PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

Aldemar Araujo Castro

Publications and source records attributed to Aldemar Araujo Castro.

4 recordsLinked to original sources

Intermittent diazepam and continuous phenobarbital to treat recurrence of febrile seizures: a systematic review with meta-analysis.

UNLABELLED: Convulsions triggered by fever are the most common type of seizures in childhood, and 20% to 30% of them have recurrence. The prophylactic treatment is still controversial, so we performed a systematic review to find out the effectiveness of continuous phenobarbital and intermittent diazepam compared to placebo for febrile seizure recurrence. METHOD: Only randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials were analyzed. The recurrence of febrile seizure was assessed for each drug. RESULTS: Ten eligible clinical trials were included. Febrile seizure recurrence was smaller in children treated with diazepam or phenobarbital than in placebo group. Prophylaxis with either phenobarbital or diazepam reduces recurrences of febrile seizures. The studies were clinical, methodological, and statistically heterogeneous. CONCLUSION: The effectiveness of phenobarbital and diazepam could not be demonstrated because clinical trials were heterogeneous, and the recommendation for treatment recurrence should rely upon the experience of the assistant physician yet.

Anticonvulsants↗

[Research].

This text presents a reflection on the chief steps involved in experimental execution, and approaches sequentially the following aspects: a) what is research?, b) why carry out a research?, c) how can a research be useful in the future?, d) what are the stages involved in a research?, and e) who should be considered authors of a research? Finally, this article mentions the importance of results analysis and the relevance of the obtained results to the community.

Ethics, Research↗

Stapled versus handsewn methods for colorectal anastomosis surgery: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials.

CONTEXT: The interest in the results from comparisons between handsewing and stapling in colorectal anastomoses has been reflected in the progressive increase in the number of clinical trials. These studies, however, do not permit conclusions to be drawn, given the lack of statistical power of the samples analyzed. OBJECTIVE: To compare stapling and handsewing in colorectal anastomosis, testing the hypothesis that in colorectal anastomosis the technique of stapling is superior to that of handsewing. DESIGN: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials. SURVEY STRATEGY: Systematic revision of the literature and meta-analysis were used, without restrictions on language, dates or other considerations. The sources of information used were Embase, Lilacs, Medline, Cochrane Controlled Clinical Trials Database, and letters to authors and industrial producers of staples and thread. SELECTION CRITERIA: Studies were included in accordance with randomization criteria. The external validity of the studies was investigated via the characteristics of the participants, the interventions and the variables analyzed. An independent selection of clinical studies focusing on analysis of adult patients attended to on an elective basis was made by two reviewers. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: The methodological quality of the studies was assessed by the same reviewers. In addition to the randomization criteria, the masking, treatment intention, losses and exclusions were also analyzed. The meta-analysis was performed using risk difference and weighted average difference, with their respective 95% confidence intervals. The variables studied were mortality, clinical and radiological anastomotic dehiscence, anastomotic stricture, hemorrhage, reoperation, wound infection, time taken to perform the anastomosis and hospital stay. RESULTS: Nine clinical trials were selected. After verifying that it was possible to perform one of the two techniques being compared, 1,233 patients were included, of whom 622 underwent stapling and 611 the handsewing technique. No statistical difference was found between the variables, except for stenosis, which was more frequent in stapling (p < 0.05), and the time taken to perform the anastomosis, which was greater in handsewing (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: The evidence found was insufficient to demonstrate superiority of the stapling method over handsewing, independent of the level of colorectal anastomosis.

Anastomosis, Surgical↗

Searching the Literatura Latino Americana e do Caribe em Ciências da Saúde (LILACS) database improves systematic reviews.

BACKGROUND: An unbiased systematic review (SR) should analyse as many articles as possible in order to provide the best evidence available. However, many SR use only databases with high English-language content as sources for articles. Literatura Latino Americana e do Caribe em Ciências da Saúde (LILACS) indexes 670 journals from the Latin American and Caribbean health literature but is seldom used in these SR. Our objective is to evaluate if LILACS should be used as a routine source of articles for SR. METHODS: First we identified SR published in 1997 in five medical journals with a high impact factor. Then we searched LILACS for articles that could match the inclusion criteria of these SR. We also checked if the authors had already identified these articles located in LILACS. RESULTS: In all, 64 SR were identified. Two had already searched LILACS and were excluded. In 39 of 62 (63%) SR a LILACS search identified articles that matched the inclusion criteria. In 5 (8%) our search was inconclusive and in 18 (29%) no articles were found in LILACS. Therefore, in 71% (44/72) of cases, a LILACS search could have been useful to the authors. This proportion remains the same if we consider only the 37 SR that performed a meta-analysis. In only one case had the article identified in LILACS already been located elsewhere by the authors' strategy. CONCLUSION: LILACS is an under-explored and unique source of articles whose use can improve the quality of systematic reviews. This database should be used as a routine source to identify studies for systematic reviews.

Caribbean Region↗