No abstract

The clinical significance of studies on survival predictors in terminal cancer patients is hindered by both methodological limitations and the difficulty of finding common predictors for all final events in cancer related deaths. To evaluate the published medical literature concerned with the survival of patients with terminal cancer and identify potential prognostic factors, major electronic databases including MEDLINE (1966-), CANCERLIT (1983-) and EMBASE (1988-) were searched up to September 1999. Studies were included in our review if published in English, were cohort studies, addressed the identification of clinical prognostic factors for survival and looked at samples with median survival of < or = 3 months. Data extracted from selected papers included: sample size, median survival, type of study, sampling frame, cohort type, type of statistical analysis (univariate or multivariate), choice of models and underlying assumptions, predictors examined and their reported level of statistical significance. A total of 24 studies were found and reviewed. On the basis of these studies, performance status and the presence of cognitive failure, weight loss, dysphagia, anorexia and dyspnoea appear to be independent survival predictors in this population. Clinical estimation of survival by the treating physician appeared independently associated with survival but the magnitude of the association generally appeared small. Clinical predictions should be considered as one of many criteria, rather than as a unique criterion by which to choose therapeutic interventions or health care programmes for terminally ill cancer patients. The use of convenient samples as opposed to more representative inception cohorts, the inclusion of different variables in the statistical analyses and inappropriate statistical methods appear to be major limitations of the reviewed literature. Methodological improvements in the design and conduction of future studies may reduce the prognostic uncertainty in this population.

Objective To synthesise the literature on the effects of fish oil-docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) and eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA)-on mortality and arrhythmias and to explore dose response and formulation effects. Data extraction The primary outcomes of interest were the arrhythmic end points of appropriate implantable cardiac defibrillator intervention and sudden cardiac death. The secondary outcomes were all cause mortality and death from cardiac causes. Subgroup analyses included the effect of formulations of EPA and DHA on death from cardiac causes and effects of fish oil in patients with coronary artery disease or myocardial infarction. Data synthesis 12 studies totalling 32 779 patients met the inclusion criteria. A neutral effect was reported in three studies (n=1148) for appropriate implantable cardiac defibrillator intervention (odds ratio 0.90, 95% confidence interval 0.55 to 1.46) and in six studies (n=31 111) for sudden cardiac death (0.81, 0.52 to 1.25). 11 studies (n=32 439 and n=32 519) provided data on the effects of fish oil on all cause mortality (0.92, 0.82 to 1.03) and a reduction in deaths from cardiac causes (0.80, 0.69 to 0.92). The dose-response relation for DHA and EPA on reduction in deaths from cardiac causes was not significant. Conclusions Fish oil supplementation was associated with a significant reduction in deaths from cardiac causes but had no effect on arrhythmias or all cause mortality. Evidence to recommend an optimal formulation of EPA or DHA to reduce these outcomes is insufficient. Fish oils are a heterogeneous product, and the optimal formulations for DHA and EPA remain unclear.

Every couple of decades governments decide that they need to involve citizens more in public decision-making processes. The significant changes that have occurred over the past decade, including a growing loss of faith in the traditional institutions of government, have once again prompted political decision-makers to explore options for enhanced citizen participation. In the health care sector, reforms occurring during the 1990s were couched in terms such as "enhanced responsiveness," "improved accountability," and "increased citizen participation." In the new millennium, governments and regional health authorities have been relatively silent on this issue. As has been the case in the past, a wide range of opinions exist about what citizen participation is and how governments should proceed. Without either conceptual clarity or practical direction, governments have been slow to articulate what they hope to achieve or how they intend to get there. The purpose of this paper is to examine the concept of citizen participation within the context of a series of basic questions from which decision-makers might draw some policy relevance. Rather than taking a particular disciplinary perspective (i.e. health promotion), the authors have chosen to review a broad spectrum of existing literature to provide a better understanding of what is known about citizen participation, both good and bad. As such, the paper is meant to be a point of departure for an informed discussion of the possibilities for improved citizen participation in health (care) decision-making.