Biomedical subjects

A Khoshdel

Publications and source records attributed to A Khoshdel.

3 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed2006

Basic concepts in meta-analysis: A primer for clinicians.

With the expanding volume of medical literature, meta-analysis, a form of systematic review, has become indispensable for clinicians for evidence-based decision making. While the number of meta-analyses has substantially increased during recent years, there are still controversial issues regarding their methodology, interpretation and clinical application. In this review, the basic concepts of meta-analysis have been discussed from a clinician's perspective in order to facilitate its understanding, appraising and applicability in clinical practice. Although randomised controlled trials are the usual source for meta-analysis, observational studies are also being increasingly considered for meta-analysis. Like every other research design, meta-analysis starts with formulating a question, followed by searching for related data, based on predefined criteria and strategies. Inclusion of studies must be carried out with careful consideration of their quality and assessment of homogeneity using graphical means as well as statistical tools such as Q statistics, I(2) statistics and meta-regression. The pooled effect size is commonly calculated using either a 'fixed effect model' or 'random effect model'. Publication bias and other source of bias should be investigated and the impact of potential confounders should be eliminated as required. Given the above-mentioned considerations, meta-analysis can provide a more precise estimate of an effect size to be used in clinical decision making.

Bias↗

PubMed1989

A comparative evaluation of oral ofloxacin versus intravenous cefotaxime therapy for serious skin and skin structure infections.

In a single-blind, placebo-controlled randomized trial, 100 successive patients were enrolled with serious skin and soft-tissue infections, whose illnesses had precipitated an initial hospital admission or an extension of inpatient care. There were 93 evaluable patients who received either ofloxacin, 400 mg orally every 12 hours plus an intravenously administered placebo every eight hours, or cefotaxime, 2.0 g intravenously every eight hours plus an orally administered placebo every 12 hours. The average length of therapy was 12 days. Both patient groups had similar demographics and underlying conditions. Wound infection was the most common diagnosis, followed by abscess, cellulitis, and trophic ulcer. Multiple pathogens were commonly isolated from infected sites (1.4 pathogens/patient). The most common pathogen was Staphylococcus aureus, followed by Escherichia coli, Klebsiella spp., Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Serratia marcescens, Proteus/Providencia spp., and Enterobacter spp. Persistence of the initial pathogen at the end of therapy was observed in 22.5 percent of the cefotaxime-treated group, but in only 10 percent of the ofloxacin-treated group. There was one clinical failure in the cefotaxime group, caused by a susceptible strain of Enterobacter cloacae, and there was one clinical failure in the ofloxacin group, in which the patient had an Acinetobacter calcoaceticus var. anitratus wound infection and subsequently developed a P. aeruginosa superinfection. Adverse experiences, including rash, insomnia, and nausea, occurred in 16 percent of the patients in each group. It was concluded that oral ofloxacin is as safe and efficacious as parenteral cefotaxime in the treatment of serious skin and skin structure infections.

Administration, Oral↗

PubMed1989

New approaches to the diagnosis and treatment of infective endocarditis: review of 100 consecutive cases.

To assess the effect of our new, more aggressive approach to treating infective endocarditis, we retrospectively reviewed our recent experience with this disease. Between 1983 and 1989, we treated 100 patients with endocarditis, in 94 of whom the diagnosis was confirmed. Fifty-four (57%) of the 94 patients had native valve endocarditis, and the other 40 patients (43%) had prosthetic valve endocarditis. The patients' mean ages were 50 years for native valve disease and 58 years for prosthetic valve disease (p < 0.05). The male-to-female ratio was 4:1. Among the patients with confirmed endocarditis, 87 (93%) had significant underlying risk factors for endocarditis. Upon physical examination of the 94 patients, 16 (17%) were afebrile, 15 (16%) had negative blood cultures, and 26 (28%) had no cardiovascular symptoms or immunologic findings. Echocardiography was of limited value: its sensitivity was 56% for native valve endocarditis and 33% for prosthetic valve endocarditis. The ratio of affected valves was 5 aortic:4 mitral: 1 tricuspid in both forms of the disease. Viridans streptococcus was isolated in 23 (25%) of the confirmed cases, Enterococcus faecalis in 17 (18%), Staphylococcus aureus in 13 (14%), and coagulase-negative staphylococcus in 14 (15%). Gram-negative, anaerobic, and fungal organisms accounted for only 13 (14%) of the confirmed cases. The mean duration of intravenous therapy was 29 days. Twenty (37%) of the native valve patients and 16 (40%) of the prosthetic valve patients received antibiotics on an outpatient basis. Vancomycin was used in 44 (47%) of the cases, nafcillin or ampicillin in 40 (44%), and other beta-lactam agents in 9 (10%). The mean hospital stay was significantly longer for prosthetic valve endocarditis patients than for those with native valve disease (29 versus 23 days; p < 0.01). Cardiac catheterization was performed in 9 native valve patients (17%) and 6 prosthetic valve patients (15%). Valve surgery was performed in 33 native valve patients (61%) and 22 prosthetic valve patients (55%). Failure, defined as in-hospital death or recurrent endocarditis, accounted for 14 (28%) of the native valve cases (17% death and 11% relapse) and 8 (20%) of the prosthetic valve cases (10% death and 10% relapse), for an overall failure rate of 24%. The rate of failure was independent of the infecting pathogen or the type of antimicrobial therapy applied. Our experience verified that, in many patients with significant underlying risk factors, the diagnosis of endocarditis may be made on an empiric basis.

Journal Article↗