PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

Catherine H Maclean

Publications and source records attributed to Catherine H Maclean.

4 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2005

The efficacy of omega-3 fatty acids on cognitive function in aging and dementia: a systematic review.

We systematically reviewed the published literature on the effects of omega-3 fatty acids on measures of cognitive function in normal aging, incidence and treatment of dementia. Computerized databases were searched for published literature to identify potentially relevant studies with the intent to conduct a meta-analysis. We screened 5,865 titles, reviewed 497 studies of which 49 underwent a detailed review, and found 5 studies that pertained to our objectives. We included controlled clinical trials and observational studies, including prospective cohort, case-control, and case series designs; we excluded case reports. We had no language restrictions. We abstracted data on the effects of omega-3 fatty acids and on study design, relevant outcomes, study population, source, type, amount, and duration of omega-3 fatty acid consumption, and parameters of methodological quality. A single cohort study has assessed the effects of omega-3 fatty acids on cognitive function with normal aging and found no association for fish or total omega-3 consumption. In four studies that assessed the effects of omega-3 fatty acids on incidence and treatment of dementia, a trend in favor of omega-3 fatty acids (fish and total omega-3 consumption) toward reducing risk of dementia and improving cognitive function was reported. The available data are insufficient to draw strong conclusions about the effects of omega-3 fatty acids on cognitive function in normal aging or on the incidence or treatment of dementia. However, limited evidence suggests a possible association between omega-3 fatty acids and reduced risk of dementia.

Aging↗
PubMed2004

Case finding for population-based studies of rheumatoid arthritis: comparison of patient self-reported ACR criteria-based algorithms to physician-implicit review for diagnosis of rheumatoid arthritis.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the interrater reliability of rheumatologist diagnosis of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and the concordance between rheumatologist and computer algorithms for assessing the accuracy of a diagnosis of RA. METHODS: Self-reported data regarding symptoms and signs for a diagnosis of RA were considered by a panel of rheumatologists and by computer algorithms to assess the probability of a diagnosis of RA for 90 patients. The rheumatologists' review was validated through medical record. RESULTS: The interrater reliability among rheumatologists regarding a diagnosis of RA was 84%; the chance-corrected agreement (kappa) was 0.66. Agreement between the rheumatologists' rating and the best-performing algorithm was 95%. Using rheumatologist's review as a standard, the sensitivity of the algorithm was 100%, specificity was 88%, and the positive predictive value was 91%. The validation of rheumatologist's review by medical record showed 81% sensitivity, 60% specificity, and 78% positive predictive value. CONCLUSION: Reliability of rheumatologists' assignment of a diagnosis of RA by using self-report data is good. Algorithms defining symptoms as either joint swelling or tenderness with symptom duration >or=4 weeks have a better agreement with rheumatologist's diagnosis than do ones relying on a longer symptom duration. RELEVANCE: These findings have important implications for health services research and quality improvement interventions pertinent to case finding for RA through self-report data.

Algorithms↗
PubMed2003

Meta-analysis of dyspepsia and nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs.

OBJECTIVE: Nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drug (NSAID) use is a known risk factor for gastrointestinal (GI) perforations, ulcers, and bleeds, but there are limited data on its association with the very common symptom of dyspepsia. Using published and unpublished data sources, we sought to determine estimates of the risks of dyspepsia associated with NSAIDs. METHODS: We searched computerized databases (1966-1998) for primary studies of NSAIDs reporting on GI complications. We also obtained Food and Drug Administration (FDA) new drug application reviews for the 5 most common NSAIDs. We included studies reporting defined upper GI outcomes among subjects (>17 years old) who used oral NSAIDs for more than 4 days. Two reviewers evaluated 4,881 published titles, identifying 55 NSAID versus placebo randomized controlled trials (RCTs), 37 unpublished (FDA data) placebo-controlled RCTs; 86 NSAID versus NSAID RCTs (sample size >or=50); and 103 observational studies. RESULTS: The majority of clinical trials were of good quality. Meta-regression identified an increased risk of dyspepsia for users of specific NSAIDs (adjusted odds ratio [OR] of indomethacin, meclofenamate, piroxicam = 2.8), and for high dosages of other NSAIDs (OR = 3.1), but not for other NSAIDs regardless of dosage (OR = 1.1). Dyspepsia was not reported as an outcome in the case control or cohort studies. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical trial data indicate that high dosages of any NSAID along with any dosage of indomethacin, meclofenamate, or piroxicam increase the risk of dyspepsia by about 3-fold. Other NSAIDs at lower dosages were not associated with an increased risk of dyspepsia.

Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal↗