PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

Mohit Bhandari

Publications and source records attributed to Mohit Bhandari.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2007

Complex limb salvage or early amputation for severe lower-limb injury: a meta-analysis of observational studies.

PURPOSE: Leg threatening injuries present patients and clinicians with a difficult decision: whether to pursue primary amputation or limb salvage? The purpose of our study was to review the literature in an effort to inform this management decision. METHODS: We systematically searched and selected observational studies that reported on individuals presenting with leg threatening injuries comparing outcomes of limb salvage versus primary amputation. We searched MEDLINE, CINAHL, and EMBASE. We reported on the following outcomes, and pooled data across trials when possible: length of hospital stay, total rehabilitation time, cost, clinical outcomes, failure rate for limb salvage, function & quality of life, pain, return to work, factors associated with poor outcome, and patient preference. RESULTS: Nine observational studies contributed data to our systematic review. The current evidence suggests that while length of hospital stay is similar for limb salvage and primary amputation, length of rehabilitation and total costs are higher for limb salvage patients. Salvage patients requires greater additional surgery and are significantly more likely to undergo re-hospitalization. Long-term functional outcomes (up to 7 years post injury) are equivalent between limb salvage and primary amputation; both forms of management are associated with high rates of self-reported disability (40%; to 50%;), and functional status continues to worsen over time. Report of pain following limb salvage or primary amputation is similar. Return to work is essentially the same between limb salvage and primary amputation groups, with approximately half of such patients returning to competitive employment at 2 years post injury. Both clinical and psychosocial factors are associated with poorer functional outcomes. At the time of injury patients prefer limb salvage, but the majority of failed salvage patients would opt for early amputation if they could decide again. CONCLUSION AND SIGNIFICANCE: Functional outcome among patients who present with leg-threatening injuries are not significantly different, at least up to 7 years, whether they are managed with limb salvage or primary amputation. Research to optimize triage decisions to avoid failed limb salvage as well as on interventions targeting important psychosocial prognostic variables should be considered a priority.

Amputation, Surgical↗
PubMed2007

Perceptions and competence in evidence-based medicine: Are surgeons getting better? A questionnaire survey of members of the Dutch Orthopaedic Association.

BACKGROUND: The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, American Volume (The Journal) recently initiated a section called "Evidence-Based Orthopaedics." Furthermore, a level-of-evidence rating is now used in The Journal to help readers in clinical decision-making. Little is known about whether this recent emphasis has influenced surgeons' perceptions about and competence in evidence-based medicine. Therefore, we examined perceptions and competence in evidence-based medicine among Dutch orthopaedic surgeons. METHODS: Members of the Dutch Orthopaedic Association were surveyed to examine their attitudes toward evidence-based medicine and their competence in evidence-based medicine. We evaluated competences using a newly developed instrument tailored to surgical practice. RESULTS: Of the 611 members, 367 surgeons (60%) responded. Orthopaedic surgeons welcomed evidence-based medicine. Practical evidence-based medicine resources were perceived as the best method to move from opinion-based or experience-based to evidence-based practice. Four variables were significantly and positively associated with the competence instrument: (1) a younger age, particularly between thirty-six and forty-five years (p = 0.007), (2) experience of less than ten years (p = 0.032), (3) having a PhD degree (p < 0.001), and (4) working in an academic or teaching setting (p = 0.004). The majority of the respondents were aware of The Journal's evidence-based medicine section (84%) and level-of-evidence ratings (65%), and 20% used The Journal's evidence-based medicine abstracts in clinical decision-making. This increased awareness of evidence-based medicine was also reflected in the frequent use of Cochrane reviews in clinical decision-making (27% of the respondents). Surgeons who used and those who were aware of but did not use The Journal's evidence-based medicine abstracts or Cochrane reviews in clinical decision-making had significantly higher competence instrument scores than those who were unaware of these resources (p = 0.03 and p < 0.001, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Evidence-based medicine is welcomed by Dutch orthopaedic surgeons. The recent emphasis on evidence-based medicine is reflected in an increased awareness about The Journal's evidence-based medicine section, levels of evidence, and the largest evidence-based medicine resource: the Cochrane reviews. Younger orthopaedic surgeons had better knowledge about evidence-based medicine. The development and use of evidence-based resources as well as preappraised summaries such as The Journal's evidence-based medicine abstracts and Cochrane reviews were perceived as the best way to move from opinion-based to evidence-based orthopaedic practice.

