| 1. |
- Baldewpersad Tewarie, N., et al.
(författare)
-
An overview of Clinical Quality Registries (CQRs) on gynecological oncology worldwide
- 2022
-
Ingår i: European Journal of Surgical Oncology. - : Elsevier BV. - 0748-7983. ; 48:10, s. 2094-2103
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- Introduction: Clinical Quality Registries (CQRs) were initiated in order to compare clinical outcomes between hospitals or regions within a country. To get an overview of these CQRs worldwide the aim of this study was to identify these CQRs for gynecological oncology and to summarize their characteristics, processes and QI's and to establish whether it is feasible to make an international comparison in the future. Methods: To identify CQRs in gynecological oncology a literature search in Pubmed was performed. All papers describing the use of a CQR were included. Administrative, epidemiological and cancer registries were excluded as these registries do not primarily serve to measure quality of care through QI's. The taskforce or contact person of the included CQR were asked to participate and share information on registered items, processes and indicators. Results: Five nations agreed to collaborate: Australia, Denmark, Italy, the Netherlands and Sweden. Denmark, Netherlands and Sweden established a nationwide registry, collecting data on multiple tumor types, and various QI's. Australia and Italy included patients with ovarian cancer only. All nations had a different process to report feedback results to participating hospitals. Conclusion: CQRs serve the same purpose to improve quality of care but vary on different aspects. Although similarities are observed in the topics measured by the QI's, an international comparison was not feasible as numerators or denominators differ between registries. In order to compare on an international level it would be useful to harmonize these registries and to set an international standard to measure the quality of care with similar indicators.
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
- Hodges, P. W., et al.
(författare)
-
Building a Collaborative Model of Sacroiliac Joint Dysfunction and Pelvic Girdle Pain to Understand the Diverse Perspectives of Experts
- 2019
-
Ingår i: PM&R. - : Wiley. - 1934-1482 .- 1934-1563. ; 11:Suppl. 1
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: Pelvic girdle pain (PGP) and sacroiliac joint (SIJ) dysfunction/pain are considered frequent contributors to low back pain (LBP). Like other persistent pain conditions, PGP is increasingly recognized as a multifactorial problem involving biological, psychological, and social factors. Perspectives differ between experts and a diversity of treatments (with variable degrees of evidence) have been utilized. Objective: To develop a collaborative model of PGP that represents the collective view of a group of experts. Specific goals were to analyze structure and composition of conceptual models contributed by participants, to aggregate them into a metamodel, to analyze the metamodel's composition, and to consider predicted efficacy of treatments. Design: To develop a collaborative model of PGP, models were generated by invited individuals to represent their understanding of PGP using fuzzy cognitive mapping (FCM). FCMs involved proposal of components related to causes, outcomes, and treatments for pain, disability, and quality of life, and their connections. Components were classified into thematic categories. Weighting of connections was summed for components to judge their relative importance. FCMs were aggregated into a metamodel for analysis of the collective opinion it represented and to evaluate expected efficacy of treatments. Results: From 21 potential contributors, 14 (67%) agreed to participate (representing six disciplines and seven countries). Participants' models included a mean (SD) of 22 (5) components each. FCMs were refined to combine similar terms, leaving 89 components in 10 categories. Biomechanical factors were the most important in individual FCMs. The collective opinion from the metamodel predicted greatest efficacy for injection, exercise therapy, and surgery for pain relief. Conclusions: The collaborative model of PGP showed a bias toward biomechanical factors. Most efficacious treatments predicted by the model have modest to no evidence from clinical trials, suggesting a mismatch between opinion and evidence. The model enables integration and communication of the collection of opinions on PGP.
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
| 5. |
|
|
| 6. |
- Wu, W. H., et al.
(författare)
-
Pregnancy-related pelvic girdle pain (PPP), I: Terminology, clinical presentation, and prevalence
- 2004
-
Ingår i: Eur Spine J. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 0940-6719. ; 13:7, s. 575-89
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Pregnancy-related lumbopelvic pain has puzzled medicine for a long time. The present systematic review focuses on terminology, clinical presentation, and prevalence. Numerous terms are used, as if they indicated one and the same entity. We propose "pregnancy-related pelvic girdle pain (PPP)", and "pregnancy-related low back pain (PLBP)", present evidence that the two add up to "lumbopelvic pain", and show that they are distinct entities (although underlying mechanisms may be similar). Average pain intensity during pregnancy is 50 mm on a visual analogue scale; postpartum, pain is less. During pregnancy, serious pain occurs in about 25%, and severe disability in about 8% of patients. After pregnancy, problems are serious in about 7%. The mechanisms behind disabilities remain unclear, and constitute an important research priority. Changes in muscle activity, unusual perceptions of the leg when moving it, and altered motor coordination were observed but remain poorly understood. Published prevalence for PPP and/or PLBP varies widely. Quantitative analysis was used to explain the differences. Overall, about 45% of all pregnant women and 25% of all women postpartum suffer from PPP and/or PLBP. These values decrease by about 20% if one excludes mild complaints. Strenuous work, previous low back pain, and previous PPP and/or PLBP are risk factors, and the inclusion/exclusion of high-risk subgroups influences prevalence. Of all patients, about one-half have PPP, one-third PLBP, and one-sixth both conditions combined. Overall, the literature reveals that PPP deserves serious attention from the clinical and research communities, at all times and in all countries.
|
|
