2 - Schools incorporating the Life Sciences and Medicine
Permanent URI for this communityhttps://hdl.handle.net/2164/330
Browse
8 results
Search Results
Item The introduction of new interventional procedures in the British National Health Service : A qualitative study(2011-04) Lourenco, Tania; Grant, Adrian M; Burr, Jennifer M; Vale, Luke; University of Aberdeen.Other Applied Health SciencesItem The clinical effectiveness of transurethral incision of the prostate : a systematic review of randomised controlled trials(2010-02) Lourenco, Tania; Shaw, Matthew; Fraser, Cynthia Mary; MacLennan, Graeme Stewart; N'Dow, James Michael Olu; Pickard, Robert; University of Aberdeen.Other Applied Health Sciences; University of Aberdeen.Academic Urology Unit; University of Aberdeen.Institute of Applied Health SciencesItem Local decision-makers views' of national guidance on interventional procedures in the UK(2010-04) Lourenco, Tania; Grant, Adrian; Burr, Jennifer; Vale, Luke; University of Aberdeen.Other Applied Health SciencesItem Minimally invasive therapies for the treatment of benign prostatic enlargement : systematic review of randomised controlled trials(BMJ, 2008-10-09) Lourenco, Tania; Pickard, Robert; Vale, Luke David; Grant, Adrian Maxwell; Fraser, Cynthia Mary; MacLennan, Graeme Stewart; N'Dow, James Michael Olu; University of Aberdeen, School of Medicine & Dentistry, Division of Applied Health SciencesObjective: To compare the effectiveness and risk profile of minimally invasive interventions against the current standard of transurethral resection of the prostate. Design Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Data sources Electronic and paper records up to March 2006. Review methods: We searched for all relevant randomised controlled trials. Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed quality. Meta-analyses of prespecified outcomes were performed with fixed and random effects models and reported using relative risks or weighted mean difference. Results 3794 abstracts were identified; 22 randomised controlled trials met the inclusion criteria. These provided data on 2434 participants. The studies evaluated were of moderate to poor quality with small sample sizes. Minimally invasive interventions were less effective than transurethral resection of the prostate in terms of improvement in symptom scores and increase in urine flow rate, with most comparisons showing significance despite wide confidence intervals. Rates of second operation were significantly higher for minimally invasive treatments. The risk profile of minimally invasive interventions was better than that of transurethral resection, with fewer adverse events. The results, however, showed significant heterogeneity. Conclusion: Which minimally invasive intervention is the most promising remains unclear. Their place in the management of benign prostate enlargement will continue to remain controversial until well designed and well reported randomised controlled trials following CONSORT guidelines prove they are superior and more cost effective than drug treatment or that strategies of sequential surgical treatments are preferred by patients and are more cost effective than the more invasive but more effective tissue ablative interventions such as transurethral resection.Item Alternative approaches to endoscopic ablation for benign enlargement of the prostate : a systematic review of randomised controlled trials(BMJ, 2008) Lourenco, Tania; Pickard, Robert; Vale, Luke David; Grant, Adrian Maxwell; Fraser, Cynthia Mary; MacLennan, Graeme Stewart; N'Dow, James Michael Olu; Benign Prostatic Enlargement Team; University of Aberdeen, School of Medicine & Dentistry, Division of Applied Health SciencesObjective To compare the effectiveness and risk profile of newer methods for endoscopic ablation of the prostate against the current standard of transurethral resection. Design Systematic review and meta-analysis. Data sources Electronic and paper records in subject area up to March 2006. Review methods We searched for randomised controlled trials of endoscopic ablative interventions that included transurethral resection of prostate as one of the treatment arms. Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed quality. Meta-analyses of prespecified outcomes were done using fixed and random effects models and reported using relative risk or weighted mean difference. Results We identified 45 randomised controlled trials meeting the inclusion criteria and reporting on 3970 participants. The reports were of moderate to poor quality, with small sample sizes. None of the newer technologies resulted in significantly greater improvement in symptoms than transurethral resection at 12 months, although a trend suggested a better outcome with holmium laser enucleation (random effects weighted mean difference -0.82, 95% confidence interval 1.76 to 0.12) and worse outcome with laser vaporisation (1.49, -0.40 to 3.39). Improvements in secondary measures, such as peak urine flow rate, were consistent with change in symptoms. Blood transfusion rates were higher for transurethral resection than for the newer methods (4.8% v 0.7%) and men undergoing laser vaporisation or diathermy vaporisation were more likely to experience urinary retention (6.7% v 2.3% and 3.6% v 1.1%). Hospital stay was up to one day shorter for the newer technologies. Conclusions Although men undergoing more modern methods of removing benign prostatic enlargement have similar outcomes to standard transurethral resection of prostate along with fewer requirements for blood transfusion and shorter hospital stay, the quality of current evidence is poor. The lack of any clearly more effective procedure suggests that transurethral resection should remain the standard approach.Item Laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer : safe and effective? - a systematic review(Springer, 2008) Lourenco, Tania; Murray, Alison Catherine; Grant, Adrian Maxwell; McKinley, Aileen Joyce; Krukowski, Zygmunt H.; Vale, Luke David; University of Aberdeen, School of Medicine & Dentistry, Division of Applied Health SciencesObjective To determine the clinical effectiveness of laparoscopic and laparoscopically assisted surgery in comparison with open surgery for the treatment of colorectal cancer. Background Open resection is the standard method for surgical removal of primary colorectal tumours. However, there is significant morbidity associated