Adult↗
PubMed2006

Does a "Level I Evidence" rating imply high quality of reporting in orthopaedic randomised controlled trials?

BACKGROUND: The Levels of Evidence Rating System is widely believed to categorize studies by quality, with Level I studies representing the highest quality evidence. We aimed to determine the reporting quality of Randomised Controlled Trials (RCTs) published in the most frequently cited general orthopaedic journals. METHODS: Two assessors identified orthopaedic journals that reported a level of evidence rating in their abstracts from January 2003 to December 2004 by searching the instructions for authors of the highest impact general orthopaedic journals. Based upon a priori eligibility criteria, two assessors hand searched all issues of the eligible journal from 2003-2004 for RCTs. The assessors extracted the demographic information and the evidence rating from each included RCT and scored the quality of reporting using the reporting quality assessment tool, which was developed by the Cochrane Bone, Joint and Muscle Trauma Group. Scores were conducted in duplicate, and we reached a consensus for any disagreements. We examined the correlation between the level of evidence rating and the Cochrane reporting quality score. RESULTS: We found that only the Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery - American Volume (JBJS-A) used a level of evidence rating from 2003 to 2004. We identified 938 publications in the JBJS-A from January 2003 to December 2004. Of these publications, 32 (3.4%) were RCTs that fit the inclusion criteria. The 32 RCTs included a total of 3543 patients, with sample sizes ranging from 17 to 514 patients. Despite being labelled as the highest level of evidence (Level 1 and Level II evidence), these studies had low Cochrane reporting quality scores among individual methodological safeguards. The Cochrane reporting quality scores did not differ significantly between Level I and Level II studies. Correlations varied from 0.0 to 0.2 across the 12 items of the Cochrane reporting quality assessment tool (p > 0.05). Among items closely corresponding to the Levels of Evidence Rating System criteria assessors achieved substantial agreement (ICC = 0.80, 95% CI:0.60 to 0.90). CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that readers should not assume that 1) studies labelled as Level I have high reporting quality and 2) Level I studies have better reporting quality than Level II studies. One should address methodological safeguards individually.

Bibliometrics↗
PubMed2006

Evidence-based medicine: what it is and what it is not.

The evidence-based medicine (EBM) related concepts of hierarchy of evidence, meta-analyses, confidence intervals, study design, etc. are nowadays so widespread, that clinicians willing to use today's medical literature with understanding have no choice but to become familiar with EBM principles and methodologies. Although surgeons may perceive that evidence-based medicine mandates a strict adherence to randomised trials, it more accurately involves informed and effective use of all types of evidence (from meta-analysis of randomised trials to individual case series and case reports. With the ever-increasing amount of available information, surgeons must consider a shift in paradigm from traditional practice to one that involves question formulation, validity assessment of available studies and appropriate application of research evidence to individual patients.

Data Collection↗
PubMed2006

Issues in the planning and conduct of randomised trials.

Randomised trials top the hierarchy of evidence. To provide the best evidence to guide surgical practice, randomised trials must answer clinically important questions, have important and objective outcome measurement and be sufficiently powered to detect important differences between interventions. Investigators who adhere to these principles are more likely to succeed during the conduct of their trials.

Bias↗
PubMed2006

Conducting industry-partnered trials in orthopaedic surgery.

We have seen an emergence of larger scale collaborative multi-center trials in surgery. These larger trials have the advantage of increased generalisability of the results and the potential for large scale and efficient recruitment (1000 patients or more). It is estimated that the average cost of bringing a new drug to market approximates 500 million dollars. The funding limitations in most national peer-reviewed agencies provides a compelling rationale for industry co-sponsors. To limit biases associated with industry-sponsored research, researchers should develop specific protocols to ensure accurate and transparent reporting of funding sources, design and implementation of surgical trials, manuscript preparation and the criteria for authorship.

Authorship↗
PubMed2006

Principles of teaching evidence-based medicine.

Teaching EBM is to impart the process of asking the question, acquiring and appraising the literature and applying it to the care of the patient, while weighing the risks, benefits and considering patient values. Teaching this process and its necessary content requires as with everything else, dedication, knowledge and practice. The best way to teach both patient care and EBM is by example.

Education, Medical, Graduate↗
PubMed2006

Prevention of fat embolism syndrome.

