Kooperativer Bibliotheksverbund

Berlin Brandenburg

and
and

Your email was sent successfully. Check your inbox.

An error occurred while sending the email. Please try again.

Proceed reservation?

Export
Filter
  • Gruen, Russell L.  (21)
  • Bragge, Peter  (21)
Type of Medium
Language
Year
  • 1
    Language: English
    In: BMC Medical Research Methodology, 01 June 2011, Vol.11(1), p.92
    Description: Abstract Background Evidence mapping describes the quantity, design and characteristics of research in broad topic areas, in contrast to systematic reviews, which usually address narrowly-focused research questions. The breadth of evidence mapping helps to identify evidence gaps, and may guide future research efforts. The Global Evidence Mapping (GEM) Initiative was established in 2007 to create evidence maps providing an overview of existing research in Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) and Spinal Cord Injury (SCI). Methods The GEM evidence mapping method involved three core tasks: 〈p indent="1"〉1. Setting the boundaries and context of the map: Definitions for the fields of TBI and SCI were clarified, the prehospital, acute inhospital and rehabilitation phases of care were delineated and relevant stakeholders (patients, carers, clinicians, researchers and policymakers) who could contribute to the mapping were identified. Researchable clinical questions were developed through consultation with key stakeholders and a broad literature search. 〈p indent="1"〉2. Searching for and selection of relevant studies: Evidence search and selection involved development of specific search strategies, development of inclusion and exclusion criteria, searching of relevant databases and independent screening and selection by two researchers. 〈p indent="1"〉3. Reporting on yield and study characteristics: Data extraction was performed at two levels - 'interventions and study design' and 'detailed study characteristics'. The evidence map and commentary reflected the depth of data extraction. Results One hundred and twenty-nine researchable clinical questions in TBI and SCI were identified. These questions were then prioritised into high (n = 60) and low (n = 69) importance by the stakeholders involved in question development. Since 2007, 58 263 abstracts have been screened, 3 731 full text articles have been reviewed and 1 644 relevant neurotrauma publications have been mapped, covering fifty-three high priority questions. Conclusions GEM Initiative evidence maps have a broad range of potential end-users including funding agencies, researchers and clinicians. Evidence mapping is at least as resource-intensive as systematic reviewing. The GEM Initiative has made advancements in evidence mapping, most notably in the area of question development and prioritisation. Evidence mapping complements other review methods for describing existing research, informing future research efforts, and addressing evidence gaps.
    Keywords: Medicine
    ISSN: 1471-2288
    E-ISSN: 1471-2288
    Library Location Call Number Volume/Issue/Year Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 2
    Language: English
    In: The Lancet, 22 September 2012, Vol.380(9847), pp.1088-1098
    Description: Severe traumatic brain injury remains a major health-care problem worldwide. Although major progress has been made in understanding of the pathophysiology of this injury, this has not yet led to substantial improvements in outcome. In this report, we address present knowledge and its limitations, research innovations, and clinical implications. Improved outcomes for patients with severe traumatic brain injury could result from progress in pharmacological and other treatments, neural repair and regeneration, optimisation of surgical indications and techniques, and combination and individually targeted treatments. Expanded classification of traumatic brain injury and innovations in research design will underpin these advances. We are optimistic that further gains in outcome for patients with severe traumatic brain injury will be achieved in the next decade.
    Keywords: Medicine
    ISSN: 0140-6736
    E-ISSN: 1474-547X
    Library Location Call Number Volume/Issue/Year Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 3
    Language: English
    In: Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, May 2013, Vol.66(5), pp.496-502.e2
    Description: We present a multistep process for identifying priority research areas in rehabilitation and long-term care of traumatic brain-injured (TBI) patients. In particular, we aimed to (1) identify which stakeholders should be involved; (2) identify what methods are appropriate; (3) examine different criteria for the generation of research priority areas; and (4) test the feasibility of linkage and exchange among researchers, decision makers, and other potential users of the research. Potential research questions were identified and developed using an initial scoping meeting and preliminary literature search, followed by a facilitated mapping workshop and an online survey. Identified research questions were then prioritized against specific criteria (clinical importance, novelty, and controversy). Existing evidence was then mapped to the high-priority questions using usual processes for search, screening, and selection. A broad range of stakeholders were then brought together at a forum to identify priority research themes for future research investment. Using clinical and research leaders, smaller targeted planning workshops prioritized specific research projects for each of the identified themes. Twenty-six specific questions about TBI rehabilitation were generated, 14 of which were high priority. No one method identified all high-priority questions. Methods that relied solely on the views of clinicians and researchers identified fewer high-priority questions compared with methods that used broader stakeholder engagement. Evidence maps of these high-priority questions yielded a number of evidence gaps. Priority questions and evidence maps were then used to inform a research forum, which identified 12 priority themes for future research. Our research demonstrates the value of a multistep and multimethod process involving many different types of stakeholders for prioritizing research to improve the rehabilitation outcomes of people who have suffered TBI. Enhancing stakeholder representation can be augmented using a combination of methods and a process of linkage and exchange. This process can inform decisions about prioritization of research areas.
