Search

Summary: Healthcare administrative (claims) data are commonly utilized to estimate drug effects. We identified considerable heterogeneity in fracture outcome definitions in a scoping review of 57 studies that estimated osteoporosis drug effects on fracture risk. Better understanding of the impact of different fracture definitions on study results is needed. Purpose: Healthcare administrative (claims) data are frequently used to estimate the real-world effects of drugs. Fracture incidence is a common outcome of osteoporosis drug studies. We aimed to describe how fractures are defined in studies that use claims data. Methods: We searched MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), CINAHL (EBSCO), and gray literature for studies published in English between 2000 and 2020 that estimated fracture effectiveness (hip, humerus, radius/ulna, vertebra) or safety (atypical fracture of the femur, AFF) of osteoporosis drugs using claims data in Canada and the USA. Literature searches, screening and data abstraction were completed independently by two reviewers. Results: We identified 57 eligible studies (52 effectiveness, 3 safety, 2 both). Hip fracture was the most common fracture site studied (93%), followed by humerus (66%), radius/ulna (59%), vertebra (61%), and AFF (9%). Half (n = 29) of the studies did not indicate specific data sources, codes, or cite a validation paper. Of the papers with sufficient detail, heterogeneity in fracture definitions was common. The most common definition within each fracture site was used by less than half of the studies that examined effectiveness (12 definitions in 29 hip fracture papers, 8 definitions in 17 humerus papers, 8 definitions in 13 radius/ulna papers, 9 definitions in 15 vertebra papers), and 3 definitions among 4 AFF papers. Conclusion: There is ambiguity and heterogeneity in fracture outcome definitions in studies that leverage claims data. Better transparency in outcome reporting is needed. Future exploration of how fracture definitions impact study results is warranted. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Endoscopic hemostasis is commonly practiced during GI endoscopy practice. We hypothesized that, because the choice of endoscopic intervention is influenced by many factors, for example personal experience, prior training, guidelines, etc., there would be differences in practice patterns among different groups of endoscopists.Objective: To explore the potentially different practices for endoscopic hemostasis between the "East" (eight Asian countries) and the "West" (USA and Canada).Design: Cross-sectional descriptive study (internet-based survey).Study Subjects: We administered a questionnaire survey to American Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) and Korean Society of Gastroenterology (KSGE) members (see: http://www4.utsouthwestern.edu/inetdemo/endoscopy/hemostasis.html , or supplementary paper for review online).Results: Eastern ASGE members (n = 112) were more likely to complete this survey than ASGE members in the West (n = 180): 15.1 vs. 5.0%, P < 0.001. Choice of hemostatic method, regardless of primary or recurrent bleeding, varied significantly among Eastern and Western endoscopists. For example, for treatment of a gastric ulcer with a visible vessel, a vast majority (70%) of Western endoscopists preferred pre-injection followed by thermocoagulation whereas responses from the East were more diverse, with endoclip application +/- pre-injection being the top choice (29%) (P < 0.001). Personal EGD volume and hospital bed numbers did not seem to be associated with hemostatic choices in either the East or the West.Conclusions: Endoscopic hemostasis practice patterns for upper GI tract bleeding differed among Eastern and Western endoscopists, suggesting fundamental differences in practice habit determinants. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper describes four studies on self-reported problems in 2,243 adolescent males and females, 12 to 17 years of age. In Study 1, principal-axis factoring of 102 items covering 11 problem domains revealed six factors comprising 49.5% of the variance. Study 2 used confirmatory factor analysis of a 64-item reduced set on a new sample of 408 adolescents. Goodness-of-fit indicators suggested that the six-factor model had excellent fit to the data. Study 3 used data from the 2,157 adolescents used in the first two studies. Coefficient alphas ranged from .83 to .92. Median test-retest reliability for the six factors was .86. There was a consistent structure of the correlation matrix across age and gender. Study 4 was a study of criterion validity, using an additional sample of 86 children with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Sensitivity and specificity were high, with an overall diagnostic efficiency of 83%. This new self-report scale, the Conners/Wells Adolescent Self-Report of Symptoms (CASS), may provide a useful component of a multimodal assessment of adolescent psychopathology. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]