Fat embolism syndrome is a condition of acute respiratory distress following long-bone trauma. This condition may involve not only the lungs but also a number of other body systems. The pathophysiology is not as yet clearly understood, however, intravasation of fat from long-bone fractures may play a role. Early recognition of the severity of injury both on clinical and biochemical grounds and early surgical stabilization of long bones may help to decrease its incidence. However, the best surgical technique with which to do this stabilization has not yet been clearly determined. Surgical and pharmacological techniques have been developed in an attempt to either decrease the intravasation of fat during long-bone stabilization or block the inflammatory cascade with varying degrees of efficacy. Ongoing research focuses on both the prevention and treatment of this condition.

Bone Nails↗
PubMed2006

Chiropractors' perceptions about intimate partner violence: a cross-sectional survey.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to assess chiropractors' attitudes, beliefs, knowledge, and experience about intimate partner violence (IPV). METHODS: This cross-sectional survey was developed by members of the Violence Against Women Health Research Collaborative. The survey was disseminated to a voluntary, nonrandom convenience sample of chiropractors attending a 3-day continuing education seminar. Surveys were distributed at the entrances of the seminar session rooms and placed on luncheon tables. Respondents returned surveys to collection boxes. RESULTS: Ninety-three doctors of chiropractic completed the survey. Respondents estimated that only 5.2% (95% confidence interval, 3.3%-7.0%) of their female patients were victims of IPV. General knowledge of IPV was good among respondents. Knowledge of clinical indicators and victim's management was fair to poor. Only 22% of respondents identified the most commonly injured body regions among battered women. Lack of knowledge, personal discomfort, and time constraints were all cited as barriers to IPV screening. CONCLUSIONS: Our survey indicates that doctors of chiropractic underestimate the prevalence of IPV among their female patients. Like other health care specialists, chiropractors cite multiple IPV screening barriers, especially lack of knowledge. Doctors of chiropractic would benefit from education and training in IPV to enable them to better identify and assist patients who are victims of IPV.

Adult↗
PubMed2006

Compression plating versus intramedullary nailing of humeral shaft fractures--a meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The choice of plates or intramedullary nails for operatively treated humeral shaft fractures remains controversial, since randomized controlled trials have lacked sufficient power. A meta-analysis of existing trials would improve inferences regarding the treatment effect. METHODS: We reviewed randomized trials in Medline, Cochrane and SciSearch, along with other sources of published randomized trials from 1969-2000. Of 215 citations identified, only 3 studies were included. RESULTS: The 3 studies (involving 155 patients) were pooled, since they were homogeneous (p > 0.1). Plate fixation gave a lower relative risk of reoperation than intramedullary nailing (RR = 0.26, 95% CI 0.007-0.9, p = 0.03). This translated to a risk reduction of 74% for reoperation when plate fixation was employed. Thus, 1 reoperation could be prevented for every 10 patients treated with plates. Plate fixation also reduced the risk of shoulder problems in comparison to intramedullary nails (RR = 0.10, 95% CI 0.03-0.4, p = 0.002). INTERPRETATION: Plate fixation of humeral shaft fractures may reduce the risk of reoperation and shoulder impingement. The cumulative evidence remains inconclusive, and a larger trial is needed in order to confirm these findings.

Bone Nails↗
PubMed2006

Treatment of scapula fractures: systematic review of 520 fractures in 22 case series.

BACKGROUND: Fractures of the scapula account for 3% to 5% of all fractures of the shoulder girdle and make up less than 1% of all broken bones. Scapula fractures typically occur after high-energy trauma, and approximately 90% of the patients have associated injuries. OBJECTIVE: (1) To determine the incidences of nonoperative and operative treatment of different scapula fracture types, (2) to systematically stratify the reported results of nonoperatively and operatively treated scapula fractures on the basis of different fracture types and to summarize functional results, and (3) to quantify infection and secondary surgical procedure rates after operative treatment.

Adult↗
PubMed2006

Operative treatment of acute distal femur fractures: systematic review of 2 comparative studies and 45 case series (1989 to 2005).

BACKGROUND: The incidence of distal femur fractures is approximately 37 per 100,000 person-years. Typically, distal femur fractures are caused by a high-energy injury mechanism in young men or a low-energy mechanism in elderly women. Managing these fractures can be a challenging task. Most surgeons agree that distal femur fractures need to be treated operatively to achieve optimal patient outcomes. The articular fracture component is usually treated with open reduction and internal lag screw fixation or external tension wire fixation (Illizarov). However, there is no consensus on the type of implant for the fixation of the metaphyseal-diaphyseal fracture component. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to systematically summarize and compare the results of different fixation techniques (traditional compression plating, antegrade nailing, retrograde nailing, submuscular locked internal fixation, and external fixation) in the operative management of acute nonperiprosthetic distal femur fractures (AO/OTA type 33A and C) and the characteristics of the fractures for each treatment (articular/nonarticular and open/closed). Additionally an attempt was made to evaluate the impact of surgical experience on nonunion rate, fixation failure rate, deep infection rate, and secondary surgical procedure rate. In the context of this article compression plating relates to techniques/implants that require compression of the implant to the femoral shaft-it does not relate to interfragmentary compression.

