Context: Pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT) is strongly recommended for the management of mild to moderate urinary incontinence (UI) in women, yet the specific elements of PFMT that lead to improvement have not been identified. This gap in knowledge may be related, at least in part, to the lack of detail provided on intervention parameters reported in randomized controlled trials (RCTs)Objective: Using three different instruments: the Consensus on Exercise Reporting Template (CERT), the template for intervention description and replication (TIDieR) checklist, and the Consensus on Therapeutic Exercise Training (CONTENT) scale, the purpose of this study was to assess the completeness of exercise reporting among moderate to high quality RCTs on PFMT for women with UI.Methods: Two raters independently scored all 65 RCTs (n = 65) retrieved by the most up-to-date Cochrane Systematic Review on PFMT for women with UI, and only those of moderate to high quality (>6 on the PEDro scale) were retained. Eighteen articles met the inclusion criteria and were scored by two independent reviewers using the CERT, TIDieR, and CONTENT instruments.The completeness of intervention reporting was evaluated using descriptive statistics. Results: Over half of the items on each instrument were reported less than 50% of the time. Overall, completeness of exercise reporting was 31% (5.8/16 ± 2.4) on CERT, 47% (5.6/12 ± 1.5) on TIDieR, and 46% (4.1/9 ± 1) on CONTENT. The least frequently reported items were the provider of the intervention, the equipment used, the tailoring of exercises, the rationale behind the intervention, and adherence to the intervention.Conclusion: PFMT parameters are not adequately reported in the primary RCTs that currently guide clinical practice. K E Y W O R D SCERT, CONTENT, exercise reporting, pelvic floor muscle training, TIDieR, urinary incontinence
Background Total hip and knee arthroplasty are a highly performed surgery; however, patient satisfaction with surgery results and patient involvement in the decision-making process remains low. Patient decision aids (PtDAs) are tools used in clinical practices to facilitate active patient involvement in healthcare decision-making. Nonetheless, PtDA effects have not been systematically evaluated for hip and knee total joint arthroplasty (TJA) decision-making. The aim of this systematic review is to determine the effect of patient decision aids compared to alternative of care on quality and process of decision-making when provided to adults with hip and knee osteoarthritis considering primary elective TJA. Methods This systematic review will follow the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews. This protocol was reported based on the PRISMA-P checklist guidelines. Studies will be searched in CINAHL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and Web of Science. Eligible studies will be randomized control trial (RCT) evaluating the effect of PtDA on TJA decision-making. Descriptive and meta-analysis of outcomes will include decision quality (knowledge and values-based choice), decisional conflict, patient involvement, decision-making process satisfaction, actual decision made, health outcomes, and harm(s). Risk of bias will be evaluated with Cochrane’s risk of bias tool for RCTs. Quality and strength of recommendations will be appraised with Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). Discussion This review will provide a summary of RCT findings on PtDA effect on decision-making quality and process of adults with knee and hip osteoarthritis considering primary elective TJA. Further, it will provide evidence comparing different types of PtDA used for TJA decision-making. This review is expected to inform further research on joint replacement decision-making quality and processes and on ways PtDAs facilitate shared decision-making for orthopedic surgery. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42020171334
Objectif : produire une traduction en français canadien de l’AMSTAR 2, en affirmer la validité de contenu et en examiner la fidélité interjuges. Méthodologie : selon une approche adaptée de celle proposée par Vallerand, des traductions directes et renversées ont été effectuées. Ensuite, en examinant les traductions, un premier comité d’experts a créé la version expérimentale préliminaire. Celle-ci a été modifiée par un deuxième comité d’experts. Vingt futurs professionnels de la santé ont évalué la nouvelle version avec une échelle d’ambiguïté (de 1 à 7). Les cochercheurs principaux ont examiné les éléments problématiques pour affermir la version préofficielle. Afin d’assurer la validité de contenu, une dernière rétrotraduction a été effectuée, validant une version officielle. Ensuite, 4 juges ont évalué 13 revues systématiques publiées en français à l’aide de la version officielle. Le coefficient kappa a été utilisé afin d’examiner la fidélité interjuges. Résultats : cette adaptation a permis la création d’une version franco-canadienne de l’AMSTAR 2. Son utilisation a démontré très peu d’ambiguïté (moyenne 1,15; ÉT 0,26) et une bonne fidélité interjuges (Kappa global > 0,64). Conclusion : la version franco-canadienne de l’AMSTAR 2 pourrait servir de soutien aux cliniciens, aux éducateurs et aux gestionnaires francophones au Canada lorsqu’ils cherchent à adopter une pratique factuelle.
