Pub Date : 2005-01-01DOI: 10.1016/S1462-9410(03)00072-X
{"title":"High-quality nutrition counselling for hypercholesterolemia by public health nurses in rural areas does not affect total blood cholesterol","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/S1462-9410(03)00072-X","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1016/S1462-9410(03)00072-X","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":100512,"journal":{"name":"Evidence-based Healthcare","volume":"7 4","pages":"187-189"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2005-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/S1462-9410(03)00072-X","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"71720835","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2004-08-01DOI: 10.1016/J.EHBC.2004.05.007
L. Hardell
{"title":"No association between mobile phone usage and development of acoustic neuroma","authors":"L. Hardell","doi":"10.1016/J.EHBC.2004.05.007","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1016/J.EHBC.2004.05.007","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":100512,"journal":{"name":"Evidence-based Healthcare","volume":"280 1","pages":"213-215"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2004-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"77897745","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2004-08-01DOI: 10.1016/J.EHBC.2004.05.004
R. Vassilopoulou-sellin
{"title":"Hormone replacement therapy is not safe for breast cancer survivors","authors":"R. Vassilopoulou-sellin","doi":"10.1016/J.EHBC.2004.05.004","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1016/J.EHBC.2004.05.004","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":100512,"journal":{"name":"Evidence-based Healthcare","volume":"11 1","pages":"224-226"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2004-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"73607736","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2004-08-01DOI: 10.1016/J.EHBC.2004.05.014
B. Crawford
{"title":"Laparoscopic hysterectomy is not cost effective compared with vaginal hysterectomy","authors":"B. Crawford","doi":"10.1016/J.EHBC.2004.05.014","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1016/J.EHBC.2004.05.014","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":100512,"journal":{"name":"Evidence-based Healthcare","volume":"71 1","pages":"197-199"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2004-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"86356505","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2004-08-01DOI: 10.1016/J.EHBC.2004.05.011
J. Cameron
{"title":"Link between diagnostic X-rays and cancer uncertain☆","authors":"J. Cameron","doi":"10.1016/J.EHBC.2004.05.011","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1016/J.EHBC.2004.05.011","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":100512,"journal":{"name":"Evidence-based Healthcare","volume":"1 1","pages":"205-206"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2004-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"73021494","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2004-08-01DOI: 10.1016/j.ehbc.2004.05.001
Victor Serebruany MD, PhD (Commentary Author)
Question
In people with diabetes and ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, is half-dose reteplase plus abciximab more effective than reteplase alone?
Study design
Secondary analysis of multicentre randomised controlled trial.
Main results
For mortality at 30 days or 1 year, there was no significant difference between groups (see Table 1). Reteplase plus abciximab significantly reduced the risk of reinfarction, or recurrent ischaemia or angina compared with reteplase alone.
Table 1 Clinical outcomes for people with diabetes and ST-segment myocardial infarction.
Reteplase alone (n=1299)
Half-dose reteplase plus abciximab (n=1334)
P value
Death within 30 days
8.8%
8.2%
0.57
Death within 1 year
13.0%
12.4%
0.64
Reinfarction
4.3%
2.5%
0.01
Recurrent ischaemia/angina
14.9%
11.8%
0.01
Authors’ conclusions
Although treatment with reteplase plus abciximab did not provide a survival benefit for people with diabetes and ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction compared with reteplase alone, nonfatal outcomes including reinfarction and recurrent ischaemia were substantially reduced.
{"title":"Retaplase plus abciximab improves non-fatal outcomes, but not overall survival in people with diabetes and acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction","authors":"Victor Serebruany MD, PhD (Commentary Author)","doi":"10.1016/j.ehbc.2004.05.001","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ehbc.2004.05.001","url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Question</h3><p>In people with diabetes and ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, is half-dose reteplase plus abciximab more effective than reteplase alone?</p></div><div><h3>Study design</h3><p>Secondary analysis of multicentre randomised controlled trial.</p></div><div><h3>Main results</h3><p>For mortality at 30 days or 1 year, there was no significant difference between groups (see Table 1). Reteplase plus abciximab significantly reduced the risk of reinfarction, or recurrent ischaemia or angina compared with reteplase alone.<span><div><div><table><tbody><tr><td><strong>Table 1</strong> Clinical outcomes for people with diabetes and ST-segment myocardial infarction.</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Reteplase alone (<em>n</em>=1299)</td><td>Half-dose reteplase plus abciximab (<em>n</em>=1334)</td><td><em>P</em> value</td></tr><tr><td>Death within 30 days</td><td>8.8%</td><td>8.2%</td><td>0.57</td></tr><tr><td>Death within 1 year</td><td>13.0%</td><td>12.4%</td><td>0.64</td></tr><tr><td>Reinfarction</td><td>4.3%</td><td>2.5%</td><td>0.01</td></tr><tr><td>Recurrent ischaemia/angina</td><td>14.9%</td><td>11.8%</td><td>0.01</td></tr></tbody></table></div></div></span></p></div><div><h3>Authors’ conclusions</h3><p>Although treatment with reteplase plus abciximab did not provide a survival benefit for people with diabetes and ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction compared with reteplase alone, nonfatal outcomes including reinfarction and recurrent ischaemia were substantially reduced.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":100512,"journal":{"name":"Evidence-based Healthcare","volume":"8 4","pages":"Pages 230-231"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2004-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.ehbc.2004.05.001","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"71823704","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2004-08-01DOI: 10.1016/j.ehbc.2004.05.005
Bor-Shyang Sheu MD (Commentary Author), Xi-Zhang Lin MD (Commentary Author)
Question
Does treating H. Pylori reduce the incidence of gastric cancer?
