survey

调查
  • 文章类型: Editorial
    暂无摘要。
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

       PDF(Pubmed)

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    目的:在有TKA康复经验的荷兰物理治疗师中,探索并更深入地了解全膝关节置换术(TKA)患者的常规术前和术后物理治疗(PT)治疗。其次,评估物理治疗师对术后康复指南建议的依从性。
    方法:在这项横断面研究中,在线调查了在荷兰指定医院集水区的初级保健工作的物理治疗师。调查询问术前PT治疗方法,住院期间,手术后。对所有数据进行描述性分析。当教育和所有推荐的运动方式都在术后使用时,治疗师被认为完全遵守荷兰临床实践指南。
    结果:一百零三名治疗师参加了,代表58%的应答率。所有治疗师都进行了术后PT治疗,其中65人(63.1%)完全遵守指南。部分依从性主要是由于不使用有氧运动方式。此外,除了准则中建议的模式之外,采用了一系列PT干预措施.术前治疗有73名(70.9%)。这些73表明,只有中位数为20%(IQR10%-40%)的患者接受了术前PT。
    结论:这项研究显示,在有经验的物理治疗师中,TKA患者术后管理的指南建议得到了令人满意的遵守。有氧运动的使用频率较低或强度不适当。正确遵守关于有氧运动训练的指南建议可以导致更多的身体活跃的个体和重要的一般健康益处。
    OBJECTIVE: To explore and gain more insight into the usual preoperative and postoperative physical therapy (PT) treatment of patients with a total knee arthroplasty (TKA) among Dutch physical therapists experienced with TKA rehabilitation. Secondly, to evaluate physical therapists\' adherence to guideline recommendations for postoperative rehabilitation.
    METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, physical therapists working in primary care within a designated Dutch hospital\'s catchment area were surveyed online. The survey queried PT treatment approaches before surgery, during hospitalisation, and after surgery. All data were analysed descriptively. When both education and all recommended exercise modalities were used postoperatively, therapists were considered fully adherent with the Dutch clinical practice guideline.
    RESULTS: One hundred and three therapists participated, representing a response rate of 58%. Postoperative PT treatment was applied by all therapists, of which 65 (63.1%) were fully adherent to the guideline. Partial adherence was mainly due to not using the aerobic exercise modality. Furthermore, beyond the modalities recommended in the guideline, a range of PT interventions were used. Preoperative treatment was applied by 73 therapists (70.9%). These 73 indicated that only a median of 20% (IQR 10%-40%) of their patients received preoperative PT.
    CONCLUSIONS: This study revealed satisfactory adherence to guideline recommendations on postoperative management of patients with a TKA among experienced physical therapists. Aerobic exercises were utilised less often or with inappropriate intensity. Correct adherence to guideline recommendations on aerobic exercise training can result in more physically active individuals and important general health benefits.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