    Keywords: Prioritization ; Traumatic Brain Injury ; Research Funding ; Evidence Mapping ; Research Gaps ; Rehabilitation ; Medicine
    ISSN: 0895-4356
    E-ISSN: 1878-5921
    Library Location Call Number Volume/Issue/Year Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 4
    Language: English
    In: Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, May 2013, Vol.66(5), pp.503-510.e4
    Description: To identify high-priority research questions for osteoarthritis systematic reviews with consideration of health equity and the social determinants of health (SDH). We consulted with experts and conducted a literature search to identify a priority-setting method that could be adapted to address the health equity and SDH. We selected the Global Evidence Mapping priority-setting method, and through consultations and consensus, we adapted the method to meet our objectives. This involves developing an evidence map of the existing systematic reviews on osteoarthritis; conducting one face-to-face workshop with patients and another one with clinicians, researchers, and patients; and conducting an online survey of patients to rank the top 10 research questions. We piloted the adapted method with the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Review Group to set research priorities for osteoarthritis. Our focus was on systematic reviews: we identified 34 high-priority research questions for osteoarthritis systematic reviews. Prevention and self-management interventions, mainly diet and exercise, are top priorities for osteoarthritis systematic reviews. Evaluation against our predefined objectives showed that this method did prioritize SDH (50% of the research questions considered SDH). There were marked gaps: no high-priority topics were identified for access to care until patients had advanced disease–lifestyle changes once the disease was diagnosed. This method was felt feasible if conducted annually. We confirmed the utility of an adapted priority-setting method that is feasible and considers SDH. Further testing of this method is needed to assess whether considerations of health equity are prioritized and involve disadvantaged groups of the population.
    Keywords: Priority Setting ; Health Equity ; Osteoarthritis ; Social Determinants of Health ; Systematic Reviews ; Methods ; Methodology ; Research Priorities ; Medicine
    ISSN: 0895-4356
    E-ISSN: 1878-5921
    Library Location Call Number Volume/Issue/Year Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 5
    Language: English
    In: BMC Medical Research Methodology, June 17, 2011, Vol.11, p.92
    Description: Background Evidence mapping describes the quantity, design and characteristics of research in broad topic areas, in contrast to systematic reviews, which usually address narrowly-focused research questions. The breadth of evidence mapping helps to identify evidence gaps, and may guide future research efforts. The Global Evidence Mapping (GEM) Initiative was established in 2007 to create evidence maps providing an overview of existing research in Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) and Spinal Cord Injury (SCI). Methods The GEM evidence mapping method involved three core tasks: Results One hundred and twenty-nine researchable clinical questions in TBI and SCI were identified. These questions were then prioritised into high (n = 60) and low (n = 69) importance by the stakeholders involved in question development. Since 2007, 58 263 abstracts have been screened, 3 731 full text articles have been reviewed and 1 644 relevant neurotrauma publications have been mapped, covering fifty-three high priority questions. Conclusions GEM Initiative evidence maps have a broad range of potential end-users including funding agencies, researchers and clinicians. Evidence mapping is at least as resource-intensive as systematic reviewing. The GEM Initiative has made advancements in evidence mapping, most notably in the area of question development and prioritisation. Evidence mapping complements other review methods for describing existing research, informing future research efforts, and addressing evidence gaps.
    Keywords: Spinal Cord Injuries -- Research ; Brain Injuries -- Research ; Observational Studies -- Research
    ISSN: 1471-2288
    Source: Cengage Learning, Inc.
    Library Location Call Number Volume/Issue/Year Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 6
    Language: English
    In: BMC Medical Research Methodology, June 17, 2011, Vol.11, p.92
    Description: Background Evidence mapping describes the quantity, design and characteristics of research in broad topic areas, in contrast to systematic reviews, which usually address narrowly-focused research questions. The breadth of evidence mapping helps to identify evidence gaps, and may guide future research efforts. The Global Evidence Mapping (GEM) Initiative was established in 2007 to create evidence maps providing an overview of existing research in Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) and Spinal Cord Injury (SCI). Methods The GEM evidence mapping method involved three core tasks: Results One hundred and twenty-nine researchable clinical questions in TBI and SCI were identified. These questions were then prioritised into high (n = 60) and low (n = 69) importance by the stakeholders involved in question development. Since 2007, 58 263 abstracts have been screened, 3 731 full text articles have been reviewed and 1 644 relevant neurotrauma publications have been mapped, covering fifty-three high priority questions. Conclusions GEM Initiative evidence maps have a broad range of potential end-users including funding agencies, researchers and clinicians. Evidence mapping is at least as resource-intensive as systematic reviewing. The GEM Initiative has made advancements in evidence mapping, most notably in the area of question development and prioritisation. Evidence mapping complements other review methods for describing existing research, informing future research efforts, and addressing evidence gaps.
