Objective To evaluate the efficacy and relative adverse effects of tricyclic antidepressants in the treatment of migraine, tension-type, and mixed headaches. Design Meta-analysis. Data sources Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Trials Registry, and PsycLIT. Studies reviewed Randomised trials of adults receiving tricyclics as only treatment for a minimum of four weeks. Data extraction Frequency of headaches (number of headache attacks for migraine and number of days with headache for tension-type headaches), intensity of headache, and headache index. Results 37 studies met the inclusion criteria. Tricyclics significantly reduced the number of days with tension-type headache and number of headache attacks from migraine than placebo (average standardised mean difference −1.29, 95% confidence interval −2.18 to −0.39 and −0.70, −0.93 to −0.48) but not compared with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (−0.80, −2.63 to 0.02 and −0.20, −0.60 to 0.19). The effect of tricyclics increased with longer duration of treatment (β=−0.11, 95% confidence interval −0.63 to −0.15; P<0.0005). Tricyclics were also more likely to reduce the intensity of headaches by at least 50% than either placebo (tension-type: relative risk 1.41, 95% confidence interval 1
Background Childhood migraines are a common source of morbidity. Purpose To assess the comparative effectiveness and side effects of migraine prophylactic medications in children. Data Sources PUBMED, EMBASE, Cochrane Trial Registry, bibliography of retrieved articles through 25 April 2012. Study Selection Randomized trials of children with migraine headaches. Data Extraction Extracted independently in duplicate, including quality (JADAD, Cochrane Risk of Bias). We pooled headache frequency per month using random effects methods. Data Synthesis Among 21 included trials, there were 13 placebo controlled and 11 comparative effectiveness trials (3 included placebo arms. Drugs more effective than placebo for episodic migraines (<15 headaches/month) included topiramate (−0.71 headaches/month, 95 % CI: −1.19 to −0.24, Q= 1.58, df=1, I2=0.0%) and trazodone (−0.60 headache/month, 95% CI: −1.09 to −0.11, 1 study, Figure 2). Ineffective drugs included clonidine, flunarizine, pizotifen, propranolol and valproate. A single trial of fluoxetine for chronic daily headaches found it ineffective. Patients given placebo experienced a significant (p=0.027) decline in headaches from 5.6 (95% CI: 4.52–6.77 Q=8.14, df=8, I2=1.7%) to 2.9 headaches/month (95% CI: 1.66–4.08, Q-4.72, df=10, I2=0.0%). Among the 10 comparative effectiveness trials, flunarizine was more effective than piracetam (−2.2 headaches/month, 9 CI: −3.93 to −0.47), but no better than aspirin, dihydroergotamine, and propranolol. Propranolol was compared to valproate as well as behavioral treatment and two studies compared different doses of topiramate; none of these trials showed a significant difference. Limitations Few trials, lack of patient level data, changing definitions of migraine over time, few comparative effectiveness trials. Conclusion Topiramate and trazodone have limited evidence supporting efficacy for episodic migraines. Placebo was effective in reducing headaches. Other commonly used drugs have no evidence supporting their use in children. Research in pediatric headaches is needed.
Background and objective The clinical note documents the clinician's information collection, problem assessment, clinical management, and its used for administrative purposes. Electronic health records (EHRs) are being implemented in clinical practices throughout the USA yet it is not known whether they improve the quality of clinical notes. The goal in this study was to determine if EHRs improve the quality of outpatient clinical notes.Materials and methods A five and a half year longitudinal retrospective multicenter quantitative study comparing the quality of handwritten and electronic outpatient clinical visit notes for 100 patients with type 2 diabetes at three time points: 6 months prior to the introduction of the EHR (before-EHR), 6 months after the introduction of the EHR (after-EHR), and 5 years after the introduction of the EHR (5-year-EHR). QNOTE, a validated quantitative instrument, was used to assess the quality of outpatient clinical notes. Its scores can range from a low of 0 to a high of 100. Sixteen primary care physicians with active practices used QNOTE to determine the quality of the 300 patient notes.Results The before-EHR, after-EHR, and 5-year-EHR grand mean scores (SD) were 52.0 (18.4), 61.2 (16.3), and 80.4 (8.9), respectively, and the change in scores for before-EHR to after-EHR and before-EHR to 5-year-EHR were 18% (p<0.0001) and 55% (p<0.0001), respectively. All the element and grand mean quality scores significantly improved over the 5-year time interval.Conclusions The EHR significantly improved the overall quality of the outpatient clinical note and the quality of all its elements, including the core and non-core elements. To our knowledge, this is the first study to demonstrate that the EHR significantly improves the quality of clinical notes.