    求助全文

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    目的:我们假设在姑息治疗中,即使在常见的临床情况下,医生对药物的选择有很大的不同.因此,我们评估了医师对癌症疼痛和阿片类药物诱发的恶心和呕吐(OINV)的药物治疗选择的实践以及他们选择的理由.
    方法:与医生进行了一项在线调查,涵盖以下领域:i)癌症疼痛治疗:阿片类药物以外的非阿片类药物:药物选择ii)预防OINV:药物选择和应用方式。比较了当前有关癌症疼痛治疗和OINV预防的指南。
    结果:二百四十名欧洲医生对我们的调查做出了回应。i)除阿片类药物外还使用非阿片类药物治疗癌症疼痛:只有1.3%(n=3)的受访者从未使用过其他非阿片类药物。其他主要使用:二吡喃酮/安乃近(49.2%,n=118),对乙酰氨基酚/对乙酰氨基酚(34.2%,n=82),布洛芬/其他非甾体抗炎药(11.3%,n=27),特异性Cox2抑制剂(2.1%,n=5),阿司匹林(0.4%,n=1),没有答案(2.9%,n=7)。ii)预防OINV的止吐药:选择的药物是甲氧氯普胺(58.3%,n=140),氟哌啶醇(26.3%,n=63),5-HT3拮抗剂(9.6%,n=23),抗组胺药(1.3%,n=3)和其他(2.9%,n=7);没有答案(1.7%,n=4)。大多数受访者按需开出物质(59.6%,n=143),而其他(36.3%,n=87)为他们提供全天候的药物治疗。在这两个领域,大多数医师回答说,他们的选择并非基于随机对照试验(RCTs)的确凿证据.关于非阿片类药物是否用于癌症疼痛以及使用何种非阿片类药物的指南不一致,建议使用抗多巴胺能药物预防或治疗OINV。
    结论:医师在癌症疼痛和OINV的姑息治疗中的实践差异很大。受访者表示缺乏来自RCT的高质量的基于证据的信息。我们呼吁从方法学上高质量的随机对照试验中获得证据,以告知医生姑息治疗中常见症状的药物治疗的益处和危害。
    OBJECTIVE: We assumed that in Palliative Care, even in common clinical situations, the choice of drugs differs substantially between physicians. Therefore, we assessed the practice of pharmaceutical treatment choices of physicians for cancer pain and opioid-induced nausea and vomiting (OINV) and the rationale for their choices.
    METHODS: An online survey was conducted with physicians covering the following domains: i) Cancer pain therapy: non-opioids in addition to opioids: choice of drug ii) prevention of OINV: choice of drug and mode of application. Current guidelines concerning cancer pain therapy and prevention of OINV were compared.
    RESULTS: Two-hundred-forty European physicians responded to our survey. i) Use of non-opioids in addition to opioids for the treatment of cancer pain: Only 1.3% (n = 3) of respondents never used an additional non-opioid. Others mostly used: dipyrone/metamizole (49.2%, n = 118), paracetamol/acetaminophen (34.2%, n = 82), ibuprofen / other NSAIDs (11.3%, n = 27), specific Cox2-inhibitors (2.1%, n = 5), Aspirin (0.4%, n = 1), no answer (2.9%, n = 7). ii) Antiemetics to prevent OINV: The drugs of choice were metoclopramide (58.3%, n = 140), haloperidol (26.3%, n = 63), 5-HT3 antagonists (9.6%, n = 23), antihistamines (1.3%, n = 3) and other (2.9%, n = 7); no answer (1.7%, n = 4). Most respondents prescribed the substances on-demand (59.6%, n = 143) while others (36.3%, n = 87) provided them as around the clock medication. Over both domains, most physicians answered that their choices were not based on solid evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Guidelines were inconsistent regarding if and what non-opioid to use for cancer pain and recommend anti-dopaminergic drugs for prevention or treatment of OINV.
    CONCLUSIONS: Physician\'s practice in palliative care for the treatment of cancer pain and OINV differed substantially. Respondents expressed the lack of high-quality evidence- based information from RCTs. We call for evidence from methodologically high-quality RCTs to be available to inform physicians about the benefits and harms of pharmacological treatments for common symptoms in palliative care.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

       PDF(Pubmed)

  • DOI:
    文章类型: Journal Article
    Introduction.Triveneto腹膜透析(PD)网络旨在将处理PD的医生和护士聚集在一个协作网络中,以交流相互的知识并优化使用这种替代肾功能的方法。特别感兴趣的主题是腹膜导管出口部位感染的管理,鉴于国际腹膜透析学会(ISPD)新指南的最新发布。材料和方法。调查涉及进行鼻拭子和出口部位的标准,旺盛的肉芽组织“骄傲的肉体”的管理,出口部位感染(ESI)的治疗,使用银敷料,皮下隧道超声和袖口剃刮的作用。结果。意大利东北部地区的所有PD中心都已加入调查,每个中心至少有一名操作员。进行出口部位拭子的适应症之间存在很大的差异。在ESI面前,流行的方法是口服全身经验性治疗(20.0%)或更少(28.9%)与局部治疗,然后有针对性地适应文化考试。讨论。从调查的讨论中可以看出ESI作为结果指标的重要性,这使我们能够验证我们的临床实践是否符合参考标准。必须了解并根据国家和国际指南中的指示开展我们的活动,并记录每个透析单元患者人群中发生的事件。
    Introduction. The Triveneto Peritoneal Dialysis (PD) Network aims to bring together doctors and nurses who deal with PD in a collaborative network in which to exchange mutual knowledge and optimize the use of this method of replacing renal function. A topic of particular interest was the management of peritoneal catheter exit-site infection, given the recent publication of the new guidelines of the International Society of Peritoneal Dialysis (ISPD). Materials and methods. The survey concerned the criteria for carrying out nasal swab and exit-site, management of exuberant granulation tissue \"Proud Flesh\", treatment of exit-site infection (ESI), use of silver dressings, the role of subcutaneous tunnel ultrasound and cuff shaving. Results. All PD centers in the North-East Italy area have joined the survey with at least one operator per centre. There was a wide variability between the indications for performing the exit-site swab. In the presence of ESI, the prevalent approach is that of oral systemic empiric therapy associated (20.0%) or less (28.9%) with topical therapy, and then adapting it in a targeted manner to the culture examination. Discussion. From the discussion of the survey emerged the importance of the ESI as an outcome indicator, which allows us to verify whether our clinical practice is in line with the reference standards. It is essential to know and base our activity on what is indicated in national and international guidelines and to document the events that occur in the patient population of each dialysis unit.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

