Biomedical subjects

Sheena Derry

Publications and source records attributed to Sheena Derry.

5 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed2003

Does anybody read "evidence-based" articles?

BACKGROUND: The electronic version of the British Medical Journal (eBMJ) has a unique feature in that it provides an electronic record of the number of times an article has been viewed ("hits") in the week after its publication. We sought to compare the relative popularity of primary research and "evidence-based" papers against that of narrative reviews and editorials. We surveyed four broad groupings of articles in 2001: Editorials, Clinical Reviews (which are narrative reviews), Education and Debate, and Papers (which are original research articles and systematic reviews). Clinical Reviews were the most frequently viewed articles, with an average of 4148 hits per article, while Papers were less popular (average of 1168 hits per article). Systematic reviews (23 articles, average of 1190 hits per article) were visited far less often than narrative reviews. Editorials (average of 2537 hits per article) were viewed much more frequently than Papers, even where the editorial was written as an accompanying piece with a direct link to the paper. DISCUSSION: Narrative reviews and editorials are accessed more frequently than primary research papers or systematic reviews in the first week after their publication. These findings may disappoint those who believe that it is important for readers to critically appraise the primary research data. Although the technical quality of journal articles may have been helped by recommendations on structured reporting, the readability of such articles has received little attention. Authors and journal editors must take steps to make research articles and systematic reviews more attractive to readers. This may involve using simpler language, as well as innovative use of web resources to produce shorter, snappier papers, with the methodological or technical details made available elsewhere. CONCLUSION: Primary research and "evidence-based" papers seem to be less attractive to readers than narrative reviews and editorials in the first week after publication. Authors and editors should try to improve the early appeal of primary research papers.

Evidence-Based Medicine↗

PubMed2003

Aspirin for the prevention of cardiovascular disease: calculating benefit and harm in the individual patient.

AIMS: To estimate the absolute reduction in the risk of cardiovascular events and absolute increase in gastrointestinal haemorrhage associated with aspirin for individuals with different baseline risks. METHODS: Calculation of absolute treatment effects from estimates of: (i) baseline risks for cardiovascular event and gastrointestinal haemorrhage; and (ii) relative risks of these events with treatment. Baseline cardiovascular risks were derived from existing risk scores, and baseline risk of gastrointestinal haemorrhage from an observational cohort study. Changes in relative risks were obtained from clinical trial data. The effects of aspirin treatment were calculated in examples of two individuals with very different baseline risks. RESULTS: Treatment of a healthy 74-year-old man (blood pressure 144/88 mm Hg and no history of gastrointestinal disorder) would reduce his annual risk of a cardiovascular event from 2% to 1.74% (absolute risk reduction 0.26%, number needed to treat 385), but increase the gastrointestinal haemorrhage risk from 0.3% to 0.51% (absolute risk increase 0.21%, number needed to harm 476). In a 66-year-old obese man, following a transient ischaemic attack, and with a history of hospital treatment for a peptic ulcer, the annual risk of a cardiovascular event would be reduced from 5% to 4.35% (absolute risk reduction 0.65%, number needed to treat 153), but the risk of gastrointestinal haemorrhage would increase from 1.08% to 1.83% (absolute risk increase 0.75%, number needed to harm 133). CONCLUSIONS: Estimating benefit and harm by taking into account the baseline risks in each individual allows patients and doctors to judge for themselves the magnitude of the trade-offs involved in taking aspirin.

Aged↗

PubMed2002

Air travel and venous thrombosis: how much help might aspirin be?

There has been considerable attention focused recently on the risk of deep venous thrombosis (DVT) associated with air travel. Despite the lack of evidence among air travelers, a single dose of aspirin has been widely recommended as a means of preventing such thrombosis. We have calculated the potential benefit of aspirin by applying the data for aspirin in preventing DVT in hip fracture patients to the estimated rates of travel-related DVT. If the rate of travel-related DVT is 20 per 100,000 travelers, then we will have to treat 17,000 people with aspirin to prevent 1 additional DVT.

Adult↗

PubMed2002

Appetite suppressants and valvular heart disease - a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Although appetite suppressants have been implicated in the development of valvular heart disease, the exact level of risk is still uncertain. Initial studies suggested that as many as 1 in 3 exposed patients were affected, but subsequent research has yielded substantially different figures. Our objective was to systematically assess the risk of valvular heart disease with appetite suppressants. METHODS: We accepted studies involving obese patients treated with any of the following appetite suppressants: fenfluramine, dexfenfluramine, and phentermine. Three types of studies were reviewed: controlled and uncontrolled observational studies, and randomized controlled trials. Outcomes of interest were echocardiographically detectable aortic regurgitation of mild or greater severity, or mitral regurgitation of moderate or greater severity. RESULTS: Of the 1279 patients evaluated in seven uncontrolled cohort studies, 236 (18%) and 60 (5%) were found to have aortic and mitral regurgitation, respectively. Pooled data from six controlled cohort studies yielded, for aortic regurgitation, a relative risk ratio of 2.32 (95% confidence intervals 1.79 to 3.01, p < 0.00001) and an attributable rate of 4.9%, and for mitral regurgitation, a relative risk ratio of 1.55 (95% confidence intervals 1.06 to 2.25, p = 0.02) with an attributable rate of 1.0%. Only one case of valvular heart disease was detected in 57 randomized controlled trials, but this was judged unrelated to drug therapy. CONCLUSIONS: The risk of valvular heart disease is significantly increased by the appetite suppressants reviewed here. Nevertheless, when considering all the evidence, valvulopathy is much less common than suggested by the initial, less methodologically rigorous studies.

Appetite Depressants↗

PubMed2002

Adverse drug reactions: keeping up to date.

The amount of published literature on adverse drug reactions is overwhelming; for example, the serial publication Side Effects of Drugs Annual lists and critically discusses over 3000 references each year. As a group, pharmacotherapeutics journals publish more papers on adverse drug reactions than journals that cover other fields, but even so they publish a minority of the total number of papers, and no single journal or group of journals can be highlighted as being a frequent source of primary information. Non-specialists must therefore rely on secondary literature (reviews) and tertiary literature (critical summaries) for information. Most of the primary published literature is in the form of anecdotal reports (30%) and formal studies or randomized controlled trials (35%). The anecdotal reports vary in quality; a new serial publication devoted to this type of article would bring some of the literature together and would improve the quality of reporting. Although many of the randomized controlled trials are of good quality and large enough to reveal benefit, most are too small to provide robust information about adverse drug reactions. Systematic reviews are too few in number (only 1.25% of publications on adverse drug reactions cited in Side Effects of Drugs Annual); more are needed.

Adverse Drug Reaction Reporting Systems↗