Study
Randomised placebo-controlled trial.
Main results
At 7.5 years, incidence of gastric cancer was not significantly different between groups (treatment: 0.86%, n=7; placebo: 1.35%, n=11; p=0.33). In people without precancerous lesions at baseline, risk of gastric cancer was significantly lower for treatment compared with placebo (incidence of gastric cancer: treatment n=0; placebo n=6; p=0.02) but there was no difference among people with precancerous lesions (n=7 and 5, respectively). Smoking (hazard ratio [HR] 6.2, 95% CI 2.3 to 16.5) and older age (HR per 1 year 1.10, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.15) were independent predictors of gastric cancer risk.
Authors’ conclusions
Incidence of gastric cancer was similar between H. pylori eradication and placebo groups over 7.5 years of follow-up. However, it was significantly reduced in a subgroup of people without precancerous lesions at baseline.
{"title":"H. pylori eradication does not reduce gastric cancer incidence in a high-risk area of China","authors":"Bor-Shyang Sheu MD (Commentary Author), Xi-Zhang Lin MD (Commentary Author)","doi":"10.1016/j.ehbc.2004.05.005","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ehbc.2004.05.005","url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Question</h3><p>Does treating <em>H. Pylori</em> reduce the incidence of gastric cancer?</p></div><div><h3>Study</h3><p>Randomised placebo-controlled trial.</p></div><div><h3>Main results</h3><p>At 7.5 years, incidence of gastric cancer was not significantly different between groups (treatment: 0.86%, <em>n=</em>7; placebo: 1.35%, <em>n</em>=11; <em>p</em>=0.33). In people without precancerous lesions at baseline, risk of gastric cancer was significantly lower for treatment compared with placebo (incidence of gastric cancer: treatment <em>n</em>=0; placebo <em>n</em>=6; <em>p</em>=0.02) but there was no difference among people with precancerous lesions (<em>n</em>=7 and 5, respectively). Smoking (hazard ratio [HR] 6.2, 95% CI 2.3 to 16.5) and older age (HR per 1 year 1.10, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.15) were independent predictors of gastric cancer risk.</p></div><div><h3>Authors’ conclusions</h3><p>Incidence of gastric cancer was similar between <em>H. pylori</em> eradication and placebo groups over 7.5 years of follow-up. However, it was significantly reduced in a subgroup of people without precancerous lesions at baseline.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":100512,"journal":{"name":"Evidence-based Healthcare","volume":"8 4","pages":"Pages 218-220"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2004-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.ehbc.2004.05.005","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"71823711","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2004-08-01DOI: 10.1016/j.ehbc.2004.05.004
Rena Vassilopoulou-Sellin MD (Commentary Author)
Question
Is hormone replacement therapy safe for women with previous breast cancer?
Study design
Randomised controlled trial (interim analysis).
Main results
In 345 women surviving breast cancer, there were more new breast cancer events in women taking HRT for menopausal symptoms compared with women receiving symptomatic treatment without hormones at a median of 2 years follow-up (absolute risk for new breast cancer: 26/174 [14%] with HRT vs 8/171 [5%] with no HRT; relative hazard 3.5, 95% CI 1.5 to 8.1).
Authors’ conclusions
In women surving breast cancer, those who received HRT for menopausal symptoms were at a higher risk of developing new breast cancers compared with those who received symptomatic treatment without hormones. These findings led to the termination of the trial.
{"title":"Hormone replacement therapy is not safe for breast cancer survivors","authors":"Rena Vassilopoulou-Sellin MD (Commentary Author)","doi":"10.1016/j.ehbc.2004.05.004","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ehbc.2004.05.004","url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Question</h3><p>Is hormone replacement therapy safe for women with previous breast cancer?</p></div><div><h3>Study design</h3><p>Randomised controlled trial (interim analysis).</p></div><div><h3>Main results</h3><p>In 345 women surviving breast cancer, there were more new breast cancer events in women taking HRT for menopausal symptoms compared with women receiving symptomatic treatment without hormones at a median of 2 years follow-up (absolute risk for new breast cancer: 26/174 [14%] with HRT vs 8/171 [5%] with no HRT; relative hazard 3.5, 95% CI 1.5 to 8.1).</p></div><div><h3>Authors’ conclusions</h3><p>In women surving breast cancer, those who received HRT for menopausal symptoms were at a higher risk of developing new breast cancers compared with those who received symptomatic treatment without hormones. These findings led to the termination of the trial.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":100512,"journal":{"name":"Evidence-based Healthcare","volume":"8 4","pages":"Pages 224-226"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2004-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.ehbc.2004.05.004","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"71823707","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2004-08-01DOI: 10.1016/j.ehbc.2004.05.018
Michael Power MB, FRCP (Commentary Author)
Question
Do post-discharge rehabilitation services change recovery after stroke?
