Dataset Information

Improving question formulation for use in evidence appraisal in a tertiary care setting: a randomised controlled trial [ISRCTN66375463].

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:The specificity of clinical questions is gauged by explicit descriptions of four dimensions: subjects, interventions, comparators and outcomes of interest. This study determined whether adding simple instructions and examples on clinical question formulation would increase the specificity of the submitted question compared to using a standard form without instructions and examples. METHODS:A randomised controlled trial was conducted in an evidence-search and appraisal service. New participants were invited to reformulate clinical queries. The Control Group was given no instructions. The Intervention Group was given a brief explanation of proper formulation, written instructions, and diagrammatic examples. The primary outcome was the change in the proportion of reformulated questions that described each the dimensions of specificity. RESULTS:Fifty-two subjects agreed to participate in the trial of which 13 were lost to follow-up. The remaining 17 Intervention Group and 22 Control Group participants were analysed. Baseline characteristics were comparable. Overall, 20% of initially submitted questions from both groups were properly specified (defined as an explicit statement describing all dimensions of specificity). On follow-up, 7/14 questions previously rated as mis-specified in the Intervention Group had all dimensions described at follow-up (p = 0.008) while the Control Group did not show any changes from baseline. Participants in the Intervention Group were also more likely to explicitly describe patients (p = 0.028), comparisons (p = 0.014), and outcomes (p = 0.008). CONCLUSIONS:This trial demonstrated the positive impact of specific instructions on the proportion of properly-specified clinical queries. The evaluation of the long-term impact of such changes is an area of continued research.

SUBMITTER: Villanueva EV

PROVIDER: S-EPMC59901 | biostudies-literature | 2001

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Improving question formulation for use in evidence appraisal in a tertiary care setting: a randomised controlled trial [ISRCTN66375463].

Villanueva E V EV Burrows E A EA Fennessy P A PA Rajendran M M Anderson J N JN

BMC medical informatics and decision making 20011108

<h4>Background</h4>The specificity of clinical questions is gauged by explicit descriptions of four dimensions: subjects, interventions, comparators and outcomes of interest. This study determined whether adding simple instructions and examples on clinical question formulation would increase the specificity of the submitted question compared to using a standard form without instructions and examples.<h4>Methods</h4>A randomised controlled trial was conducted in an evidence-search and appraisal s ...[more]

PMID: 11716797

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportancePharmacogenomic (PGx) testing provides preemptive pharmacotherapeutic guidance regarding the lack of therapeutic benefit or adverse drug reactions of PGx targeted drugs. Pharmacogenomic information is of particular value among children with complex medical conditions who receive multiple medications and are at higher risk of developing adverse drug reactions.ObjectivesTo assess the implementation outcomes of a PGx testing program comprising both a point-of-care model that examined targeted drugs and a preemptive model informed by whole-genome sequencing that evaluated a broad range of drugs for potential therapy among children in a pediatric tertiary care setting.Design, setting, and participantsThis cohort study was conducted at The Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto, Ontario, from January 2017 to September 2020. Pharmacogenomic analyses were performed among 172 children who were categorized into 2 groups: a point-of-care cohort and a preemptive cohort. The point-of-care cohort comprised 57 patients referred to the consultation clinic for planned therapy with PGx targeted drugs and/or for adverse drug reactions, including lack of therapeutic benefit, after the receipt of current or past medications. The preemptive cohort comprised 115 patients who received exploratory whole-genome sequencing-guided PGx testing for their heart conditions from the cardiac genome clinic at the Ted Rogers Centre for Heart Research.ExposuresPatients received PGx analysis of whole-genome sequencing data and/or multiplex genotyping of 6 pharmacogenes (CYP2C19, CYP2C9, CYP2D6, CYP3A5, VKORC1, and TPMT) that have established PGx clinical guidelines.Main outcomes and measuresThe number of patients for whom PGx test results warranted deviation from standard dosing regimens.ResultsA total of 172 children (mean [SD] age, 8.5 [5.6] years; 108 boys [62.8%]) were enrolled in the study. In the point-of-care cohort, a median of 2 target genes (range, 1-5 genes) were investigated per individual, with CYP2C19 being the most frequently examined; genotypes in 21 of 57 children (36.8%) were incompatible with standard treatment regimens. As expected from population allelic frequencies, among the 115 children in the whole-genome sequencing-guided preemptive cohort, 92 children (80.0%) were recommended to receive nonstandard treatment regimens for potential drug therapies based on their 6-gene pharmacogenetic profile.Conclusions and relevanceIn this cohort study, among both the point-of-care and preemptive cohorts, the multiplex PGx testing program provided dosing recommendations that deviated from standard regimens at an overall rate that was similar to the population frequencies of relevant variants.

Project description:BackgroundSelf-reported substance use is more likely to be influenced by underreporting bias compared to the biological markers. Underreporting bias or validity of self-reported substance use depends on the study population and cannot be generalized to the entire population. This study aimed to compare the validity of self-reported substance use between research setting and primary health care setting from the same source population.Methods and materialsThe population in this study included from Rafsanjan Youth Cohort Study (RYCS) and from primary care health centers. The sample from RYCS is made up 607 participants, 113 (18.62%) women and 494 (81.38%) men and sample from PHC centers is made up 522 individuals including 252 (48.28%) women and 270 (51.72%) men. We compared two groups in respect of prevalence estimates based on self-reported substance use and urine test. Then for evaluating validity of self-reported substance use in both group, the results of reference standard, urine tests, were compared with the results of self-reported drug use using measures of concordance.ResultsThe prevalence of substance use based on urine test was significantly higher in both settings compared to self-reported substance use over the past 72 h. The sensitivity of self-report substance use over the past 72 h in research setting was 39.4, 20, 10% and zero for opium, methadone, cannabis and amphetamine, respectively and in primary health care setting was 50, 20.7, 12.5% and zero for opium, methadone, cannabis and amphetamine, respectively. The level of agreement between self-reported substance use over the past 72 h and urine test indicated fair and moderate agreement for opium in both research and primary health care settings, respectively and also slight agreement for methadone and cannabis in both settings were reported. There was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of self-reported substance use. For all substances, the level of agreement increased with longer recall periods. The specificity of self-report for all substances in both groups was more than 99%.ConclusionIndividuals in primary health care setting were more likely to self-reported substance use than in research setting, but setting did not have a statistically significant effect in terms of self-reported substance use. Programs that rely on self-reported substance use may not estimate the exact prevalence of substance use in both research and primary health care settings, especially for substances that have a higher social stigma. Therefore, it is recommended that self-report and biological indicators be used for more accurate evaluation in substance use studies. It is also suggested that future epidemiological studies be performed to reduce bias of social desirability and find a method providing the highest level of privacy.

Dataset Information

Improving question formulation for use in evidence appraisal in a tertiary care setting: a randomised controlled trial [ISRCTN66375463].

Publications

Improving question formulation for use in evidence appraisal in a tertiary care setting: a randomised controlled trial [ISRCTN66375463].

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets