CRIS

Permanent URI for this communityhttps://cris.ute.edu.ec/handle/123456789/1

Browse

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 10 of 21

Some of the metrics are blocked by your
consent settings
Too few trials or too few reported trials?
(Springer Science and Business Media LLC, 2018-10)
VITERI GARCIA, ANDRES ALEJANDRO
;
Nicholas J. DeVito
;
Ben Goldacre
Some of the metrics are blocked by your
consent settings
Effects of Exposure to Cola-Based Soft Drink on Bleaching Effectiveness and Tooth Sensitivity of In-Office Bleaching: A Blind Clinical Trial
(Informa UK Limited, 2019-12)
Viviane Hass
;
Stephanye Tavares Carvalhal
;
Suellen Nogueira Linares Lima
;
VITERI GARCIA, ANDRES ALEJANDRO
;
Etevaldo Matos Maia Filho
Scopus© Citations 13
Some of the metrics are blocked by your
consent settings
Effect of mouthwashes on the integrity of composite resin and resin modified glass ionomer: In vitro study
(Medicina Oral, S.L., 2019)
A. Armas-Vega
;
P Casanova-Obando
;
MF Taboada-Alvear
;
JE Aldas-Ramirez
;
N Montero-Oleas
Scopus© Citations 11
Some of the metrics are blocked by your
consent settings
GRADE-Based Recommendations for Surgical Repair of Nonruptured Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm
(SAGE Publications, 2019-04-08)
Margarita Posso
;
M. Jesús Quintana
;
Sergi Bellmunt
;
Laura Martínez García
;
José R. Escudero
<jats:p> The objective of this study was to provide evidence-based recommendations for endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) versus open surgical repair (OSR) for patients with a nonruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA). We followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis statement and adhered to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) framework. Both low- and high surgical risk patients treated with EVAR showed decreased 30-day mortality, but the low-risk group had no differences in 4-year mortality. Compared with friendly anatomy, patients with hostile anatomy had an increased risk of type I endoleak. Young patients may prefer OSR. Endovascular aneurysm repair was not cost-effective in Europe. Four conditional recommendations were formulated: (1) OSR for low-risk patients up to 80 years old, (2) EVAR for low-risk patients older than 80 years, (3) EVAR for high-risk patients as long as is anatomically feasible, and (4) OSR in patients in whom it is not anatomically feasible to perform EVAR. Based on GRADE criteria, either OSR or EVAR can be suggested to patients with nonruptured AAA taking into account their surgical risk, hostile anatomy, and age. Given the weakness of the recommendations, personal preferences are determinant. </jats:p>
Scopus© Citations 6
Some of the metrics are blocked by your
consent settings
Selective removal compared to complete removal for deep carious lesions
(Medwave Estudios Limitada, 2020-01-31)
Francisca Verdugo-Paiva
;
Paula Zambrano-Achig
;
SIMANCAS RACINES, DANIEL ALEJANDRO
;
VITERI GARCIA, ANDRES ALEJANDRO
Scopus© Citations 6
Some of the metrics are blocked by your
consent settings
Knowledge translation: Cochrane, Wikipedia and students’ initiatives
(Medwave Estudios Limitada, 2020-03-31)
Nahir Aucar
;
VITERI GARCIA, ANDRES ALEJANDRO
;
Juan Víctor Ariel Franco
;
SIMANCAS RACINES, DANIEL ALEJANDRO
Scopus© Citations 2
Some of the metrics are blocked by your
consent settings
Therapeutic use of cannabis and cannabinoids: an evidence mapping and appraisal of systematic reviews
(Springer Science and Business Media LLC, 2020-01-15)
Nadia Montero-Oleas
;
Ingrid Arevalo-Rodriguez
;
Solange Nuñez-González
;
VITERI GARCIA, ANDRES ALEJANDRO
;
SIMANCAS RACINES, DANIEL ALEJANDRO
<jats:title>Abstract</jats:title><jats:sec> <jats:title>Background</jats:title> <jats:p>Although cannabis and cannabinoids are widely used with therapeutic purposes, their claimed efficacy is highly controversial. For this reason, medical cannabis use is a broad field of research that is rapidly expanding. Our objectives are to identify, characterize, appraise, and organize the current available evidence surrounding therapeutic use of cannabis and cannabinoids, using evidence maps.</jats:p> </jats:sec><jats:sec> <jats:title>Methods</jats:title> <jats:p>We searched PubMed, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library and CINAHL, to identify systematic reviews (SRs) published from their inception up to December 2017. Two authors assessed eligibility and extracted data independently. We assessed methodological quality of the included SRs using the AMSTAR tool. To illustrate the extent of use of medical cannabis, we organized the results according to identified PICO questions using bubble plots corresponding to different clinical scenarios.</jats:p> </jats:sec><jats:sec> <jats:title>Results</jats:title> <jats:p>A total of 44 SRs published between 2001 and 2017 were included in this evidence mapping with data from 158 individual studies. We extracted 96 PICO questions in the following medical conditions: multiple sclerosis, movement disorders (e.g. Tourette Syndrome, Parkinson Disease), psychiatry conditions, Alzheimer disease, epilepsy, acute and chronic pain, cancer, neuropathic pain, symptoms related to cancer (e.g. emesis and anorexia related with chemotherapy), rheumatic disorders, HIV-related symptoms, glaucoma, and COPD. The evidence about these conditions is heterogeneous regarding the conclusions and the quality of the individual primary studies. The quality of the SRs was moderate to high according to AMSTAR scores.</jats:p> </jats:sec><jats:sec> <jats:title>Conclusions</jats:title> <jats:p>Evidence on medical uses of cannabis is broad. However, due to methodological limitations, conclusions were weak in most of the assessed comparisons. Evidence mapping methodology is useful to perform an overview of available research, since it is possible to systematically describe the extent and distribution of evidence, and to organize scattered data.</jats:p> </jats:sec>
Scopus© Citations 64
Some of the metrics are blocked by your
consent settings
Prevalence and incidence of dental caries associated with the effect of tooth brushing and fluoride varnishing in scholars at Galapagos Islands, Ecuador: Protocol of the EESO-Gal study
(Medwave Estudios Limitada, 2020-07-31)
VITERI GARCIA, ANDRES ALEJANDRO
;
Parise Vasco Juan Marcos
;
María José Cabrera-Dávila
;
María Christel Zambrano-Bonilla
;
Ingrid Ordonez-Romero
Scopus© Citations 8
Some of the metrics are blocked by your
consent settings
Drug treatments for covid-19: living systematic review and network meta-analysis
(BMJ, 2020-07-30)
Reed AC Siemieniuk
;
Jessica J Bartoszko
;
Dena Zeraatkar
;
Elena Kum
;
Anila Qasim
<jats:title>Abstract</jats:title> <jats:sec> <jats:title>Objective</jats:title> <jats:p>To compare the effects of treatments for coronavirus disease 2019 (covid-19).</jats:p> </jats:sec> <jats:sec> <jats:title>Design</jats:title> <jats:p>Living systematic review and network meta-analysis.</jats:p> </jats:sec> <jats:sec> <jats:title>Data sources</jats:title> <jats:p>WHO covid-19 database, a comprehensive multilingual source of global covid-19 literature, up to 3 December 2021 and six additional Chinese databases up to 20 February 2021. Studies identified as of 1 December 2021 were included in the analysis.</jats:p> </jats:sec> <jats:sec> <jats:title>Study selection</jats:title> <jats:p>Randomised clinical trials in which people with suspected, probable, or confirmed covid-19 were randomised to drug treatment or to standard care or placebo. Pairs of reviewers independently screened potentially eligible articles.</jats:p> </jats:sec> <jats:sec> <jats:title>Methods</jats:title> <jats:p>After duplicate data abstraction, a bayesian network meta-analysis was conducted. Risk of bias of the included studies was assessed using a modification of the Cochrane risk of bias 2.0 tool, and the certainty of the evidence using the grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation (GRADE) approach. For each outcome, interventions were classified in groups from the most to the least beneficial or harmful following GRADE guidance.</jats:p> </jats:sec> <jats:sec> <jats:title>Results</jats:title> <jats:p>463 trials enrolling 166 581 patients were included; 267 (57.7%) trials and 89 814 (53.9%) patients are new from the previous iteration; 265 (57.2%) trials evaluating treatments with at least 100 patients or 20 events met the threshold for inclusion in the analyses. Compared with standard care, three drugs reduced mortality in patients with mostly severe disease with at least moderate certainty: systemic corticosteroids (risk difference 23 fewer per 1000 patients, 95% credible interval 40 fewer to 7 fewer, moderate certainty), interleukin-6 receptor antagonists when given with corticosteroids (23 fewer per 1000, 36 fewer to 7 fewer, moderate certainty), and