Study design
Systematic review with meta-analysis.
Main results
Fourteen trials met inclusion criteria; 12 trials comparing therapy-based rehabilitation services were included in the meta-analysis (occupational therapy = 6 trials, physiotherapy = 2 trials and mixed services = 4 trials). At a median follow-up of 6 months, therapy-based rehabilitation services reduced the risk of deterioration in ability to undertake daily living tasks compared with control, (OR 0.72, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.92). Ability to carry out extended activities of daily living significantly improved in people undergoing therapy-based rehabilitation services compared with control (mean difference 0.17 95% CI 0.04 to 0.30). When similar categories of therapy were compared, only occupational therapy significantly reduced deterioration rate (occupational therapy: OR 0.73, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.96; physiotherapy OR 0.67, 95% CI 0.24 to 1.89; mixed services OR 0.72, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.27). Data were inconclusive with respect to mood, quality of life, need for long-term care and hospital readmission.
Authors’ conclusions
People discharged to their homes after stroke are less likely to deteriorate if therapy-based rehabilitation services are provided compared with usual care or no routine intervention.
{"title":"After a stroke, ability with daily tasks of living improves after therapy based rehabilitation services","authors":"Michael Power MB, FRCP (Commentary Author)","doi":"10.1016/j.ehbc.2004.05.018","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ehbc.2004.05.018","url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Question</h3><p>Do post-discharge rehabilitation services change recovery after stroke?</p></div><div><h3>Study design</h3><p>Systematic review with meta-analysis.</p></div><div><h3>Main results</h3><p>Fourteen trials met inclusion criteria; 12 trials comparing therapy-based rehabilitation services were included in the meta-analysis (occupational therapy = 6 trials, physiotherapy = 2 trials and mixed services = 4 trials). At a median follow-up of 6 months, therapy-based rehabilitation services reduced the risk of deterioration in ability to undertake daily living tasks compared with control, (OR 0.72, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.92). Ability to carry out extended activities of daily living significantly improved in people undergoing therapy-based rehabilitation services compared with control (mean difference 0.17 95% CI 0.04 to 0.30). When similar categories of therapy were compared, only occupational therapy significantly reduced deterioration rate (occupational therapy: OR 0.73, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.96; physiotherapy OR 0.67, 95% CI 0.24 to 1.89; mixed services OR 0.72, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.27). Data were inconclusive with respect to mood, quality of life, need for long-term care and hospital readmission.</p></div><div><h3>Authors’ conclusions</h3><p>People discharged to their homes after stroke are less likely to deteriorate if therapy-based rehabilitation services are provided compared with usual care or no routine intervention.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":100512,"journal":{"name":"Evidence-based Healthcare","volume":"8 4","pages":"Pages 188-189"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2004-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.ehbc.2004.05.018","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"71824435","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2004-08-01DOI: 10.1016/j.ehbc.2004.05.016
Peter Harvey (Commentary Author)
Question
Does continuity of care improve control of clinical risk factors in people with diabetes?
Study design
Cross-sectional community-based survey.
Main results
85.5% of participants had continuity of care (single care site and usual provider), 9.3% had a single care site but different providers, and 5.2% had no usual source of care. Good glycaemic control was more likely with continuity of care or single care site compared with no usual source of care (continuity of care: OR 4.62, 95% CI 2.02 to 10.60; single care site: OR 6.13, 95% CI 2.08 to 18.04). There were no significant differences between groups with a usual site. There was no increased likelihood of good control of blood pressure or lipid level among groups.
Authors’ conclusions
There is evidence that good glycaemic control is more likely among people whose diabetic care is provided from one site, regardless of whether it is provided by the same practitioner.
{"title":"Attending a single care site associated with improved glycaemic control in people with diabetes","authors":"Peter Harvey (Commentary Author)","doi":"10.1016/j.ehbc.2004.05.016","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ehbc.2004.05.016","url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Question</h3><p>Does continuity of care improve control of clinical risk factors in people with diabetes?</p></div><div><h3>Study design</h3><p>Cross-sectional community-based survey.</p></div><div><h3>Main results</h3><p>85.5% of participants had continuity of care (single care site and usual provider), 9.3% had a single care site but different providers, and 5.2% had no usual source of care. Good glycaemic control was more likely with continuity of care or single care site compared with no usual source of care (continuity of care: OR 4.62, 95% CI 2.02 to 10.60; single care site: OR 6.13, 95% CI 2.08 to 18.04). There were no significant differences between groups with a usual site. There was no increased likelihood of good control of blood pressure or lipid level among groups.</p></div><div><h3>Authors’ conclusions</h3><p>There is evidence that good glycaemic control is more likely among people whose diabetic care is provided from one site, regardless of whether it is provided by the same practitioner.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":100512,"journal":{"name":"Evidence-based Healthcare","volume":"8 4","pages":"Pages 192-194"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2004-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.ehbc.2004.05.016","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"71824439","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号