Scientific Publications on Firearms in Youth Before and After Congressional Action Prohibiting Federal Research Funding

Department of Population Health, New York University School of Medicine, New York, New York 10016, USA.
JAMA The Journal of the American Medical Association (Impact Factor: 35.29). 08/2013; 310(5):532-4. DOI: 10.1001/jama.2013.119355
Source: PubMed
5 Reads
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Research suggests that access to firearms in the home increases the risk for violent death. To understand current estimates of the association between firearm availability and suicide or homicide. PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Web of Science were searched without limitations and a gray-literature search was performed on 23 August 2013. All study types that assessed firearm access and outcomes between participants with and without firearm access. There were no restrictions on age, sex, or country. Two authors independently extracted data into a standardized, prepiloted data extraction form. Odds ratios (ORs) and 95% CIs were calculated, although published adjusted estimates were preferentially used. Summary effects were estimated using random- and fixed-effects models. Potential methodological reasons for differences in effects through subgroup analyses were explored. Data were pooled from 16 observational studies that assessed the odds of suicide or homicide, yielding pooled ORs of 3.24 (95% CI, 2.41 to 4.40) and 2.00 (CI, 1.56 to 3.02), respectively. When only studies that used interviews to determine firearm accessibility were considered, the pooled OR for suicide was 3.14 (CI, 2.29 to 4.43). Firearm accessibility was determined by survey interviews in most studies; misclassification of accessibility may have occurred. Heterogeneous populations of varying risks were synthesized to estimate pooled odds of death. Access to firearms is associated with risk for completed suicide and being the victim of homicide. None.
    Annals of internal medicine 01/2014; 160(2):101-10. DOI:10.7326/M13-1301 · 17.81 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The value of routine preoperative testing before most surgical procedures is widely considered to be low. To improve the quality of preoperative care and reduce waste, 2 professional societies released guidance on use of routine preoperative testing in 2002, but researchers and policymakers remain concerned about the health and cost burden of low-value care in the preoperative setting. To examine the long-term national effect of the 2002 professional guidance from the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association and the American Society of Anesthesiologists on physicians' use of routine preoperative testing. Retrospective analysis of nationally representative data from the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey and National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey to examine adults in the United States who were evaluated during preoperative visits from January 1, 1997, through December 31, 2010. A quasiexperimental, difference-in-difference (DID) approach evaluated whether the publication of professional guidance in 2002 was associated with changes in preoperative testing patterns, adjusting for temporal trends in routine testing, as captured by testing patterns in general medical examinations. Physician orders for outpatient plain radiography, hematocrit, urinalysis, electrocardiogram, and cardiac stress testing. During the 14-year period, the average annual number of preoperative visits in the United States increased from 6.8 million in 1997-1999 to 9.8 million in 2002-2004 and 14.3 million in 2008-2010. After accounting for temporal trends in routine testing, we found no statistically significant overall changes in the use of plain radiography (11.3% in 1997-2002 to 9.9% in 2003-2010; DID, -1.0 per 100 visits; 95% CI, -4.1 to 2.2), hematocrit (9.4% in 1997-2002 to 4.1% in 2003-2010; DID, 1.2 per 100 visits; 95% CI, -2.2 to 4.7), urinalysis (12.2% in 1997-2002 to 8.9% in 2003-2010; DID, 2.7 per 100 visits; 95% CI, -1.7 to 7.1), or cardiac stress testing (1.0% in 1997-2002 to 2.0% in 2003-2010; DID, 0.7 per 100 visits; 95% CI, -0.1 to 1.5) after the publication of professional guidance. However, the rate of electrocardiogram testing fell (19.4% in 1997-2002 to 14.3% in 2003-2010; DID, -6.7 per 100 visits; 95% CI, -10.6 to -2.7) in the period after the publication of guidance. The release of the 2002 guidance on routine preoperative testing was associated with a reduced the incidence of routine electrocardiogram testing but not of plain radiography, hematocrit, urinalysis, or cardiac stress testing. Because routine preoperative testing is generally considered to provide low incremental value, more concerted efforts to understand physician behavior and remove barriers to guideline adherence may improve health care quality and reduce costs.
    JAMA Internal Medicine 06/2015; 175(8). DOI:10.1001/jamainternmed.2015.2081 · 13.12 Impact Factor
  • Preventive Medicine 06/2015; 79. DOI:10.1016/j.ypmed.2015.06.001 · 3.09 Impact Factor
Show more