    求助全文

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    目标:牙科学生对管理创伤性牙齿损伤(TDI)的知识可能不统一,取决于全球地理位置和牙科教育。这项研究的目的是评估10个国家的10所牙科学校的牙髓学和儿科牙科专业本科生和研究生的知识水平,以了解2020年国际牙科创伤学会(IADT)有关TDI管理的指南。
    方法:本次调查使用了以前发表的问卷。这是一项在线调查,其中包含有关TDI管理的12个问题,并添加了有关参与者的社会人口统计学和专业概况的一些其他问题。该调查已分发给来自10所牙科学校的儿科牙科和牙髓学的最后一年的本科生和研究生。主要使用简单的频率分布和描述性统计来描述数据。使用Kruskal-Wallis测试,然后进行Dwass-Steel-Critchlow-Fligner成对比较,评估了学生类别中的中位数分数差异。
    结果:共有347名本科生,126名牙髓学研究生,来自10所牙科学校的72名儿科牙科研究生参加了这项调查。与本科生相比,研究生的正确回答百分比明显更高。牙髓和儿科牙科研究生之间没有观察到显着差异。
    结论:本科生和研究生所拥有的关于IADT推荐的TDI管理的知识在全球范围内各不相同,发现某些方面存在不足。这项研究强调了重新评估与TDI管理有关的教学和学习活动的至关重要性。
    OBJECTIVE: The knowledge of dental students about managing traumatic dental injuries (TDIs) may not be uniform, depending on global location and dental education. The aim of this study was to evaluate the level of knowledge of undergraduate and postgraduate students specializing in endodontics and pediatric dentistry at 10 dental schools in 10 countries about the 2020 International Association of Dental Traumatology (IADT) guidelines regarding the management of TDIs.
    METHODS: A previously published questionnaire was used in the current survey. It was an online survey with 12 questions regarding the management of TDIs and some additional questions regarding sociodemographic and professional profiles of the participants were added. The survey was distributed to final-year undergraduate students and postgraduate students in pediatric dentistry and endodontics from 10 dental schools. Simple frequency distributions and descriptive statistics were predominantly used to describe the data. Differences in the median percentage scores among the student categories were assessed using the Kruskal-Wallis test followed by Dwass-Steel-Critchlow-Fligner pairwise comparisons.
    RESULTS: A total of 347 undergraduates, 126 postgraduates in endodontics, and 72 postgraduates in pediatric dentistry from 10 dental schools participated in this survey. The postgraduates had a significantly higher percentage score for correct responses compared with the undergraduates. No significant difference was observed between the endodontic and pediatric dentistry postgraduates.
    CONCLUSIONS: The knowledge possessed by undergraduate and postgraduate students concerning the IADT-recommended management of TDIs varied across the globe and some aspects were found to be deficient. This study emphasizes the critical importance of reassessing the teaching and learning activities pertaining to the management of TDIs.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