RationalThe Hawker appropriateness criteria for total knee arthroplasty (TKA) are: osteoarthritis symptoms impacting quality of life, evidence of osteoarthritis, trial of conservative treatments, patient's realistic expectations, patient/surgeon agree benefits outweigh risks, and readiness for surgery. Little is known about the barriers and facilitators of using the Hawker et al. appropriateness criteria for TKA in clinical practice.Aims and ObjectivesExplore the barriers and facilitators to using appropriateness criteria for TKA in making decisions for adults with knee osteoarthritis.MethodsInterpretive descriptive qualitative study at an academic hospital. Purposive sampling aimed to recruit: (1) healthcare team members at all levels influencing care delivery, and (2) adults with TKA assessed at the hospital clinic. Semi‐structured interviews asked about the barriers/facilitators to using the Hawker appropriateness criteria. Data analysis consisted of inductive thematic analysis with themes mapped to the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research domains.ResultsNine healthcare professionals and 14 adults with TKA participated and identified common barriers to using the Hawker appropriateness criteria: (a) intervention characteristics domain: difficulty to assess criteria, patients expecting healthcare professionals to decide, limited accessibility to conservative treatments; (b) individuals characteristics domain: no need to change current TKA process, clinical judgement limited to OA severity/age, implicit assessment of subjective criteria; (c) inner setting domain: TKA information received after decision made; and (d) outer setting domain: no timely access to TKA. A facilitator of use was evidence/buy‐in fosters programme changes.ConclusionBarriers to using the criteria relevant to clinical practice and the healthcare system were identified while only one facilitator was revealed. Interventions tailored to these barriers are needed to support the use of the Hawker appropriateness criteria in TKA decision‐making.
Introduction: The Canadian C-Spine rule (CCR) was validated for use by paramedics to selectively immobilize stable trauma patients. However, the CCR “Dangerous Mechanism” is highly prevalent in sports. Our objective was to compare the CCR performance in sport-related vs. non-sport-related injuries and describe sport-related mechanisms of injury. Methods: We reviewed data from the prospective paramedic CCR validation and implementation studies in 7 Canadian cities, which already included identification of sport-related injuries. A single trained reviewer further categorized mechanisms of injury using a pilot-tested standardized form, with the aid of a sport medicine physician in 15 ambiguous cases. We compared the CCR's recommendation to immobilize sport-injured versus non-sport-injured patients using chi-square and relative risk statistics with 95% confidence intervals. Results: There were 201 amateur sport-injuries among the 5,978 patients. Sport-injured patients were younger (mean age 36.2 vs. 42.4) and more predominantly male (60.5% vs 46.8%) than non-sport-injured patients. Paramedics did not miss any c-spine injuries when using the CCR. Although cervical spine injury rates were similar between sport (2/201; 1.0%) and non-sport injured patients (47/5,777; 0.8%), the absolute number of sport-related injuries was very small. Although CCR recommended immobilization equally between the two groups (46.4% vs 42.5% p = 0.29; RR 1.17 95%CI 0.87-1.57), the reason for immobilization was more likely to be a dangerous mechanism in sport injuries (68.6% vs 54.5%, p = 0.012). Although we observed a wide range of mechanisms, the most common dangerous mechanism responsible for immobilization in sport was axial load. Conclusion: The CCR identified all significant c-spine injuries in a cohort of patients assessed and transported by paramedics. Although an equal proportion of sport and non-sports related injuries were immobilized, a dangerous mechanism was most often responsible for immobilization in sport-related cases. These findings do not address the potential impact of using the CCR to evaluate all sport-related injuries in collegiate or pro athletes evaluated by sport medicine therapists and physicians, as these patients are rarely assessed by paramedics or transported to a hospital. It does support the safety and benefit of using the CCR in sport-injured patients for which paramedics are called.
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.