Article
Acute management of acquired brain injury part I: an evidence-based review of non-pharmacological interventions.
Aging, Rehabilitation and Geriatric Care Program, Lawson Health Research Institute, London, Ontario, Canada.
Brain Injury (impact factor:
1.36).
03/2010;
24(5):694-705.
DOI:10.3109/02699051003692118
pp.694-705
Source: PubMed
-
Article: Evidence for physiotherapy practice: a survey of the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro).
[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Evidence-based practice involves the use of evidence from systematic reviews and randomised controlled trials, but the extent of this evidence in physiotherapy has not previously been surveyed. The aim of this survey is to describe the quantity and quality of randomised controlled trials and the quantity of systematic reviews relevant to physiotherapy. The Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) was searched. The quality of trials was assessed with the PEDro scale. The search identified a total of 2,376 randomised controlled trials and 332 systematic reviews. The first trial was published in 1955 and the first review was published in 1982. Since that time, the number of trials and reviews has grown exponentially. The mean PEDro quality score has increased from 2.8 in trials published between 1955 and 1959 to 5.0 for trials published between 1995 and 1999. There is a substantial body of evidence about the effects of physiotherapy. However, there remains scope for improvements in the quality of the conduct and reporting of clinical trials.The Australian journal of physiotherapy 02/2002; 48(1):43-9. · 3.48 Impact Factor -
Article: The feasibility of creating a checklist for the assessment of the methodological quality both of randomised and non-randomised studies of health care interventions.
[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: To test the feasibility of creating a valid and reliable checklist with the following features: appropriate for assessing both randomised and non-randomised studies; provision of both an overall score for study quality and a profile of scores not only for the quality of reporting, internal validity (bias and confounding) and power, but also for external validity. A pilot version was first developed, based on epidemiological principles, reviews, and existing checklists for randomised studies. Face and content validity were assessed by three experienced reviewers and reliability was determined using two raters assessing 10 randomised and 10 non-randomised studies. Using different raters, the checklist was revised and tested for internal consistency (Kuder-Richardson 20), test-retest and inter-rater reliability (Spearman correlation coefficient and sign rank test; kappa statistics), criterion validity, and respondent burden. The performance of the checklist improved considerably after revision of a pilot version. The Quality Index had high internal consistency (KR-20: 0.89) as did the subscales apart from external validity (KR-20: 0.54). Test-retest (r 0.88) and inter-rater (r 0.75) reliability of the Quality Index were good. Reliability of the subscales varied from good (bias) to poor (external validity). The Quality Index correlated highly with an existing, established instrument for assessing randomised studies (r 0.90). There was little difference between its performance with non-randomised and with randomised studies. Raters took about 20 minutes to assess each paper (range 10 to 45 minutes). This study has shown that it is feasible to develop a checklist that can be used to assess the methodological quality not only of randomised controlled trials but also non-randomised studies. It has also shown that it is possible to produce a checklist that provides a profile of the paper, alerting reviewers to its particular methodological strengths and weaknesses. Further work is required to improve the checklist and the training of raters in the assessment of external validity.Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health 07/1998; 52(6):377-84. · 3.19 Impact Factor -
Article: Effects of head posture on cerebral hemodynamics: its influences on intracranial pressure, cerebral perfusion pressure, and cerebral oxygenation.
[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Severely head-injured patients have traditionally been maintained in the head-up position to ameliorate the effects of increased intracranial pressure (ICP). However, it has been reported that the supine position may improve cerebral perfusion pressure (CPP) and outcome. We sought to determine the impact of supine and 30 degrees semirecumbent postures on cerebrovascular dynamics and global as well as regional cerebral oxygenation within 24 hours of trauma. Patients with a closed head injury and a Glasgow Coma Scale score of 8 or less were included in the study. On admission to the neurocritical care unit, a standardized protocol aimed at minimizing secondary insults was instituted, and the influences of head posture were evaluated after all acute necessary interventions had been performed. ICP, CPP, mean arterial pressure, global cerebral oxygenation, and regional cerebral oxygenation were noted at 0 and 30 degrees of head elevation. We studied 38 patients with severe closed head injury. The median Glasgow Coma Scale score was 7.0, and the mean age was 34.05 +/- 16.02 years. ICP was significantly lower at 30 degrees than at 0 degrees of head elevation (P = 0.0005). Mean arterial pressure remained relatively unchanged. CPP was slightly but not significantly higher at 30 degrees than at 0 degrees (P = 0.412). However, global venous cerebral oxygenation and regional cerebral oxygenation were not affected significantly by head elevation. All global venous cerebral oxygenation values were above the critical threshold for ischemia at 0 and 30 degrees. Routine nursing of patients with severe head injury at 30 degrees of head elevation within 24 hours after trauma leads to a consistent reduction of ICP (statistically significant) and an improvement in CPP (although not statistically significant) without concomitant deleterious changes in cerebral oxygenation.Neurosurgery 04/2004; 54(3):593-7; discussion 598. · 2.79 Impact Factor
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed.
The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual
current impact factor.
Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence
agreement may be applicable.
Keywords
acute ABI management
acute settings
Black tool
body rotation
brain injury
cerebrospinal fluid drainage
continuous rotational therapy
decompressive craniectomy
hand-searched articles
head posture
intracranial pressure
invasive interventions
methodological quality
minimize cerebral damage
non-invasive interventions
non-pharmacological acute management
non-pharmacological interventions
non-randomized trials
prone positioning
seven interventions