Background and objectiveThe outpatient clinical note documents the clinician's information collection, problem assessment, and patient management, yet there is currently no validated instrument to measure the quality of the electronic clinical note. This study evaluated the validity of the QNOTE instrument, which assesses 12 elements in the clinical note, for measuring the quality of clinical notes. It also compared its performance with a global instrument that assesses the clinical note as a whole.Materials and methodsRetrospective multicenter blinded study of the clinical notes of 100 outpatients with type 2 diabetes mellitus who had been seen in clinic on at least three occasions. The 300 notes were rated by eight general internal medicine and eight family medicine practicing physicians. The QNOTE instrument scored the quality of the note as the sum of a set of 12 note element scores, and its inter-rater agreement was measured by the intraclass correlation coefficient. The Global instrument scored the note in its entirety, and its inter-rater agreement was measured by the Fleiss κ.ResultsThe overall QNOTE inter-rater agreement was 0.82 (CI 0.80 to 0.84), and its note quality score was 65 (CI 64 to 66). The Global inter-rater agreement was 0.24 (CI 0.19 to 0.29), and its note quality score was 52 (CI 49 to 55). The QNOTE quality scores were consistent, and the overall QNOTE score was significantly higher than the overall Global score (p=0.04).ConclusionsWe found the QNOTE to be a valid instrument for evaluating the quality of electronic clinical notes, and its performance was superior to that of the Global instrument.
Objective To assess whether an intervention to help patients prioritize goals for their visit would improve patient-provider communication and clinical outcomes.Design Randomized controlled pilot study. Setting Primary care clinic.Participants There were 120 adult hypertensive patients enrolled.Intervention Patients were randomized to receive either usual care or a previsit patient activation card developed through a series of focus groups that prompted patients to articulate their needs and set priorities for their clinic visit. Encounters were audiorecorded, transcribed, and assessed using duplicate ratings of patient activation and decision making. Main outcome measuresThe primary outcome was change in medication adherence as measured by pill count at 4 and 12 weeks after the initial visit. Secondary outcomes evaluated patient-provider interaction quality (patient satisfaction, patient activation, shared decision making, patient trust, and physicians' perceived difficulty of the encounter), functional status, and blood pressure control. ResultsOf the 120 enrolled patients, 106 completed the baseline visit (mean age of 66 years, 53% women, 57% Black, 36% White). Participants had multiple comorbidities (median number of medications = 8). During the visit, there was greater patient activation in the intervention arm than in the control arm (4.4 vs 3.8, P = .047; ratings were based on a scale from 1 to 10). However, after the visit there were no differences in medication adherence (4 weeks: 45.8% vs 49.5%; 12 weeks: 49.4% vs 51.1%), blood pressure control (4 weeks: 133/78 mm Hg vs 131/77 mm Hg; 12 weeks: 129/77 mm Hg vs 129/76 mm Hg), or encounter satisfaction (78.6% vs 73.8% fully satisfied; P = .63). There were also no differences in shared decision making, patients' trust, or perceived difficulty of the encounter. ConclusionA single previsit tool designed to prompt patients to set a prioritized agenda improved patient activation during the visit, but did not affect the quality of the interaction or postvisit patient-centred outcomes. Editor's key points A single, previsit tool designed to prompt patients to assert a prioritized agenda slightly improved patient activation during the visit, but did not affect other patientcentred outcomes. Simple, patient-targeted tools for improving agenda setting and patient-provider interactions, while able to slightly increase patient activation, are insufficient to make a clinically significant difference on relevant patient outcomes. More robust patient and physician interventions could optimize communication in ways that improve outcomes.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.