Background Asthma is one of the most frequent reasons children visit a general practitioner (GP). The diagnosis of childhood asthma is challenging, and a variety of diagnostic tests for asthma exist. GPs may refer to clinical practice guidelines when deciding which tests, if any, are appropriate, but the quality of these guidelines is unknown. Objectives To determine (i) the methodological quality and reporting of paediatric guidelines for the diagnosis of childhood asthma in primary care, and (ii) the strength of evidence supporting diagnostic test recommendations. Design Meta-epidemiological study of English-language guidelines from the United Kingdom and other high-income countries with comparable primary care systems including diagnostic testing recommendations for childhood asthma in primary care. The AGREE-II tool was used to assess the quality and reporting of the guidelines. The quality of the evidence was assessed using GRADE. Results Eleven guidelines met the eligibility criteria. The methodology and reporting quality varied across the AGREE II domains (median score 4.5 out of 7, range 2–6). The quality of evidence supporting diagnostic recommendations was generally of very low quality. All guidelines recommended the use of spirometry and reversibility testing for children aged ≥5 years, however, the recommended spirometry thresholds for diagnosis differed across guidelines. There were disagreements in testing recommendations for 3 of the 7 included tests. Conclusions The variable quality of guidelines, lack of good quality evidence, and inconsistent recommendations for diagnostic tests may contribute to poor clinician adherence to guidelines and variation in testing for diagnosing childhood asthma.
The volume fraction (VF) of a given brain region, or the proper mass, ought to reflect the importance of that region in the life of a given species. This study sought to examine the VF of various brain regions across 61 different species of mammals to discern if there were regularities or differences among mammalian orders. We examined the brains of carnivores (n = 17), ungulates (n = 8), rodents (n = 7), primates (n = 11), and other mammals (n = 18) from the online collections at the National Museum of Health and Medicine. We measured and obtained the VF of several brain regions: the striatum, thalamus, neocortex, cerebellum, hippocampus, and piriform area. We refined our analyses by using phylogenetic size correction, yielding the corrected (c)VF. Our groups showed marked differences in gross brain architecture. Primates and carnivores were divergent in some measures, particularly the cVF of the striatum, even though their overall brain size range was roughly the same. Rodents predictably had relatively large cVFs of subcortical structures due to the fact that their neocortical cVF was smaller, particularly when compared to primates. Not so predictably, rodents had the largest cerebellar cVF, and there were marked discrepancies in cerebellar data across groups. Ungulates had a larger piriform area than primates, perhaps due to their olfactory processing abilities. We provide interpretations of our results in the light of the comparative behavioral and neuroanatomical literature.
Many people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) feel overburdened with the treatment and management of their illness. Although research has begun to shed light on how COPD patients experience treatment burden, most of what we know is limited to personal experiences of patients. The aim of this study is to identify and prioritise areas of treatment burden that should be discussed during the clinical encounter from the perspectives of COPD patients, carers, and respiratory physicians. Patients and Methods: Data were collected from participants using the nominal group technique. Five nominal group sessions were conducted in total (n = 31); three sessions with patients (n = 18), one with carers (n = 7) and another with respiratory physicians (pulmonologists or chest physicians) (n = 6). Each session was recorded and analyzed using thematic analysis. Results: Going beyond understanding patients' and carers' experiences of treatment burden, this study offers a practical viewpoint of what should be discussed in a clinical encounter. Each group of participants contextualized treatment burden issues for discussion from their own perspectives. There was strong agreement, however, across the groups that difficulties accessing healthcare, lack of education and information, and worry about COPD treatment and prognosis were the most important treatment burden priorities for discussion. Conclusion: Understanding and creating opportunities to discuss these issues in a clinical encounter is important in not only reducing treatment burden but also improving health outcomes and quality of life for COPD patients and their carers.
AimTo determine the quality of paediatric guidelines relevant to diagnosis of three of the most common conditions in primary care: fever, gastroenteritis and constipation.MethodsWe undertook a meta‐epidemiological study of paediatric guidelines for fever, gastroenteritis and gastroenteritis. We systematically searched MEDLINE, Embase, Trip Database, Guidelines International Network, the National Guideline Clearinghouse and WHO from February 2011 to September 2022 for guidelines from high‐income settings containing diagnostic recommendations. We assessed the quality of guideline reporting for included guidelines using the AGREE II tool.ResultsWe included 16 guidelines: fever (n = 7); constipation (n = 4) and gastroenteritis (n = 5). The overall quality across the three conditions was graded moderate (median AGREE II score 4.5/7, range 2.5–6.5) with constipation guidelines rated the highest (median 6/7), and fever rated the lowest (median 3.8/7). Major methodological weaknesses included consideration of guideline applicability. Half of the guidelines did not report involving parent representatives, and 56% did not adequately declare or address their competing interests.ConclusionsSubstantial variations exist in the quality of paediatric guidelines related to the diagnosis of primary care presentations. Better quality guidance is needed for general practitioners to improve diagnosis for children in primary care.
To identify and rank areas of treatment burden in chronic heart failure (CHF), including solutions, that should be discussed during the clinical encounter from a patient, and doctors' perspective. Patients and Methods: Patients with CHF and clinicians managing heart failure were invited. Nominal group technique sessions held either face to face or online in 2021-2022, with individual identification of priorities and voting on ranking. Results: Four patient groups (N=22) and one doctor group (N=5) were held. For patients with heart failure, in descending order of priority Doctor-patient communication, Inefficiencies of the healthcare system, Healthcare access issues, Cost implications of treatment, Psychosocial impacts on patients and their families, and Impact of treatment work were the most important treatment burdens. Priorities independently identified by the doctors aligned with the patients' but ranking differed. Patient solutions ranged from involvement of nurses or pharmacists to enhance understanding of discharge planning, through to linkage between health information systems, and maintaining strong family or social support networks. Doctors' solutions covered timing medicines with activities of daily living, patient education on the importance of compliance, medication reviews to overcome clinical inertia, and routine clinical audits. Conclusion:The top treatment burden priorities for CHF patients were related to interaction with clinicians and health system inefficiencies, whereas doctors were generally aware of patients' treatment burden but tended to focus on the complexity of the direct treatment work. Addressing the priority issues identified here can commence with clinicians becoming aware of the issues that matter to patients and proactively discussing feasible immediate and longer-term solutions during clinical encounters.
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.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
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.