ORCID Profile
0000-0002-6823-4757
Current Organisation
University of Nottingham
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: Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
Date: 07-2009
Publisher: BMJ
Date: 10-2016
Publisher: Informa UK Limited
Date: 03-10-2018
DOI: 10.1080/14992027.2018.1493546
Abstract: Recent technological advances have led to a rapid increase in alternative listening devices to conventional hearing aids. The aim was to systematically review the existing evidence to assess the effectiveness of alternative listening devices in adults with mild and moderate hearing loss. A systematic search strategy of the scientific literature was employed, reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) checklist. Eleven studies met eligibility for inclusion: two studies evaluated personal sound lification products, and nine studies assessed remote microphone systems (frequency modulation, Bluetooth, wireless). The evidence in this review suggests that alternative listening devices improve behavioural measures of speech intelligibility relative to unaided and/or aided conditions. Evidence for whether alternative listening devices improve self-reported outcomes is inconsistent. The evidence was judged to be of poor to good quality and subject to bias due to limitations in study design. Our overall recommendation is that high-quality evidence (i.e. randomised controlled trials) is required to demonstrate the effectiveness of alternative listening devices. Such evidence is not currently available and is necessary to guide healthcare commissioners and policymakers when considering new service delivery models for adults with hearing loss. Review registration: Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO), CRD42015029582.
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 12-2014
DOI: 10.1016/J.SURONC.2014.10.003
Abstract: Long-course chemoradiotherapy (LCRT) with delayed surgery or short-course radiotherapy (SCRT) with immediate surgery is probably the most frequent regimen in the treatment of rectal cancer. Debate is still going on whether SCRT or LCRT is more effective. So we performed this meta-analysis to evaluate the safety and efficacy of SCRT with immediate surgery versus LCRT with delayed surgery for the management of rectal cancer. Literature were searched from PubMed, Embase, Web of science, Cochrane Library up to May, 2014. Quality of the randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was evaluated according to the Cochrane's risk of bias tool of RCT. RevMan 5.3 was used for statistical analysis. Pooled risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated. Subgroup analysis and sensitivity analysis were employed to explore heterogeneity. 16 trials were included in the qualitative systematic review. 12 trials were included in meta-analyses. 4 of them were RCTs other 8 were non-RCTs. Meta-analysis demonstrated that there were no significant differences in overall survival (OS), disease free survival (DFS), local recurrence rate (LRR), distant metastasis rate (DMR), sphincter preservation rate, R0 resection rate and late toxicity. Compared with SCRT, LCRT obviously increased pCR rate [RR=0.15, 95%CI (0.08, 0.28), P=0.003], while LCRT obviously increased the grade 3-4 acute toxicity [RR=0.13, 95%CI (0.06, 0.28), P<0.00001]. SCRT with immediate surgery is as effective as LCRT with delayed surgery for treatment of rectal cancer in terms of OS, DFS, LRR, DMR, Sphincter preservation rate, R0 resection rate and late toxicity. Though LCRT increased pCR rate, LCRT also increased acute toxicity compared with SCRT. SCRT is a better choice in centers with a long waiting list or lack of medical resources.
Publisher: BMJ
Date: 02-2020
DOI: 10.1136/BMJOPEN-2019-033655
Abstract: To investigate the effects of adding high-grade quantitative evidence of outcomes of treatments into relevant Wikipedia pages on further information-seeking behaviour by the use of routinely collected data. Wikipedia, Cochrane summary pages and the Cochrane Library. Randomised trial. Wikipedia pages which were highly relevant to up-to-date Cochrane Schizophrenia systematic reviews that contained a Summary of Findings table. Eligible Wikipedia pages in the intervention group were seeded with tables of best evidence of the effects of care and hyperlinks to the source Cochrane review. Eligible Wikipedia pages in the control group were left unchanged. Routinely collected data on access to the full text and summary web page (after 12 months). We randomised 70 Wikipedia pages (100% follow-up). Six of the 35 Wikipedia pages in the intervention group had the tabular format deleted during the study but all pages continued to report the same data within the text. There was no evidence of effect on either of the coprimary outcomes: full-text access adjusted ratio of geometric means 1.30, 95% CI: 0.71 to 2.38 page views 1.14, 95% CI: 0.6 to 2.13. Results were similar for all other outcomes, with exception of Altmetric score for which there was some evidence of clear effect (1.36, 95% CI: 1.05 to 1.78). The pursuit of fair balance within Wikipedia healthcare pages is impressive and its reach unsurpassed. For every person who sought and clicked the reference on the ‘intervention’ Wikipedia page to seek more information (the primary outcome), many more are likely to have been informed by the page alone. Enriching Wikipedia content is, potentially, a powerful way to improve health literacy and it is possible to test the effects of seeding pages with evidence. This trial should be replicated, expanded and developed. IRCT2017070330407N2 .
Publisher: Royal College of Psychiatrists
Date: 05-2007
DOI: 10.1192/BJP.BP.106.026880
Abstract: Chinese herbal medicine has been used to treat millions of people with schizophrenia for thousands of years. To evaluate Chinese herbal medicine as a treatment for schizophrenia. A systematic review of randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Seven trials were included. Most studies evaluated Chinese herbal medicine in combination with Western antipsychotic drugs in these trials results tended to favour combination treatment compared with antipsychotic alone (Clinical Global Impression ‘not improved/worse’ n= 123, RR=0.19, 95% CI 0.1-0.6, NNT=6,95% CI 5–11 n =109, Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale ‘not improved/worse’ RR=0.78,95% CI 0.5-1.2 n =109, Scale for the Assessment of Negative Symptoms ‘not improved/worse’ RR=0.87,95% CI 0.7-1.2 n= 109, Scale for the Assessment of Positive Symptoms ‘not improved/worse’ RR=0.69,95% CI 0.5-1.0, NNT=6 95% CI 4-162). Medium-term study attrition was significantly less for people allocated the herbal/antipsychotic mix (n =897, four RCTs, RR=0.34,95% CI 0.2–0.7, NNT=23,95% CI 18-43). Results suggest that combining Chinese herbal medicine with antipsychotics is beneficial.
Publisher: Wiley
Date: 08-10-2008
Publisher: Wiley
Date: 09-05-2007
DOI: 10.1111/J.1600-0447.2007.01027.X
Abstract: China's biomedical research activity is increasing and this literature is becoming more accessible online. Our aim was to survey all randomized control schizophrenia trials (RCTs) in one Chinese bibliographic database. Chinese Academic Journals was electronically searched for RCTs and all relevant citations were also sought on PubMed to ascertain global accessibility. The search identified 3275 records, of which 982 were RCTs relevant to schizophrenia. A total of 71% (699) could be found by using English phrases. All the main body of text of the 982 papers was in Mandarin. On average, these trials involved about 100 people, with interventions and outcome measures familiar to schizophrenia trialists worldwide. Four of the 982 records (<1%) were identified on PubMed. Those undertaking systematic reviews should search the Chinese literature for relevant material. Failing to do this will leave the results of systematic reviews prone to random error or bias, or both.
Publisher: Wiley
Date: 19-01-2015
Location: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
No related grants have been discovered for jun xia.