PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

C J Hyde

Publications and source records attributed to C J Hyde.

10 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2006

Appraisal of the evidence for the clinical use of FFP and plasma fractions.

Randomised, controlled trials of good quality are a recognised means to robustly assess the efficacy of interventions in clinical practice. A systematic identification and appraisal of all randomised trials involving fresh frozen plasma (FFP) indicates that most clinical indications for FFP, as currently recommended by practice guidelines, are not supported by evidence from randomised trials. This chapter will largely consider the implications of some of the findings from this systematic review. Many published trials on the use of FFP have enrolled small numbers of patients, and provided inadequate information on the ability of the trial to detect meaningful differences in outcomes between the two patient groups. Other concerns about the design of the trials include the dose of FFP used, and the potential for bias; no studies had taken adequate account of the extent to which adverse effects might negate the clinical benefits of treatment with FFP. In addition, there is little evidence for the effectiveness of the prophylactic use of FFP. There is a pressing need to consider how best to develop new trials to determine the effectiveness of FFP. How this can be achieved can be illustrated by reference to studies of albumin in critical care. A recent, large and well-designed randomised trial (Saline versus Albumin Fluid Evaluation study; SAFE) in critical care found no evidence of an increase in mortality with the use of albumin compared to saline, which had been hypothesised in an earlier systematic review. How the study findings will actually now influence the clinical use of albumin remains to be seen. Although the SAFE trial showed no increase in mortality with albumin compared with saline, it is difficult to justify its use in critical care given its considerably greater cost.

Blood Coagulation Factors↗
PubMed2004

Is fresh frozen plasma clinically effective? A systematic review of randomized controlled trials.

Summary Randomized controlled trials of good quality are a recognized means to robustly assess the efficacy of interventions in clinical practice. A systematic identification and appraisal of all randomized trials involving fresh frozen plasma (FFP) has been undertaken in parallel to the drafting of the updated British Committee for Standards in Haematology guidelines on the use of FFP. A total of 57 trials met the criteria for inclusion in the review. Most clinical uses of FFP, currently recommended by practice guidelines, are not supported by evidence from randomized trials. In particular, there is little evidence for the effectiveness of the prophylactic use of FFP. Many published trials on the use of FFP have enrolled small numbers of patients, and provided inadequate information on the ability of the trial to detect meaningful differences in outcomes between the two patient groups. Other concerns about the design of the trials include the dose of FFP used, and the potential for bias. No studies have taken adequate account of the extent to which adverse effects might negate the clinical benefits of treatment with FFP. There is a need to consider how best to develop new trials to determine the efficacy of FFP in different clinical scenarios to provide the evidence base to support national guidelines for transfusion practice. Trials of modified FFP (e.g. pathogen inactivated) are of questionable value when there is little evidence that the standard product is an effective treatment.

Blood Transfusion↗
PubMed2001

Orthopaedic fractures: trends in randomised controlled trials.

AIM: To ascertain and describe the number and epidemiology of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) focused on orthopaedic fractures. METHODS: A sensitive literature search was carried out for the period 1966-May 1999. Labels were applied to each identified RCT to indicate the fracture type, and the main type of intervention. RESULTS: 648 RCTs related to surgery of which 123 focused on adjuvant therapies and 88 related mainly to anaesthesia, analgesia, and radiography. The number of trials have increased exponentially with time so that the present decade has seen more RCTs published than all the other years added together. CONCLUSION: There is clearly an encouraging trend in the number of RCTs published. However there is a need to ensure that trials are on fracture types where there is most need for guidance. This growing evidence base should fuel systematic reviews and clinical guidelines within orthopaedics.

Evidence-Based Medicine↗
PubMed2000

The effects of supporting discharge from hospital to home in older people.

OBJECTIVE: to investigate the effects of supported discharge after an acute admission in older people with undifferentiated clinical problems. DESIGN: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials. METHODS: we searched MEDLINE, CINAHL, the Cochrane Library, PsycLit and the Social Science Citation Index up to the end of 1997. This was augmented by hand-searching, follow-up of bibliographies and.direct enquiry of authors of included studies. Application of inclusion decisions, quality assessment and data abstraction were carried out independently by at least two of the reviewers. We tabulated the results of the included studies and used meta-analysis where appropriate to refine conclusions. RESULTS: we finally included nine studies in the review, assessment of which revealed that bias was present, dictating the need for caution in interpreting results. Despite this, there was relative certainty that the proportion of those at home 6-12 months after admission is greater with supported discharge (odds ratio 1.4, 95% confidence interval 1.1- 2.0). This was associated with a consistent pattern of reduction in admission to long-stay care over the same period, without apparent increases in mortality. There was uncertainty about the effect of supported discharge on hospitalization. There were no rigorous research data on functional status, patient and carer satisfaction, and, in consequence, uncertainty about the overall effectiveness of supported discharge. CONCLUSIONS: we believe that the results of this review provide reassurance that supporting discharge from hospital to home is of value. However, important sources of uncertainty remain, suggesting the need for further research.