    求助全文

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    越来越多地采用现实世界的医疗保健研究来进行决策和计划,这进一步需要一种特定的质量评估工具来进行证据综合。本研究旨在使用正式共识方法开发涉及现实世界研究(QATSM-RWS)的系统评价(SR)和荟萃分析(MA)的质量评估工具。根据范围审查,作者确定了可能包含在质量评估工具中的项目列表.根据确定的项目制定了德尔菲调查。共有89位专家,故意招募,有研究经验的真实世界的数据被邀请参加第一轮的德尔福调查。在第一轮Delphi中做出回应的参与者被邀请参加(n=15)项目的措辞。在第一轮Delphi之后,在拟议的项目清单上找到了很强的协议。使用≥0.70的一致性率来定义要在工具中保留哪些项目。出现了适合QATSM-RWS的14项清单。这些项目分为五个领域:导言,方法,结果,讨论,和其他人。所有与会者都同意拟议的项目措辞。这是第一项研究开发了一种特定工具,可用于评估涉及现实世界研究的SR和MA的质量。QATSM-RWS可能会被决策者使用,临床医生,和实践者在评估和生成真实世界的证据时。此工具现在正在进行验证过程。
    The increasing adoption of real-world studies in healthcare for decision making and planning has further necessitated the need for a specific quality assessment tool for evidence synthesis. This study aimed to develop a quality assessment tool for systematic reviews (SR) and meta-analysis (MA) involving real-world studies (QATSM-RWS) using a formal consensus method. Based on scoping review, the authors identified a list of items for possible inclusion in the quality assessment tool. A Delphi survey was formulated based on the identified items. A total of 89 experts, purposively recruited, with research experience in real-world data were invited to participate in the first round of Delphi survey. The participants who responded in the first Delphi round were invited to participate (n = 15) in the phrasing of the items. Strong level of agreement was found on the proposed list of items after the first round of Delphi. A rate of agreement ≥ 0.70 was used to define which items to keep in the tool. A list of 14 items emerged as suitable for QATSM-RWS. The items were structured under five domains: introduction, methods, results, discussions, and others. All participants agreed with the proposed phrasing of the items. This is the first study that has developed a specific tool that can be used to appraise the quality of SR and MA involving real-world studies. QATSM-RWS may be used by policymakers, clinicians, and practitioners when evaluating and generating real-world evidence. This tool is now undergoing validation process.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

       PDF(Pubmed)

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    嵌合抗原受体T细胞疗法(CAR-T)彻底改变了复发性和/或难治性多发性骨髓瘤(RRMM)的管理。然而,CAR-T治疗失败并不少见,仍然是一个主要的治疗挑战。在评估和管理RRMM中的CAR-T失败后,移植和细胞治疗计划之间存在实质性差异。美国移植和细胞治疗协会(ASTCT)实践指南委员会在2023年9月至2023年12月之间进行了一项在线横断面调查,以确定骨髓瘤,移植和细胞治疗医生的监测实践模式,诊断,和管理CAR-T故障。这项调查的目的是了解临床实践模式并确定进一步调查的领域。电子邮件调查发送给1311名ASTCT医师成员,80名(6.1%)受访者完成了调查,他们确定为58%的白人,66%男性,51%的患者有超过10年的临床经验。89%的受访者隶属于大学/教学中心;56%的人有以骨髓瘤为重点的移植和/或细胞治疗实践。CAR-T后监测实验室研究通常每4周进行一次,而监测骨髓活检和/或影像学监测最常见于3个月.64%的受访者经常或总是考虑活检或影像学检查以确认复发。最受欢迎的CAR-T失败后救助方案是GPRC5D定向免疫疗法(30%),用于复发≤3个月,BCMA定向双特异性疗法(32.5%)用于复发>3个月。41%的受访者表示,CAR-T后延长的血细胞减少症“经常”或“总是”是下一线治疗的障碍;53%的受访者表示,他们提供了干细胞增强作为缓解方法。实践模式的重大跨中心差异提高了对合作研究和专家临床建议的需求,以描述CAR-T疾病监测后的最佳实践。治疗失败的最佳工作,和选择救援疗法。
    Chimeric antigen receptor T cell therapy (CAR-T) has revolutionized the management of relapsed and/or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). However, CAR-T treatment failure is not uncommon and remains a major therapeutic challenge. There is substantial variability across transplantation and cellular therapy programs in assessing and managing post-CAR-T failures in patients with RRMM. The American Society for Transplantation and Cellular Therapy (ASTCT) Committee on Practice Guidelines conducted an online cross-sectional survey between September 2023 and December 2023 to determine myeloma, transplantation, and cellular therapy physicians\' practice patterns for the surveillance, diagnosis, and management of CAR-T failure. The intent of this survey was to understand clinical practice patterns and identify areas for further investigation. Email surveys were sent to 1311 ASTCT physician members, of whom 80 (6.1%) completed the survey. The respondents were 58% white and 66% male, and 51% had >10 years of clinical experience. Most (89%) respondents were affiliated with a university/teaching center, and 56% had a myeloma-focused transplantation and/or cellular therapy practice. Post-CAR-T surveillance laboratory studies were commonly done every 4 weeks, and surveillance bone marrow biopsies and/or imaging surveillance were most commonly done at 3 months. Sixty-four percent of the respondents would often or always consider biopsy or imaging to confirm relapse. The most popular post-CAR-T failure rescue regimen was GPRC5D-directed immunotherapy (30%) for relapses occurring ≤3 months and BCMA-directed bispecific therapies (32.5%) for relapse at >3 months. Forty-one percent of the respondents endorsed post-CAR-T prolonged cytopenia as being \"often\" or \"always\" a barrier to next-line therapy; 53% had offered stem cell boost as a mitigation approach. Substantial across-center variation in practice patterns raises the need for collaborative studies and expert clinical recommendations to describe best practices for post-CAR-T disease surveillance, optimal workup for treatment failure, and choice of rescue therapies.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

