BackgroundGreater access to evidence-based psychological treatments is needed. This review aimed to evaluate whether internet-delivered psychological treatments for mood and anxiety disorders are efficacious, noninferior to established treatments, safe, and cost-effective for children, adolescents and adults.MethodsWe searched the literature for studies published until March 2013. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were considered for the assessment of short-term efficacy and safety and were pooled in meta-analyses. Other designs were also considered for long-term effect and cost-effectiveness. Comparisons against established treatments were evaluated for noninferiority. Two reviewers independently assessed the relevant studies for risk of bias. The quality of the evidence was graded using an international grading system.ResultsA total of 52 relevant RCTs were identified whereof 12 were excluded due to high risk of bias. Five cost-effectiveness studies were identified and three were excluded due to high risk of bias. The included trials mainly evaluated internet-delivered cognitive behavioral therapy (I-CBT) against a waiting list in adult volunteers and 88% were conducted in Sweden or Australia. One trial involved children. For adults, the quality of evidence was graded as moderate for the short-term efficacy of I-CBT vs. waiting list for mild/moderate depression (d = 0.83; 95% CI 0.59, 1.07) and social phobia (d = 0.85; 95% CI 0.66, 1.05), and moderate for no efficacy of internet-delivered attention bias modification vs. sham treatment for social phobia (d = −0.04; 95% CI −0.24, 0.35). The quality of evidence was graded as low/very low for other disorders, interventions, children/adolescents, noninferiority, adverse events, and cost-effectiveness.ConclusionsI-CBT is a viable treatment option for adults with depression and some anxiety disorders who request this treatment modality. Important questions remain before broad implementation can be supported. Future research would benefit from prioritizing adapting treatments to children/adolescents and using noninferiority designs with established forms of treatment.
ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to investigate whether the acute care of frail elderly patients in a comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) unit is superior to the care in a conventional acute medical care unit.DesignThis is a clinical, prospective, randomized, controlled, one-center intervention study.SettingThis study was conducted in a large county hospital in western Sweden.ParticipantsThe study included 408 frail elderly patients, aged ≥75 years, in need of acute in-hospital treatment. The patients were allocated to the intervention group (n=206) or control group (n=202). Mean age of the patients was 85.7 years, and 56% were female.InterventionThis organizational form of care is characterized by a structured, systematic interdisciplinary CGA-based care at an acute elderly care unit.MeasurementsThe primary outcome was the change in health-related quality of life (HRQoL) 3 months after discharge from hospital, measured by the Health Utilities Index-3 (HUI-3). Secondary outcomes were all-cause mortality, rehospitalizations, and hospital care costs.ResultsAfter adjustment by regression analysis, patients in the intervention group were less likely to present with decline in HRQoL after 3 months for the following dimensions: vision (odds ratio [OR] =0.33, 95% confidence interval [CI] =0.14–0.79), ambulation (OR =0.19, 95% CI =0.1–0.37), dexterity (OR =0.38, 95% CI =0.19–0.75), emotion (OR =0.43, 95% CI =0.22–0.84), cognition (OR = 0.076, 95% CI =0.033–0.18) and pain (OR =0.28, 95% CI =0.15–0.50). Treatment in a CGA unit was independently associated with lower 3-month mortality adjusted by Cox regression analysis (hazard ratio [HR] =0.55, 95% CI =0.32–0.96), and the two groups did not differ significantly in terms of hospital care costs (P>0.05).ConclusionPatients in an acute CGA unit were less likely to present with decline in HRQoL after 3 months, and the care in a CGA unit was also independently associated with lower mortality, at no higher cost.
Aims/hypothesis The aim of the present study was to estimate the prevalence and healthcare costs of diabetic retinopathy (DR). Methods This population-based study included all residents (n=251,386) in the catchment area of the eye clinic of Linköping University Hospital, Sweden. Among patients with diabetes (n=12,026), those with and without DR were identified through register data from both the Care Data Warehouse in Östergötland, an administrative healthcare register, and the Swedish National Diabetes Register. Healthcare cost data were elicited by record linkage of these two registers to data for the year 2008 in the Cost Per Patient Database developed by Östergötland County Council. Results The prevalence of any DR was 41.8% (95% CI 38.9-44.6) for patients with type 1 diabetes and 27.9% (27.1-28.7) for patients with type 2 diabetes. Sightthreatening DR was present in 12.1% (10.2-14.0) and 5.0% (4.6-5.4) of the type 1 and type 2 diabetes populations respectively. The annual average healthcare cost of any DR was €72 (€53-91). Stratified into background retinopathy, proliferative DR, maculopathy, and the last two conditions combined, the costs were €26 (€10-42), €257 (€155-359), €216 (€113-318) and €433 (€232-635) respectively. The annual cost for DR was €106 000 per 100,000 inhabitants. Conclusions This study presents new information on the prevalence and costs of DR. Approximately one-third of patients with diabetes have some form of DR. Average healthcare costs increase considerably with the severity of DR, which suggests that preventing progression of DR may lower healthcare costs.
A comparison has been made of [(123)I]meta-iodobenzylguanidine ([(123)I]MIBG) and [(111)In]pentetreotide scintigraphy in 54 patients with a variety of neuroendocrine tumors of whom 46 patients had metastatic disease. [(111)In]Pentetreotide scintigraphy was more sensitive in detecting metastatic lesions, as demonstrated on computed tomography and/or magnetic resonance scanning, than [(123)I]MIBG: 67% vs. 50% for carcinoid tumors (n = 24), 91% vs. 9% for pancreatic islet cell tumors (n = 12), 100% vs. 60% for medullary thyroid carcinomas (n = 5), and 75% vs. 100% for pheochromocytomas/paragangliomas (n = 4). In only 2 patients were lesions seen with [(123)I]MIBG scanning that were not apparent with [(111)In]pentetreotide. With the exception of pancreatic islet cell tumors, both radionuclides exhibited a similar sensitivity in detecting hepatic metastases, whereas in three patients the two radionuclides exerted a complementary role as different deposits exhibited uptake to only 1 or the other radionuclide. Hepatic metastases were the most important clinical predictor of a positive scan for both radionuclides. Neither elevated 5-hydroxyindoleacetic acid levels nor any other hormonal marker was predictive of a positive scan. In 8 patients with clinical and/or hormonal evidence of a neuroendocrine tumor but negative conventional radiology, [(111)In]pentetreotide scintigraphy was more sensitive than [(123)I]MIBG (37.5% vs. 12.5%) in detecting lesions. In conclusion, scintigraphy with [(111)In]pentetreotide detects more metastatic lesions than [(123)I]MIBG in patients with carcinoid and pancreatic islet cell tumors and medullary thyroid carcinomas; [(123)I]MIBG scintigraphy may be more sensitive for sympathoadrenomedullary tumors. The radionuclides may exert a complementary role in the detection and treatment of neuroendocrine tumors in occasional patients, as areas of different pattern of uptake were identified within the same patient. These data have implications not only for staging such tumors, but also for identifying patients who might benefit from treatment using either [(131)I]MIBG or radioactive somatostatin analogs.
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.