Aged↗
PubMed1999

Systematic review of near patient test evaluations in primary care.

OBJECTIVE: To identify and qualitatively synthesise the findings from all studies that have examined the performance and effect of near patient tests in the primary care setting. DESIGN: Systematic review of published and unpublished research 1986-99. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Test performance characteristics, measures of effect on clinical practice or patient outcome. RESULTS: 101 relevant publications were identified. The general quality of these papers was low, and consequently only 32 papers were assessed in detail. Although these papers gave some indication of the value of near patient testing in areas such as anticoagulation monitoring and group A beta haemolytic streptococcus testing, the research raised many more questions than it answered. Almost no reports were found of unbiased assessment of the effect of near patient tests in primary care on patient outcomes, organisational outcomes, or cost. CONCLUSIONS: Available research provides little evidence to guide the expansion of use of near patient testing in primary care. Further research is needed in areas of clinical practice where near patient tests might be most beneficial.

Humans↗
PubMed1997

A review of near patient testing in primary care.

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: The aim was to identify publications relating to near patient testing (NPT), the use of alternative delivery systems between laboratory and general practice, including electronic data interchange (EDI), and computerised diagnostic decision support (CDDS), in the primary care setting to answer the following questions. What is the availability of NPT for primary care? What evidence is available to support the clinical effectiveness of NPT? What evidence is available on the accuracy and reliability of NPT within primary care? What evidence is available on the cost-effectiveness of different NPTs? How may CDDS improve the effectiveness of NPT? What evidence is available that compares NPT and existing laboratory services? What evidence is available on the cost-effectiveness of EDI or alternative delivery systems? HOW THE RESEARCH WAS CONDUCTED: Eight databases were searched, and the bibliographies from relevant publications checked for completeness. Unpublished work and publications not included in the databases were obtained by personal contact with collaborators, and from a postal survey sent to heads of academic departments of general practice and clinical chemistry and to researchers active or interested in the field worldwide. Questionnaires were also sent to 150 commercial organisations. Publications that met agreed definitions and reported original data were included in the systematic review. Of the 1057 publications identified, 102 (92 related to NPT, eight to CDDS, and two to EDI) were passed to the reviewers for appraisal of validity. The limited amount of published research relating to any particular NPT prohibited meta-analysis. Scoring systems to assess the validity of evaluations were also difficult to apply. RESEARCH FINDINGS: A wide variety of NPT systems have been developed. In general, the quality of the methods reported in the literature was poor. The issue of patient convenience and acceptability has not been adequately addressed. No evaluations of alternative delivery systems met the review criteria. No studies have evaluated the telephone or fax machine as a means of reporting results. For EDI, the majority of papers were descriptive. EDI and alternative delivery systems are not a replacement for NPT when the provision of an immediate result might have an impact on the quality of care. EDI may have clinical and cost advantages over traditional means of communication, but this has not been evaluated. The advisory role of the laboratory can be supported by CDDS. The use of CDDS and NPT has not, however, been fully evaluated. Few economic analyses have been conducted, and most were simple cost analyses. There are insufficient data for conclusions to be drawn on the cost-effectiveness of NPT in primary care. RECOMMENDATIONS: FURTHER SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS: Subject-specific systematic reviews are required that include laboratory and secondary care studies, and consider the potential for altering current management and patient acceptability. Priority topics include: biochemistry profiles on desktop analysers; cholesterol testing; urinalysis for the diagnosis of urinary tract infection; anticoagulation control; NPTs for the identification of acute infection. (ABSTRACT TRUNCATED)

Cost-Benefit Analysis↗
PubMed1996

Using the evidence. A need for quantity, not quality?

The use of research evidence depends on more than its quality. If one considers other factors that influence the use of evidence, the quantity of accessible evidence and initiatives ensuring a wider understanding of it must be equally important. In consequence, improving the quality of research evidence alone will not necessarily lead to its greater use.

Attitude of Health Personnel↗