    求助全文

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    目的:本研究的目的是对半月板国际网络(MenIN)研究小组的成员进行调查,试图描绘半月板挤压分类中最具争议的方面,并为新的,更全面的定义和治疗这些疾病。
    方法:MenIN研究组是一组治疗和进行半月板病理和治疗研究的国际专家。所有MenIN研究小组成员都被要求完成一项旨在建立半月板挤压最佳分类系统标准的调查。从完成的问卷中获得的数据被转移到电子表格中,然后进行分析。所有的回答都以计数表示,百分比或平均值。
    结果:47名(85.5%)MenIN研究小组成员完成了调查并被纳入本分析。建议纳入半月板挤压综合分类系统的关键方面包括侧向性(93.6%),解剖位置(76.6%),患者年龄(76.6%),体重指数(BMI)(68.1%)和病因(68.1%)。为了对半月板挤压进行分类,53.2%的人认为距胫骨平台外缘的距离(毫米)是最可靠的成像测量技术。成像模式的偏好各不相同,其中44.7%的人赞成负重磁共振成像(MRI),36.2%的人选择负重超声,因为它的可用性更高。受访者主张采用分类系统来解决半月板挤压的稳定性或进展(66%),可还原性(53.2%),膝骨关节炎(OA)的潜在进展(83%),影响治疗方法(83%),分级系统(83%),考虑动态因素(66%),与临床结果和预后的关联(76.6%)和集中程序的调查(57.4%)。
    结论:结论:这项调查的结果揭示了关于半月板挤压分类的全球观点。人们普遍认为,应该对胫骨中部平台的MRI扫描测量的挤压进行新的分类,其中考虑了诸如侧向性等因素,解剖位置,年龄,BMI和病因。此外,结果支持将动态因素和临床结局整合到基于MRI的分类中,为治疗方法提供信息.
    方法:四级。
    OBJECTIVE: The purpose of the present study was to perform a survey administered to members of the Meniscus International Network (MenIN) Study Group, seeking to delineate the most contentious aspects of meniscal extrusion classification and provide a foundation for new, more comprehensive definitions and treatments for these pathologies.
    METHODS: MenIN Study Group is a group of international experts treating and performing research on meniscus pathology and treatment. All MenIN Study Group members were asked to complete a survey aimed at establishing criteria for the optimal classification system for meniscal extrusion. Data obtained from the completed questionnaires were transferred into a spreadsheet and then analysed. All responses are presented as counts, percentages or means.
    RESULTS: Forty-seven (85.5%) MenIN Study Group members completed the survey and were included in this analysis. Key aspects recommended for inclusion in a comprehensive classification system for meniscal extrusion included laterality (93.6%), anatomical location (76.6%), patient age (76.6%), body mass index (BMI) (68.1%) and aetiology (68.1%). For classifying meniscal extrusion, 53.2% considered the distance in millimetres from the tibial plateau\'s outer margin as the most reliable measurement technique on imaging. Preferences for imaging modalities varied, with 44.7% favouring weight-bearing magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and 36.2% opting for weight-bearing ultrasound due to its greater availability. Respondents advocated for a classification system addressing stability or progression of meniscal extrusion (66%), reducibility (53.2%), potential progression of knee osteoarthritis (OA) (83%), influencing treatment approaches (83%), a gradation system (83%), consideration of dynamic factors (66%), association with clinical outcomes and prognosis (76.6%) and investigation around centralization procedures (57.4%).
    CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, the findings of this survey shed light on the global perspectives regarding meniscal extrusion classification. It was generally felt that a new classification of extrusion measured on MRI scans at the mid-tibial plateau should be developed, which considers factors such as laterality, anatomical location, age, BMI and aetiology. Additionally, the results support the integration of dynamic factors and clinical outcomes in MRI-based classifications to inform treatment approaches.
    METHODS: Level IV.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