with this procedure. Laparoscopic resection (LR) is technically more difficult but may overcome problems associated with open resections (OR). Methods Systematic review and meta-analysis of short- and long-term data from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing LS with OR. Results Highly sensitive searches of nine databases identified 19 primary RCTs describing data from over 4,500 participants. Length of hospital stay is shorter, blood loss and pain are less, and return to usual activities is likely to be faster after LR than after OR, but duration of operation is longer. Lymph node retrieval, completeness of resection and quality of life do not appear to differ. No statistically significant differences were observed in rates of anastomotic leakage, abdominal wound breakdown, incisional hernia, wound and urinary tract infections, operative and 30-day mortality, and recurrences, nor in overall and disease-free survival up to three years. Conclusions LR is associated with a quicker recovery in terms of return to usual activities and length of hospital stay with no evidence of a difference in complications or long-term outcomes in comparison to OR, up to three years postoperatively.Item The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of screening for open angle glaucoma : a systematic review and economic evaluation(Gray Publishing, 2007-10) Burr, Jennifer Margaret; Mowatt, Graham; Hernández, Rodolfo Andrés; Siddiqui, Muhammad Ardul Rehman; Cook, Jonathan Alistair; Lourenco, Tania; Ramsay, Craig R; Vale, Luke David; Fraser, Cynthia Mary; Azuara-Blanco, Augusto; Deeks, J.; Cairns, J.; Wormald, R.; McPherson, S.; Rabindranath, K.; Grant, Adrian Maxwell; University of Aberdeen, School of Medicine & Dentistry, Division of Applied Health SciencesObjectives: To assess whether open angle glaucoma (OAG) screening meets the UK National Screening Committee criteria, to compare screening strategies with case finding, to estimate test parameters, to model estimates of cost and cost-effectiveness, and to identify areas for future research. Data sources: Major electronic databases were searched up to December 2005. Review methods: Screening strategies were developed by wide consultation. Markov submodels were developed to represent screening strategies. Parameter estimates were determined by systematic reviews of epidemiology, economic evaluations of screening, and effectiveness (test accuracy, screening and treatment). Tailored highly sensitive electronic searches were undertaken. Results: Most potential screening tests reviewed had an estimated specificity of 85% or higher. No test was clearly most accurate, with only a few, heterogeneous studies for each test. No randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of screening were identified. Based on two treatment RCTs, early treatment reduces the risk of progression. Extrapolating from this, and assuming accelerated progression with advancing disease severity, without treatment the mean time to blindness in at least one eye was approximately 23 years, compared to 35 years with treatment. Prevalence would have to be about 3–4% in 40 year olds with a screening interval of 10 years to approach costeffectiveness. It is predicted that screening might be cost-effective in a 50-year-old cohort at a prevalence of 4% with a 10-year screening interval. General population screening at any age, thus, appears not to be cost-effective. Selective screening of groups with higher prevalence (family history, black ethnicity) might be worthwhile, although this would only cover 6% of the population. Extension to include other at-risk cohorts (e.g. myopia and diabetes) would include 37% of the general population, but the prevalence is then too low for screening to be considered cost-effective. Screening using a test with initial automated classification followed by assessment by a specialised optometrist, for test positives, was more cost-effective than initial specialised optometric assessment. The cost-effectiveness of the screening programme was highly sensitive to the perspective on costs (NHS or societal). In the base-case model, the NHS costs of visual impairment were estimated as £669. If annual societal costs were £8800, then screening might be considered cost-effective for a 40-year-old cohort with 1% OAG prevalence assuming a willingness to pay of £30,000 per quality-adjusted life-year. Of lesser importance were changes to estimates of attendance for sight tests, incidence of OAG, rate of progression and utility values for each stage of OAG severity. Cost-effectiveness was not particularly sensitive to the accuracy of screening tests within the ranges observed. However, a highly specific test is required to reduce large numbers of false-positive referrals. The findings that population screening is unlikely to be cost-effective are based on an economic model whose parameter estimates have considerable uncertainty. In particular, if rate of progression and/or costs of visual impairment are higher than estimated then screening could be cost-effective. Conclusions: While population screening is not costeffective, the targeted screening of high-risk groups may be. Procedures for identifying those at risk, for quality assuring the programme, as well as adequate service provision for those screened positive would all be needed. Glaucoma detection can be improved by increasing attendance for eye examination, and improving the performance of current testing by either refining practice or adding in a technology-based first assessment, the latter being the more cost-effective option. This has implications for any future organisational changes in community eye-care services. Further research should aim to develop and provide quality data to populate the economic model, by conducting a feasibility study of interventions to improve detection, by obtaining further data on costs of blindness, risk of progression and health outcomes, and by conducting an RCT of interventions to improve the uptake of glaucoma testing.Item Clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer: systematic reviews and economic evaluation.(2006-11) Murray, Alison Catherine; Lourenco, Tania; De Verteuil, Robyn; Hernández, Rodolfo Andrés; Fraser, Mary Fraser; McKinley, Aileen Joyce; Krukowski, Zygmunt H.; Vale, Luke David; Grant, Adrian Maxwell; University of Aberdeen, School of Medicine & Dentistry, Division of Applied Health Sciences