    Keywords: Spinal Cord Injuries -- Research ; Brain Injuries -- Research ; Observational Studies -- Research
    ISSN: 1471-2288
    Source: Cengage Learning, Inc.
    Library Location Call Number Volume/Issue/Year Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 7
    Language: English
    In: PLoS ONE, 01 January 2018, Vol.13(6), p.e0198676
    Description: OBJECTIVE:To appraise the currency, completeness and quality of evidence from systematic reviews (SRs) of acute management of moderate to severe traumatic brain injury (TBI). METHODS:We conducted comprehensive searches to March 2016 for published, English-language SRs and RCTs of acute management of moderate to severe TBI. Systematic reviews and RCTs were grouped under 12 broad intervention categories. For each review, we mapped the included and non-included RCTs, noting the reasons why RCTs were omitted. An SR was judged as 'current' when it included the most recently published RCT we found on their topic, and 'complete' when it included every RCT we found that met its inclusion criteria, taking account of when the review was conducted. Quality was assessed using the AMSTAR checklist (trichotomised into low, moderate and high quality). FINDINGS:We included 85 SRs and 213 RCTs examining the effectiveness of treatments for acute management of moderate to severe TBI. The most frequently reviewed interventions were hypothermia (n = 17, 14.2%), hypertonic saline and/or mannitol (n = 9, 7.5%) and surgery (n = 8, 6.7%). Of the 80 single-intervention SRs, approximately half (n = 44, 55%) were judged as current and two-thirds (n = 52, 65.0%) as complete. When considering only the most recently published review on each intervention (n = 25), currency increased to 72.0% (n = 18). Less than half of the 85 SRs were judged as high quality (n = 38, 44.7%), and nearly 20% were low quality (n = 16, 18.8%). Only 16 (20.0%) of the single-intervention reviews (and none of the five multi-intervention reviews) were judged as current, complete and high-quality. These included reviews of red blood cell transfusion, hypothermia, management guided by intracranial pressure, pharmacological agents (various) and prehospital intubation. Over three-quarters (n = 167, 78.4%) of the 213 RCTs were included in one or more SR. Of the remainder, 17 (8.0%) RCTs post-dated or were out of scope of existing SRs, and 29 (13.6%) were on interventions that have not been assessed in SRs. CONCLUSION:A substantial number of SRs in acute management of moderate to severe TBI lack currency, completeness and quality. We have identified both potential evidence gaps and also substantial research waste. Novel review methods, such as Living Systematic Reviews, may ameliorate these shortcomings and enhance utility and reliability of the evidence underpinning clinical care.
    Keywords: Sciences (General)
    E-ISSN: 1932-6203
    Library Location Call Number Volume/Issue/Year Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 8
    Description: Objective: To appraise the currency, completeness and quality of evidence from systematic reviews (SRs) of acute management of moderate to severe traumatic brain injury (TBI). Methods and findings: We conducted comprehensive searches to March 2016 for published, English-language SRs and RCTs of acute management of moderate to severe TBI. Systematic reviews and RCTs were grouped under 12 broad intervention categories. For each review, we mapped the included and non-included RCTs, noting the reasons why RCTs were omitted. An SR was judged as ‘current’ when it included the most recently published RCT we found on their topic, and ‘complete’ when it included every RCT we found that met its inclusion criteria, taking account of when the review was conducted. Quality was assessed using the AMSTAR checklist (trichotomised into low, moderate and high quality). We included 85 SRs and 213 RCTs examining the effectiveness of treatments for acute management of moderate to severe TBI. The most frequently reviewed interventions were hypothermia (n = 17, 14.2%), hypertonic saline and/or mannitol (n = 9, 7.5%) and surgery (n = 8, 6.7%). Of the 80 single-intervention SRs, approximately half (n = 44, 55%) were judged as current and two-thirds (n = 52, 65.0 %) as...