    求助全文

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    结论:为了加快文章的发表,AJHP在接受后尽快在线发布手稿。接受的手稿经过同行评审和复制编辑,但在技术格式化和作者打样之前在线发布。这些手稿不是记录的最终版本,将在以后替换为最终文章(按照AJHP样式格式化并由作者证明)。
    目的:目前没有关于建立研究药物服务(IDS)指标的共识指南。由于研究协议的复杂性,网站仍然很难跟踪药房的生产力并为机构内的IDS增长创建基线,以及与同行机构进行基准测试。这项研究的目的是帮助为适用的IDS指标和站点实用程序建立实用指南。
    方法:这是一个基于调查的项目,由血液学/肿瘤学药学协会(HOPA)IDS特殊兴趣小组(SIG)的指标亚组进行,这是专门为这项分析而形成的。指标子组开发的三项调查已发送给IDSHOPASIG的成员以收集指标。第一项调查包括有关IDS网站当前收集的指标的问题。然后将所识别的指标浓缩为类别。通过基于共识的方法,建立了标准化定义,并将其应用于未来的调查。随后发送给HOPASIG成员的2项调查帮助创建了一个顶级推荐指标列表,建议每个IDS站点跟踪这些指标。
    结果:总共向75个收件人发送了3个调查,应答率从24%到38%不等。根据这些调查和与指标子组的共识,确定了5个最推荐的指标:(1)主动方案;(2)分配;(3)启动新的临床试验;(4)接受治疗的患者;(5)临床干预。
    结论:这些推荐的指标应作为指导,并允许标准化,以帮助确保为IDS药房工作人员提供足够的资源。这些建议应作为与同行机构标准化和基准的基础。
    CONCLUSIONS: In an effort to expedite the publication of articles, AJHP is posting manuscripts online as soon as possible after acceptance. Accepted manuscripts have been peer-reviewed and copyedited, but are posted online before technical formatting and author proofing. These manuscripts are not the final version of record and will be replaced with the final article (formatted per AJHP style and proofed by the authors) at a later time.
    OBJECTIVE: There are currently no consensus guidelines on establishing metrics for investigational drug services (IDS). Because of the complexity of research protocols, it remains difficult for sites to track pharmacy productivity and create a baseline for IDS growth within the institution, as well as to perform benchmarking with peer institutions. The goal of this study was to help establish practical guidance for IDS metrics and site utility as applicable.
    METHODS: This was a survey-based project conducted by the metrics subgroup of the Hematology/Oncology Pharmacy Association (HOPA) IDS special interest group (SIG), which was formed specifically for this analysis. Three surveys developed by the metrics subgroup were sent to members of the IDS HOPA SIG to gather metrics. The first survey included questions about what metrics IDS sites currently collect. The identified metrics were then condensed into categories. Through a consensus-based approach, standardized definitions were established and applied to future surveys. The 2 subsequent surveys sent to HOPA SIG members helped create a list of top recommended metrics that are recommended for every IDS site to track.
    RESULTS: A total of 3 surveys were sent to 75 recipients, with the response rate ranging from 24% to 38%. From these surveys and consensus with the metrics subgroup, 5 top recommended metrics were identified: (1) active protocols; (2) dispenses; (3) new clinical trials initiated; (4) patients treated; and (5) clinical interventions.
    CONCLUSIONS: These recommended metrics should serve as guidance and allow for standardization to help ensure adequate resources are available for IDS pharmacy staff. These recommendations should serve as a basis for standardization and benchmarking with peer institutions.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

