Dataset Information

Antibiotics and facial fractures: evidence-based recommendations compared with experience-based practice.

ABSTRACT: Efficacy of prophylactic antibiotics in craniofacial fracture management is controversial. The purpose of this study was to compare evidence-based literature recommendations regarding antibiotic prophylaxis in facial fracture management with expert-based practice. A systematic review of the literature was performed to identify published studies evaluating pre-, peri-, and postoperative efficacy of antibiotics in facial fracture management by facial third. Study level of evidence was assessed according to the American Society of Plastic Surgery criteria, and graded practice recommendations were made based on these assessments. Expert opinions were garnered during the Advanced Orbital Surgery Symposium in the form of surveys evaluating senior surgeon clinical antibiotic prescribing practices by time point and facial third. A total of 44 studies addressing antibiotic prophylaxis and facial fracture management were identified. Overall, studies were of poor quality, precluding formal quantitative analysis. Studies supported the use of perioperative antibiotics in all facial thirds, and preoperative antibiotics in comminuted mandible fractures. Postoperative antibiotics were not supported in any facial third. Survey respondents (n = 17) cumulatively reported their antibiotic prescribing practices over 286 practice years and 24,012 facial fracture cases. Percentages of prescribers administering pre-, intra-, and postoperative antibiotics, respectively, by facial third were as follows: upper face 47.1, 94.1, 70.6; midface 47.1, 100, 70.6%; and mandible 68.8, 94.1, 64.7%. Preoperative but not postoperative antibiotic use is recommended for comminuted mandible fractures. Frequent use of pre- and postoperative antibiotics in upper and midface fractures is not supported by literature recommendations, but with low-level evidence. Higher level studies may better guide clinical antibiotic prescribing practices.

SUBMITTER: Mundinger GS

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4329036 | biostudies-other | 2015 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundImplementation of evidence-based practice in clinical practice is crucial. Nurses and midwives play a vital role in using updated evidence. However, limited support and barriers to implementing evidence-based practice hamper the use of up-to-date evidence in clinical decision-making practice. Therefore, this study aimed to explore the implementation of evidence-based practice of nurses and midwives working in public hospitals.MethodsA qualitative descriptive study was conducted to explore the experience of implementing evidence-based practice among nurses and midwives working in public hospitals. A total of 86 participants, of which, 25 in-depth interviews, 5 FGDs having 47 participants and 14 participants were involved during observations, were considered in Amhara Region public hospitals from November 17, 2019 to April 25, 2020. The observational data, interview and FGD transcripts were imported into NVivo 12 plus to manage and analyze the data using the Computer-Assisted Data Analysis Software Program (CAQDAS). The data were analyzed through thematic content analysis.ResultsNurses and midwives perceived that implementation of evidence-based practice is the use of research findings, guidelines, hospital protocols, books, and expert experience in clinical decision-making practice. However, there was limited support for the implementation of evidence-based practice by nurses and midwives. The lack of knowledge and skill to use evidence like research findings, time mismanagement, the lack of motivation, the lack of resources and training were the perceived barriers to the implementation of evidence-based practice. Stick to the traditional practice due to lack of incentive and unclear job description between diploma and BSc nurses and midwives were the perceived causes of the lack of motivation.ConclusionsThe experience of evidence-based practice of nurses and midwives indicated that there was limited support for the implementation of evidence-based practice. However, research findings were rarely used in clinical decision-making practice The Knowledge, attitude towards implementing evidence-based practice, lack of resources and training, time mismanagement and lack of motivation were the barriers to the implementation of evidence-based practice. Therefore, the promotion of adopting the implementation of evidence-based practice and training on the identified barriers are mandatory.

Project description:BackgroundAccurate diagnosis is a fundamental aspect of appropriate healthcare. However, clinicians need guidance when implementing diagnostic tests given the number of tests available and resource constraints in healthcare. Practitioners of health often feel compelled to implement recommendations in guidelines, including recommendations about the use of diagnostic tests. However, the understanding about diagnostic tests by guideline panels and the methodology for developing recommendations is far from completely explored. Therefore, we evaluated the factors that guideline developers and users need to consider for the development of implementable recommendations about diagnostic tests.MethodsUsing a critical analysis of the process, we present the results of a case study using the Grading of Recommendations Applicability, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to develop a clinical practice guideline for the diagnosis of Cow Milk Allergy with the World Allergy Organization.ResultsTo ensure that guideline panels can develop informed recommendations about diagnostic tests, it appears that more emphasis needs to be placed on group processes, including question formulation, defining patient-important outcomes for diagnostic tests, and summarizing evidence. Explicit consideration of concepts of diagnosis from evidence-based medicine, such as pre-test probability and treatment threshold, is required to facilitate the work of a guideline panel and to formulate implementable recommendations.DiscussionThis case study provides useful guidance for guideline developers and clinicians about what they ought to demand from clinical practice guidelines to facilitate implementation and strengthen confidence in recommendations about diagnostic tests. Applying a structured framework like the GRADE approach with its requirement for transparency in the description of the evidence and factors that influence recommendations facilitates laying out the process and decision factors that are required for the development, interpretation, and implementation of recommendations about diagnostic tests.

Project description:The 2019 novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) is a highly contagious zoonosis produced by SARS-CoV-2 that is spread human-to-human by respiratory secretions. It was declared by the WHO as a public health emergency. The most susceptible populations, needing mechanical ventilation, are the elderly and people with associated comorbidities. There is an important risk of contagion for anesthetists, dentists, head and neck surgeons, maxillofacial surgeons, ophthalmologists, and otolaryngologists. Health workers represent between 3.8% and 20% of the infected population; some 15% will develop severe complaints and among them, many will lose their lives. A large number of patients do not have overt signs and symptoms (fever/respiratory), yet pose a real risk to surgeons (who should know this fact and must therefore apply respiratory protective strategies for all patients they encounter). All interventions that have the potential to aerosolize aerodigestive secretions should be avoided or used only when mandatory. Health workers who are: pregnant, over 55 to 65?years of age, with a history of chronic diseases (uncontrolled hypertension, diabetes mellitus, chronic obstructive pulmonary diseases, and all clinical scenarios where immunosuppression is feasible, including that induced to treat chronic inflammatory conditions and organ transplants) should avoid the clinical attention of a potentially infected patient. Health care facilities should prioritize urgent and emergency visits and procedures until the present condition stabilizes; truly elective care should cease and discussed on a case-by-case basis for patients with cancer. For those who are working with COVID-19 infected patients' isolation is compulsory in the following settings: (a) unprotected close contact with COVID-19 pneumonia patients; (b) onset of fever, cough, shortness of breath, and other symptoms (gastrointestinal complaints, anosmia, and dysgeusia have been reported in a minority of cases). For any care or intervention in the upper aerodigestive tract region, irrespective of the setting and a confirmed diagnosis (eg, rhinoscopy or flexible laryngoscopy in the outpatient setting and tracheostomy or rigid endoscopy under anesthesia), it is strongly recommended that all health care personnel wear personal protective equipment such as N95, gown, cap, eye protection, and gloves. The procedures described are essential in trying to maintain safety of health care workers during COVID-19 pandemic. In particular, otolaryngologists, head and neck, and maxillofacial surgeons are per se exposed to the greatest risk of infection while caring for COVID-19 positive subjects, and their protection should be considered a priority in the present circumstances.

Dataset Information

Antibiotics and facial fractures: evidence-based recommendations compared with experience-based practice.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets