PubMed · 15186575
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
Paul Kamill. 2004. Evidence-based management?. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15186575/
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
UNLABELLED: The introduction of minimally invasive techniques has had great influence on the indication and surgical therapy for gastroesophageal reflux disease. This analysis is an overview of the current evidence-based status and a critical reprisal of open and laparoscopic antireflux surgery. RESULTS: The analysis of randomized trials showed an advantage for patients after laparoscopy for total and partial fundoplication because of reduced morbidity, shorter postoperative hospitalization due to faster recovery, and significantly fewer scar and wound problems. The functional results of open and laparoscopic techniques were similar. Five-year follow-up results for the latter showed effective reflux control in at least 85% of patients. Randomized trials regarding technical variations did not show an advantage for division of the short gastric vessel. A bougie for the cardia calibration can prevent postoperative dysphagia after fundoplication.
PURPOSE/OBJECTIVES: To provide evidence-based research information about 47 herbs and natural products that have the potential to protect against the development of cancer. DATA SOURCES: Natural Medicines Comprehensive Database and Lawrence Review of Natural Products-Monograph System. Information about these herbs has been found in evidence-based studies cited in the references. DATA SYNTHESIS: Early research shows that some herbs and natural products appear to have the potential to prevent cancer growth. CONCLUSIONS: This preliminary evidence may be useful to healthcare professionals or patients who are concerned about cancer. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING: Oncology nurses who receive this information can become resources for patients or other healthcare professionals.
In response to overwhelming evidence and the consequences of poor-quality reporting of randomized, controlled trials (RCTs), many medical journals and editorial groups have now endorsed the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) statement, a 22-item checklist and flow diagram. Because CONSORT primarily aimed at improving the quality of reporting of efficacy, only 1 checklist item specifically addressed the reporting of safety. Considerable evidence suggests that reporting of harms-related data from RCTs also needs improvement. Members of the CONSORT Group, including journal editors and scientists, met in Montebello, Quebec, Canada, in May 2003 to address this problem. The result is the following document: the standard CONSORT checklist with 10 new recommendations about reporting harms-related issues, accompanying explanation, and examples to highlight specific aspects of proper reporting. We hope that this document, in conjunction with other CONSORT-related materials (http://www.consort-statement.org), will help authors improve their reporting of harms-related data from RCTs. Better reporting will help readers critically appraise and interpret trial results. Journals can support this goal by revising Instructions to Authors so that they refer authors to this document.