Janus kinase inhibitors (44 fewer per 1000, 64 fewer to 20 fewer, high certainty). Compared with standard care, two drugs probably reduce hospital admission in patients with non-severe disease: nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (36 fewer per 1000, 41 fewer to 26 fewer, moderate certainty) and molnupiravir (19 fewer per 1000, 29 fewer to 5 fewer, moderate certainty). Remdesivir may reduce hospital admission (29 fewer per 1000, 40 fewer to 6 fewer, low certainty). Only molnupiravir had at least moderate quality evidence of a reduction in time to symptom resolution (3.3 days fewer, 4.8 fewer to 1.6 fewer, moderate certainty); several others showed a possible benefit. Several drugs may increase the risk of adverse effects leading to drug discontinuation; hydroxychloroquine probably increases the risk of mechanical ventilation (moderate certainty).</jats:p> </jats:sec> <jats:sec> <jats:title>Conclusion</jats:title> <jats:p>Corticosteroids, interleukin-6 receptor antagonists, and Janus kinase inhibitors probably reduce mortality and confer other important benefits in patients with severe covid-19. Molnupiravir and nirmatrelvir/ritonavir probably reduce admission to hospital in patients with non-severe covid-19.</jats:p> </jats:sec> <jats:sec> <jats:title>Systematic review registration</jats:title> <jats:p>This review was not registered. The protocol is publicly available in the supplementary material.</jats:p> </jats:sec> <jats:sec> <jats:title>Readers’ note</jats:title> <jats:p> This article is a living systematic review that will be updated to reflect emerging evidence. Updates may occur for up to two years from the date of original publication. This is the fifth version of the original article published on 30 July 2020 ( <jats:italic>BMJ</jats:italic> 2020;370:m2980), and previous versions can be found as data supplements. When citing this paper please consider adding the version number and date of access for clarity. </jats:p> </jats:sec>
Scopus© Citations 679
Some of the metrics are blocked by your
consent settings
The perspectives of patients and their caregivers on self-management interventions for chronic conditions: a protocol for a mixed-methods overview
(F1000 Research Ltd, 2021-11-29)
Ena Niño de Guzmán
;
Laura Martínez García
;
Ana I. González
;
Monique Heijmans
;
Jorge Huaringa
<ns3:p><ns3:bold>Introduction</ns3:bold>: Self-management (SM) interventions are complex interventions and one of the main components of high-quality chronic disease care for which the incorporation of the perspectives of patients and their informal caregivers is crucial. We aim to identify, appraise and synthesise the evidence exploring patients’ and caregivers’ perspectives on SM interventions. More precisely, we aim to 1) describe how they value the importance of outcomes of SM interventions, and 2) identify the factors that might impact on acceptability and feasibility of SM interventions based on their preferences and experiences.</ns3:p><ns3:p> <ns3:bold>Methods and analysis</ns3:bold>: We will conduct four mixed-methods overviews as part of COMPAR-EU, a European Union (EU) funded project aimed to identify the most effective and cost-effective SM interventions for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), heart failure (HF), obesity, and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). We will search in MEDLINE, CINAHL, and PsycINFO for systematic reviews of studies addressing patients’ preferences on outcomes, or their experiences with SM alongside their disease trajectory or with SM interventions, published in English. Selection of studies and data extraction will be conducted in pairs. We will assess the overlap of studies and methodological quality. We will follow a three-step synthesis process: 1) narrative synthesis for quantitative evidence, 2) thematic synthesis for qualitative evidence, and 3) integration of findings in the interpretation phase. Additionally, we will consult on the relevance of findings with patients and their caregivers.</ns3:p><ns3:p> <ns3:bold>Systematic review registration</ns3:bold>: PROSPERO <ns3:ext-link xmlns:ns4="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" ext-link-type="uri" ns4:href="https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42019117867">CRD42019117867</ns3:ext-link></ns3:p>
Scopus© Citations 12

CRIS

Browse

Filters

Settings

Sort By

Results per page

Search Results