ORCID Profile
0000-0002-1937-8105
Current Organisations
Health Education England London
,
University College London Eastman Dental Institute
,
University College Cork
Does something not look right? The information on this page has been harvested from data sources that may not be up to date. We continue to work with information providers to improve coverage and quality. To report an issue, use the Feedback Form.
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 09-2014
DOI: 10.1016/J.EJOGRB.2014.06.003
Abstract: This paper investigates the quality of outcomes reported in systematic reviews and randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of bladder pain syndrome and its relationship with study quality and journal impact factor. We searched until August 2013 the Cochrane Library, EMBASE, Medline, CINAHL, LILACS and SIGLE, without language restrictions. Quality of outcome reporting in systematic reviews and constituent RCTs was assessed using a 6-point scale. Overall study quality was assessed using the AMSTAR and Jadad scoring systems, and impact factor in the year of publication was noted. Spearman's rank correlation was calculated. There were 8 systematic reviews, with a total of 28 RCTs (1732 patients), reporting 5 outcomes using 19 different measurement scales. The outcomes reported in in idual RCTs were urinary symptoms (100%), pain (64%), quality of life (39%), general wellbeing (36%) and bladder capacity (36%). The mean quality of outcomes reported was 1.63 (95% CI 0.29-2.96) for systematic reviews and 3.25 (95% CI 2.80-3.70) for RCTs. The quality of outcomes reported showed correlation with overall study quality (0.90, 95% CI 0.79-0.95, p<0.0001) but not with journal impact factor (0.07, 95% CI -0.31-0.43, p=0.35). Multivariable linear regression showed a relationship between quality of outcome reporting and study quality (β=0.05, p<0.0001), adjusting for effects of study type, impact factor and journal type. There is a need to generate consensus over a set of core outcomes in bladder pain syndrome using standardised reporting tools and to disseminate these through good publication practice.
Publisher: Wiley
Date: 08-03-2011
DOI: 10.1111/J.1601-0825.2011.01794.X
Abstract: The implementation of information technology in healthcare is a significant focus for many nations around the world. However, information technology support for clinical care, research and education in oral medicine is currently poorly developed. This situation h ers our ability to transform oral medicine into a 'learning healthcare discipline' in which the ide between clinical practice and research is diminished and, ultimately, eliminated. This paper reviews the needs of and requirements for information technology support of oral medicine and proposes an agenda designed to meet those needs. For oral medicine, this agenda includes analyzing and reviewing current clinical and documentation practices, working toward progressively standardizing clinical data, and helping define requirements for oral medicine systems. IT professionals can contribute by conducting baseline studies about the use of electronic systems, helping develop controlled vocabularies and ontologies, and designing, implementing, and evaluating novel systems centered on the needs of clinicians, researchers and educators. Successfully advancing IT support for oral medicine will require close coordination and collaboration among oral medicine professionals, information technology professionals, system vendors, and funding agencies. If current barriers and obstacles are overcome, practice and research in oral medicine stand ready to derive significant benefits from the application of information technology.
Location: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Location: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Location: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Location: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Location: Ireland
Location: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
No related grants have been discovered for Richeal Ni Riordain.