    求助全文

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    背景:指导血管前置的诊断和治疗的数据有限。目前,我们所知道的主要是基于病例报告或系列和队列研究.
    目的:本研究旨在使用焦点小组讨论和Delphi技术,系统地收集和分类专家意见,并就血管前置的诊断和临床管理达成共识。
    方法:进行了4轮焦点小组讨论和3轮Delphi调查,调查了一个关于血管前置的国际专家小组。专家是根据他们关于vasaprevia的出版记录选出的。首先,我们召集了一个由20名专家组成的焦点小组讨论小组,并就前置血管的诊断和治疗中尚未解决的问题达成一致.然后将3轮匿名电子调查发送给整个专家小组。提出了关于前置血管的诊断和管理的调查问题,专家被要求以5分的李克特量表(从“强烈不同意”=1到“强烈同意”=5)进行评分。共识定义为5分的中位数。在对每一轮的回应之后,中位评分≤3分的任何陈述均被视为未达成共识,因此被排除.对中位数为4分的陈述进行了修订,并在下一轮中重新提交给专家。然后将共识和非共识声明汇总。
    结果:共邀请了68名国际专家参与研究,57人参加。专家来自5大洲的13个国家,对发表的关于前置血管的队列研究的贡献超过80%,以及国家和国际社会的指导方针。完成率为84%,93%,第一个是91%,第二,第三轮,分别,71%的人完成了所有3轮比赛。小组就26项关于前置血管的诊断和管理要点的声明达成共识,其中包括:(1)虽然胎儿血管与宫颈内口之间的距离没有一致定义前置血管,定义不应限于2厘米的距离;(2)所有妊娠均应通过常规检查胎盘索插入,并在孕中期解剖扫描时对宫颈上方区域进行彩色多普勒扫描,以筛查血管前置;(3)当在孕中期发现低洼胎盘或前置胎盘时,应在约32周进行经阴道多普勒超声检查,以排除前置血管;(4)对无早产危险因素的无症状患者进行门诊治疗是合理的;(5)无症状的前置血管患者应在妊娠35至37周进行定期剖宫产分娩;(6)对常规住院没有协议,避免性交,或使用三维超声诊断血管前置。
    结论:通过焦点小组讨论和德尔菲过程,一个国际专家小组就该定义达成共识,筛选,临床管理,和前置血管的分娩时间,这可以为新临床指南的制定提供信息。
    BACKGROUND: There are limited data to guide the diagnosis and management of vasa previa. Currently, what is known is largely based on case reports or series and cohort studies.
    OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to systematically collect and classify expert opinions and achieve consensus on the diagnosis and clinical management of vasa previa using focus group discussions and a Delphi technique.
    METHODS: A 4-round focus group discussion and a 3-round Delphi survey of an international panel of experts on vasa previa were conducted. Experts were selected on the basis of their publication record on vasa previa. First, we convened a focus group discussion panel of 20 experts and agreed on which issues were unresolved in the diagnosis and management of vasa previa. A 3-round anonymous electronic survey was then sent to the full expert panel. Survey questions were presented on the diagnosis and management of vasa previa, which the experts were asked to rate on a 5-point Likert scale (from \"strongly disagree\"=1 to \"strongly agree\"=5). Consensus was defined as a median score of 5. Following responses to each round, any statements that had median scores of ≤3 were deemed to have had no consensus and were excluded. Statements with a median score of 4 were revised and re-presented to the experts in the next round. Consensus and nonconsensus statements were then aggregated.
    RESULTS: A total of 68 international experts were invited to participate in the study, of which 57 participated. Experts were from 13 countries on 5 continents and have contributed to >80% of published cohort studies on vasa previa, as well as national and international society guidelines. Completion rates were 84%, 93%, and 91% for the first, second, and third rounds, respectively, and 71% completed all 3 rounds. The panel reached a consensus on 26 statements regarding the diagnosis and key points of management of vasa previa, including the following: (1) although there is no agreement on the distance between the fetal vessels and the cervical internal os to define vasa previa, the definition should not be limited to a 2-cm distance; (2) all pregnancies should be screened for vasa previa with routine examination for placental cord insertion and a color Doppler sweep of the region over the cervix at the second-trimester anatomy scan; (3) when a low-lying placenta or placenta previa is found in the second trimester, a transvaginal ultrasound with Doppler should be performed at approximately 32 weeks to rule out vasa previa; (4) outpatient management of asymptomatic patients without risk factors for preterm birth is reasonable; (5) asymptomatic patients with vasa previa should be delivered by scheduled cesarean delivery between 35 and 37 weeks of gestation; and (6) there was no agreement on routine hospitalization, avoidance of intercourse, or use of 3-dimensional ultrasound for diagnosis of vasa previa.
    CONCLUSIONS: Through focus group discussion and a Delphi process, an international expert panel reached consensus on the definition, screening, clinical management, and timing of delivery in vasa previa, which could inform the development of new clinical guidelines.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

    求助全文

公众号