    Keywords: Humans ; Evidence-Based Medicine ; Brain Injuries, Traumatic ; Systematic Reviews As Topic
    ISSN: 1932-6203
    Source: DataCite
    Library Location Call Number Volume/Issue/Year Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 9
    Language: English
    In: Journal of neurotrauma, 15 August 2016, Vol.33(16), pp.1461-78
    Description: Moderate-to-severe traumatic brain injury (TBI) remains a major global challenge, with rising incidence, unchanging mortality and lifelong impairments. State-of-the-science reviews are important for research planning and clinical decision support. This review aimed to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating interventions for acute management of moderate/severe TBI, synthesize key RCT characteristics and findings, and determine their implications on clinical practice and future research. RCTs were identified through comprehensive database and other searches. Key characteristics, outcomes, risk of bias, and analysis approach were extracted. Data were narratively synthesized, with a focus on robust (multi-center, low risk of bias, n 〉 100) RCTs, and three-dimensional graphical figures also were used to explore relationships between RCT characteristics and findings. A total of 207 RCTs were identified. The 191 completed RCTs enrolled 35,340 participants (median, 66). Most (72%) were single center and enrolled less than 100 participants (69%). There were 26 robust RCTs across 18 different interventions. For 74% of 392 comparisons across all included RCTs, there was no significant difference between groups. Positive findings were broadly distributed with respect to RCT characteristics. Less than one-third of RCTs demonstrated low risk of bias for random sequence generation or allocation concealment, less than one-quarter used covariate adjustment, and only 7% employed an ordinal analysis approach. Considerable investment of resources in producing 191 completed RCTs for acute TBI management has resulted in very little translatable evidence. This may result from broad distribution of research effort, small samples, preponderance of single-center RCTs, and methodological shortcomings. More sophisticated RCT design, large multi-center RCTs in priority areas, increased focus on pre-clinical research, and alternatives to RCTs, such as comparative effectiveness research and precision medicine, are needed to fully realize the potential of acute TBI research to benefit patients.
    Keywords: Clinical Trial ; Review ; Traumatic Brain Injury ; Randomized Controlled Trials As Topic ; Brain Injuries, Traumatic -- Therapy
    ISSN: 08977151
    E-ISSN: 1557-9042
    Library Location Call Number Volume/Issue/Year Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 10
    In: Academic Emergency Medicine, August 2011, Vol.18(8), pp.880-889
    Description: OBJECTIVESThe objective was to provide an overview of the recommendations and quality of evidence-based clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for the emergency management of mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI), with a view to informing best practice and improving the consistency of recommendations. METHODSElectronic searches of health databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library, PsycINFO), CPG clearinghouse websites, CPG developer websites, and Internet search engines up to January 2010 were conducted. CPGs were included if 1) they were published in English and freely accessible, 2) their scope included the management of mTBI in the emergency department (ED), 3) the date of last search was within the past 10 years (2000 onward), 4) systematic methods were used to search for evidence, and 5) there was an explicit link between the recommendations and the supporting evidence. Four authors independently assessed the quality of the included CPGs using the Appraisal of Guidelines, Research and Evaluation (AGREE) Instrument. The authors extracted and categorized recommendations according to initial clinical assessment, imaging, management, observation, discharge planning, and patient information and follow-up. RESULTSThe search identified 18 potential CPGs, of which six met the inclusion criteria. The included CPGs varied in scope, target population, size, and guideline development processes. Four CPGs were assessed as "strongly recommended." The majority of CPGs did not provide information about the level of stakeholder involvement (mean AGREE standardized domain score = 57%, range = 25% to 81%), nor did they address the organizational/cost implications of applying the recommendations or provide criteria for monitoring and review of recommendations in practice (mean AGREE standardized domain score = 46.6%, range = 19% to 94%). Recommendations were mostly consistent in terms of the use of the Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) score (adult and pediatric) to assess the level of consciousness, initial assessment criteria, the use of computed tomography (CT) scanning as imaging investigation of choice, and the provision of patient information. The CPGs defined mTBI in a variety of ways and described different rules to determine the need for CT scanning and therefore used different criteria to identify high-risk patients. CONCLUSIONSHigher-quality CPGs for mTBI are consistent in their recommendations about assessment, imaging, and provision of patient information. There is not, however, an agreed definition of mTBI, and the quality of future CPGs could be improved with better reporting of stakeholder involvement, procedures for updating, and greater consideration of the applicability of the recommendations (cost implications, monitoring procedures). Nevertheless, guideline developers may benefit from adapting existing CPGs to their local context rather than investing in developing CPGs de novo.
    Keywords: Brain Injuries–Diagnosis ; Emergency Service, Hospital–Therapy ; Evidence-Based Emergency Medicine–Therapy ; Glasgow Coma Scale–Therapy ; Humans–Therapy ; Practice Guidelines As Topic–Therapy ; Quality of Health Care–Therapy;
    ISSN: 1069-6563
    E-ISSN: 1553-2712
    Library Location Call Number Volume/Issue/Year Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
Close ⊗
This website uses cookies and the analysis tool Matomo. Further information can be found on the KOBV privacy pages