness of transport interventions in improving population health. METHODS: Systematic review methodology was used to evaluate published and unpublished systematic reviews in any language that described the measured health effects of any mode of transport intervention. MAIN RESULTS: 28 systematic reviews were identified. The highest quality reviews indicate that the most effective transport interventions to improve health are health promotion campaigns (to prevent childhood injuries, to increase bicycle and motorcycle helmet use, and to promote children's car seat and seatbelt use), traffic calming, and specific legislation against drink driving. Driver improvement and education courses are associated with increases in crash involvement and violations. CONCLUSIONS: Systematic reviews are able to provide evidence about effective ways of improving health through transport related interventions and also identify well intentioned but harmful interventions. Valuable additional information may exist in primary studies and systematic reviews have a role in evaluating and synthesising their findings.

Accidents, Traffic↗

An example of the use of systematic reviews to answer an effectiveness question.

Systematic reviews assist nurses, other health care providers, decision makers, and consumers in managing the explosion of health care information by synthesizing valid data and reporting the effects of interventions. Nurses are increasingly using systematic reviews to guide their practice and develop policy. The purpose of the article is to outline the steps involved in conducting a systematic review with examples taken from a systematic review titled "Strategies to Manage the Behavioral Symptoms Associated With Alzheimer's Disease." The steps of a systematic review include: (a) formulating a well-defined question, (b) developing relevance and validity tools, (c) conducting a comprehensive search to retrieve published and unpublished reports, (d) assessing the reports using relevance and validity tools, (e) data extraction, (f) synthesis of the findings, and (g) report writing. Understanding the steps involved in a systematic review will assist nurses in critically appraising reviews and in conducting their own reviews.

Humans↗

Children in reviews: methodological issues in child-relevant evidence syntheses.

BACKGROUND: The delivery of optimal medical care to children is dependent on the availability of child relevant research. Our objectives were to: i) systematically review and describe how children are handled in reviews of drug interventions published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR); and ii) determine when effect sizes for the same drug interventions differ between children and adults. METHODS: We systematically identified all of the reviews relevant to child health in the CDSR 2002, Issue 4. Reviews were included if they investigated the efficacy or effectiveness of a drug intervention for a condition that occurs in both children and adults. Information was extracted on review characteristics including study methods, results, and conclusions. RESULTS: From 1496 systematic reviews, 408 (27%) were identified as relevant to both adult and child health; 52% (213) of these included data from children. No significant differences were found in effect sizes between adults and children for any of the drug interventions or conditions investigated. However, all of the comparisons lacked the power to detect a clinically significant difference and wide confidence intervals suggest important differences cannot be excluded. A large amount of data was unavailable due to inadequate reporting at the trial and systematic review level. CONCLUSION: Overall, the findings of this study indicate there is a paucity of child-relevant and specific evidence generated from evidence syntheses of drug interventions. The results indicate a need for a higher standard of reporting for participant populations in studies of drug interventions.

Adolescent↗

Utilization review of psychiatric care: building a program that works.

Since the early 1970s the federal government, private insurers, and employers have searched for ways to control health care costs. In 1972, Congress, dissatisfied with hospitals' utilization review efforts under the Medicare program created Professional Standards Review Organizations (PSROs). Ten years later when the Medicare reimbursement system underwent radical changes, the utilization review system remained more or less intact but had its name changed to Professional Review Organizations (PROs). The insurance industry has developed and employed, with varying levels of success, several cost-saving tactics, including deductibles and copayments for specialized care, limitation of benefits by diagnosis or facility type, exclusion of specific disorders, inclusion of dollar limits, pre-payment claims review for specific types of service, and post-payment review with retroactive denial of claims. Case management is the latest development in the ever-widening search to put a lid on health care costs. These attempts to measure the effectiveness of care vis a vis the dollar spent for it have been especially difficult for psychiatry, a less measurable science than other fields of medicine. Because psychiatry straddles the disciplines of sociology, psychology, and medicine, it is not easily understood. Inadequate documentation of care, a paucity of outcome studies, and confidentiality issues all combine to make utilization review particularly difficult in psychiatry. This paper will describe a collaboration between Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Maryland and four private psychiatric hospitals in the state that resulted in a workable, effective utilization review program acceptable to providers, payers, and patients.

Adolescent↗

[Critical appraisal of systematic reviews of randomised trials in nephrology: theory and practice for interpreting level I evidence].

INTRODUCTION: Systematic reviews represent the primary level of evidence (level I evidence) and an excellent answer to causality questions. They should be based upon high quality standards and the critical appraisal of such study design is fundamental. METHODS: In this review we introduce the primary indicators of quality and guide our readers through the process of critical appraisal of systematic reviews. RESULTS: The main criteria in critically appraising systematic reviews in nephrology are the adequate presentation of a research question, adequate selection of studies, comprehensiveness of search strategies, the quality assessment of included studies, the fact that all procedures have been performed independently by at least 2 investigators, the exploration of heterogeneity, the type of results and their applicability. In nephrology we still lack a large number of systematic reviews because of the lack of randomised trials. CONCLUSIONS: Preparing a large number of systematic reviews is an important challenge for the nephrology community. This community should prepare more randomised trials to answer intervention questions and should make an effort to synthesise the evidence in the form of systematic reviews. It is essential that available systematic reviews be critically appraised and their results implemented in the clinical practice whenever they are based on high methodological standards.

Nephrology↗

Systematic reviews need systematic searchers.

PURPOSE: This paper will provide a description of the methods, skills, and knowledge of expert searchers working on systematic review teams. BRIEF DESCRIPTION: Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are very important to health care practitioners, who need to keep abreast of the medical literature and make informed decisions. Searching is a critical part of conducting these systematic reviews, as errors made in the search process potentially result in a biased or otherwise incomplete evidence base for the review. Searches for systematic reviews need to be constructed to maximize recall and deal effectively with a number of potentially biasing factors. Librarians who conduct the searches for systematic reviews must be experts. DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION: Expert searchers need to understand the specifics about data structure and functions of bibliographic and specialized databases, as well as the technical and methodological issues of searching. Search methodology must be based on research about retrieval practices, and it is vital that expert searchers keep informed about, advocate for, and, moreover, conduct research in information retrieval. Expert searchers are an important part of the systematic review team, crucial throughout the review process-from the development of the proposal and research question to publication.

Databases, Bibliographic↗

Clinician's guide to systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

Systematic reviews answer clinical questions by finding and evaluating all available evidence. The systematic review is a powerful tool to help clinicians use evidence for patient care decisions. There are many sources for high-quality systematic reviews. Like all scientific studies there are potential biases, but systematic reviews have many benefits over narrative reviews. To ensure appropriate use of systematic reviews, clinicians must evaluate them in a logical, step-by-step manner. This article will review the benefits of systematic reviews, how to locate them, and how to evaluate their quality and results.

Decision Making↗

Making reviewers visible: openness, accountability, and credit.

Anonymity for peer reviewers remains the overwhelming norm within biomedical journals. While acknowledging that open review is not without challenges, this article presents 4 key arguments in its favor: (1) ethical superiority, (2) lack of important adverse effects, (3) feasibility in practice, and (4) potential to balance greater accountability for reviewers with credit for the work they do. Barriers to more widespread use of open review include conservatism within the research community and the fact that openness makes editors publicly responsible for their choice of reviewers and their interpretation of reviewers' comments. Forces for change include the growing use of preprint servers combined with open commentary. I look forward to a time when open commentary and review replace the current, flawed system of closed prepublication peer review and its false reassurances about the reliability of what is published.

Biomedical Research↗