Adult↗
PubMed2006

Management of displaced ankle fractures.

BACKGROUND: Ankle fractures excluding pilon fractures, account for approximately 9% of all fractures with the majority being OTA type B injuries. Although surgeons generally treat undisplaced or minimally displaced injuries nonoperatively and displaced fractures operatively, opinions diverge regarding the management of those displaced fractures with acceptable closed reduction. There is also debate about the use of biodegradable implants in operatively managed ankle fractures, the type and technique of fixation for operatively treated syndesmotic injuries as well as the approach to postoperative rehabilitation. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to review the highest level of available evidence on the operative management of ankle fractures. We focused specifically on studies comparing (1) nonoperative versus operative management of displaced ankle fractures, (2) biodegradable versus metal implants, (3) syndesmotic fixation, and (4) postoperative rehabilitation protocols.

Ankle Injuries↗
PubMed2006

Misuse of baseline comparison tests and subgroup analyses in surgical trials.

It is unclear whether the misuse of statistical tests that compare patients' baseline characteristics and subgroup analyses in randomized controlled trials can be extrapolated to the surgical literature. We did an observational study evaluating the current use of baseline comparability tests and subgroup analyses in surgical randomized controlled trials. Published surgical randomized controlled trials in four medical journals were identified. We also identified randomized controlled trials in the Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery (American and British volumes). We identified 72 randomized controlled trials, with a mean of 10 +/- 8 baseline variables. Of 166 significance tests, 17 (10%) were significant. Twenty-seven (38%) trials included 54 subgroup analyses with a minimum of one and maximum of 23 subgroup analyses per study. Inappropriate emphasis on subgroup analyses occurred frequently. Forty-nine (91%) analyses were performed post hoc without prior hypotheses. Investigators reported differences between subgroups in 31 (57%) of the analyses, all of which were featured in the summary or conclusion. These inferences may be misleading, making their application to clinical practice unwarranted.

Data Interpretation, Statistical↗
PubMed2006

The consistency between scientific papers presented at the Orthopaedic Trauma Association and their subsequent full-text publication.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the consistency of conclusions/statements made in podium presentations at the annual meeting of the Orthopaedic Trauma Association (OTA) with those in subsequent full-text publications. Also, to evaluate the nature and consistency of study design, methods, sample sizes, results and assign a corresponding level of evidence. DATA SOURCES: Abstracts of the scientific programs of the OTA from 1994 to 1997 (N = 254) were queried by using the PubMed database to identify those studies resulting in a peer-reviewed, full-text publication. STUDY SELECTION: Of the 169 articles retrieved, 137 studies were the basis of our study after the exclusion criteria were applied: non-English language, basic science studies, anatomic dissection studies, and articles published in non-peer-reviewed journals. DATA EXTRACTION/SYNTHESIS: Information was abstracted onto a data form: first from the abstract published in the final meeting program, and then from the published journal article. Information was recorded regarding study issues, including the study design, primary objective, sample size, and statistical methods. We provided descriptive statistics about the frequency of consistent results between abstracts and full-text publications. The results were recorded as percentages and a 95% confidence interval was applied to each value. Study results were recorded for the abstract and full-text publication comparing results and the overall conclusion. A level of scientific-based evidence was assigned to each full-text publication. RESULTS: The final conclusion of the study remained the same 93.4% of the time. The method of study was an observational case series 52% of the time and a statement regarding the rate of patient follow-up was reported 42% of the time. Of the studies published, 18.2% consisted of a sample size smaller than the previously presented abstract. When the published papers had their level of evidence graded, 11% were level I, 16% level II, 17% level III, and 56% level IV. CONCLUSIONS: Authors conclusions were consistent with those in full-text publications. Most studies were observational, less than half reported on the rate of patient follow-up. Many abstracts followed by publication had a smaller sample size in the published paper. Half of all studies were graded level IV evidence.

Abstracting and Indexing↗