scholarly journals Harnessing the patient voice in prostate cancer research: Systematic review on the use of patient‐reported outcomes in randomized controlled trials to support clinical decision‐making

2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (12) ◽  
pp. 4039-4058 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mieke Van Hemelrijck ◽  
Francesco Sparano ◽  
Lisa Moris ◽  
Katharina Beyer ◽  
Francesco Cottone ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Patient Reported Outcomes ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Patient Voice ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Prostate Cancer Research

scholarly journals A Systematic Review of Patient-reported Outcomes in Randomized Controlled Trials of Unplanned General Surgery

2015 ◽  
Vol 40 (2) ◽  
pp. 267-276 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel J. Stevens ◽  
Natalie S. Blencowe ◽  
Philip J. McElnay ◽  
Rhiannon C. Macefield ◽  
Jelena Savović ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
General Surgery ◽  
Patient Reported Outcomes ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Patient Reported

scholarly journals Structural Allograft Versus PEEK Implants in Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion: A Systematic Review

2019 ◽  
Vol 10 (6) ◽  
pp. 775-783
Author(s):  
Amit Jain ◽  
Majd Marrache ◽  
Andrew Harris ◽  
Varun Puvanesarajah ◽  
Brian J. Neuman ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Patient Reported Outcomes ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
High Quality ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
High Quality Evidence ◽  
Structural Allograft ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Spine Degeneration ◽  
Quality Evidence

Study Design: Systematic literature review. Objective: Our primary objective was to compare reported fusion rates after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) using structural allograft versus polyetheretherketone (PEEK) interbody devices in patients with cervical spine degeneration. Our secondary objectives were to compare differences in rates of subsidence and reoperation and in patient-reported outcomes between the 2 groups. Methods: Through a systematic review of the English-language literature using various databases, we identified 4702 articles. After we applied inclusion and exclusion criteria, 14 articles (7 randomized controlled trials, 4 prospective studies, and 3 retrospective studies) reporting fusion rates of structural allograft or PEEK interbody devices were eligible for our analysis. No randomized controlled trials compared outcomes of structural allograft versus PEEK interbody devices. Extracted data included authors, study years, study designs, sample sizes, patient ages, duration of follow-up, types of interbody devices used, fusion rates, definition of fusion, reoperation rates, subsidence rates, and patient-reported outcomes. Results: Fusion rates were 82% to 100% for allograft and 88% to 98% for PEEK interbody devices. The reported data were insufficient to perform meta-analysis. Structural allograft had the highest reported rate of reoperation (14%), and PEEK interbody devices had the highest reported subsidence rate (18%). Patient-reported outcomes improved in both groups. There was insufficient high-quality evidence to compare the associations of various PEEK modifications with fusion rates. Conclusion: Fusion rates were similar between structural allograft and PEEK interbody devices when used for ACDF for cervical spine degeneration. Currently, there is insufficient high-quality evidence to assess associations of PEEK modifications with fusion rates. Level of Evidence: II.

Between a logic of disruption and a logic of continuation: Negotiating the legitimacy of algorithms used in automated clinical decision-making

2021 ◽  
pp. 136345932199674
Author(s):  
Rikke Torenholt ◽  
Henriette Langstrup
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Patient Reported Outcomes ◽  
Patient Involvement ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Diagnostic Procedures ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Pro Tools

In both popular and academic discussions of the use of algorithms in clinical practice, narratives often draw on the decisive potentialities of algorithms and come with the belief that algorithms will substantially transform healthcare. We suggest that this approach is associated with a logic of disruption. However, we argue that in clinical practice alongside this logic, another and less recognised logic exists, namely that of continuation: here the use of algorithms constitutes part of an established practice. Applying these logics as our analytical framing, we set out to explore how algorithms for clinical decision-making are enacted by political stakeholders, healthcare professionals, and patients, and in doing so, study how the legitimacy of delegating to an algorithm is negotiated and obtained. Empirically we draw on ethnographic fieldwork carried out in relation to attempts in Denmark to develop and implement Patient Reported Outcomes (PRO) tools – involving algorithmic sorting – in clinical practice. We follow the work within two disease areas: heart rehabilitation and breast cancer follow-up care. We show how at the political level, algorithms constitute tools for disrupting inefficient work and unsystematic patient involvement, whereas closer to the clinical practice, algorithms constitute a continuation of standardised and evidence-based diagnostic procedures and a continuation of the physicians’ expertise and authority. We argue that the co-existence of the two logics have implications as both provide a push towards the use of algorithms and how a logic of continuation may divert attention away from new issues introduced with automated digital decision-support systems.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document