SEARCH · PubMed Health
Explore indexed PubMed citations for clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health research. Read source abstracts and follow each citation to its original PubMed record.
Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.
A joint policy statement on the resuscitation of patients is published in this issue of CMAJ. Dr. John Williams, the CMA's director of ethics and legal affairs, discusses how it differs from the joint statement published last year.
This paper is the written version of the conference that under the same title was presented in the XXX Congreso Nacional de la Sociedad Española de Cardiología. In the paper, the use of the most recent antihypertensive drugs is advocated as first line therapy. The defence is based in cardiac and non cardiac considerations. Among the former, there are certain advantages of the new drugs in areas as regression of left ventricular hypertrophy and improvement of coronary flow and coronary reserve. Among the non cardiac considerations there are some metabolic factors (non adverse effect on the lipid profile), as well as a positive effect on some endocrine-metabolic cascades like the insulin-resistance syndrome and a very important role in certain special situations as coexistence with other diseases and individual characteristics of the patient (pregnancy or elderly for example).
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study was to examine the appropriateness ratings for the use of spinal manipulation for low back pain of a multidisciplinary panel of medical and chiropractic physicians, and those of a panel composed only of chiropractic physicians. DATA SOURCES: The study analyzed data from two consensus panels conducted at RAND in 1990 and 1991. STUDY DESIGN: The study design followed that of the traditional RAND consensus panels. Nine individuals comprised each panel, and each panelist was asked to rate, on a nine-point scale, the indications for spinal manipulation twice, the first time alone and the second time jointly with the panel. DATA COLLECTION: The ratings of the panelists from both groups, for both round one and round two, were collated and compared. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: While both panels were more likely to rate the indications as inappropriate than appropriate, the single disciplinary panel was more likely to rate an indication as appropriate than the multidisciplinary panel. CONCLUSION: The composition of a panel clearly influences the ratings and those who use a given procedure in practice, in this case manipulation, are more likely to rate it as appropriate than those who do not use the procedure.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
The authors evaluated the reproducibility of a clinical algorithm consensus development process across three different physician panels at a health maintenance organization. Physician groups were composed of primary care internists, who were provided with identical selections from the medical literature and first-draft "seed" algorithms on the management of two common clinical problems: acute sinusitis and dyspepsia. Each panel used nominal group process and a modified Delphi method to create final algorithm drafts. To compare the clinical logic in the final algorithms, the authors applied a new qualitative and quantitative comparison method, the Clinical Algorithm Patient Abstraction (CAPA). Dyspepsia algorithms from all physician groups recommended empiric anti-acid therapy for most patients, favored endoscopy over barium swallow, and had very similar indications for endoscopy. The average CAPA comparison score among final physician algorithms was 6.1 on a scale of 0 (different) to 10 (identical). Sinusitis algorithms from all groups proposed empiric antibiotic therapy for most patients. Indications for sinus radiographs were similar between two algorithms (CAPA = 4.9), but differed significantly in the third, resulting in lower CAPA scores (average CAPA = 1.9, P < 0.03). The clinical similarity of the algorithms produced by these physician panels suggests a high level of reproducibility in this consensus-driven algorithm development process. However, the difference among the sinusitis algorithms suggests that physician consensus groups using a consensus process that a health maintenance organization can do with limited resources will produce some guidelines that vary due to differences in interpretation of evidence and physician experience.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Building consensus for nephrology nursing practice was the theme for the American Nephrology Nurses' Association's (ANNA's) 1994 Clinical Concerns Meetings in Chicago and LaJolla, California respectively. This article emphasizes the importance of consensus building, traditional approaches to consensus conferences, and the inherent risks in conducting such a conference. Additionally, the consensus conference design and steps leading to a final working document are presented by members of the Clinical Concerns Planning Committee.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.