PMCC PMCC

Search tips
Search criteria

Advanced
Results 1-2 (2)
 

Clipboard (0)
None

Select a Filter Below

Journals
Authors
more »
Year of Publication
Document Types
1.  Cervical cancer screening among HIV-positive women 
Canadian Family Physician  2010;56(12):e425-e431.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE
To determine the rate of cervical screening among HIV-positive women who received care at a tertiary care clinic, and to determine whether screening rates were influenced by having a primary care provider.
DESIGN
Retrospective chart review.
SETTING
Tertiary care outpatient clinic in Ottawa, Ont.
PARTICIPANTS
Women who were HIV-positive receiving care at the Ottawa Hospital General Campus Immunodeficiency Clinic between July 1, 2002, and June 30, 2005.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES
Whether patients had primary care providers and whether they received cervical screening. We recorded information on patient demographics, HIV status, primary care providers, and cervical screening, including date, results, and type of health care provider ordering the screening.
RESULTS
Fifty-eight percent (126 of 218) of the women had at least 1 cervical screening test during the 3-year period. Thirty-three percent (42 of 126) of the women who underwent cervical screening had at least 1 abnormal test result. The proportion of women who did not have any cervical tests performed was higher among women who did not have primary care providers (8 of 12 [67%] vs 84 of 206 [41%]; relative risk 1.6, 95% confidence interval 1.06 to 2.52, P < .05), although this group was small.
CONCLUSION
Despite the high proportion of abnormal cervical screening test results among HIV-positive women, screening rates remained low. Our results support our hypothesis that those women who do not have primary care providers are less likely to undergo cervical screening.
PMCID: PMC3001950  PMID: 21375064
2.  Safety and effectiveness of point-of-care monitoring devices in patients on oral anticoagulant therapy: a meta-analysis 
Open Medicine  2007;1(3):e131-e146.
Background
Point-of-care devices (POCDs) for monitoring long-term oral anticoagulation therapy (OAT) may be a useful alternative to laboratory-based international normalized ratio [INR] testing and clinical management.
Purpose
To determine clinical outcomes of the use of POCDs for OAT management by performing a meta-analysis. Previous meta-analyses on POCDs have serious limitations.
Data sources
PubMed, the Cochrane Library, DIALOG, MEDLINE, EMBASE, BIOSIS Previews and PASCAL databases.
Study selection
Randomized controlled trials of patients on long-term OAT, comparing anticoagulation monitoring by POCD with laboratory INR testing and clinical management.
Data extraction
1) rates of major hemorrhage; 2) rates of major thromboembolic events; 3) percentage of time that the patient is maintained within the therapeutic range; 4) deaths. Outcomes were compared using a random-effects model. Summary measures of rates were determined. The quality of studies was assessed using the Jadad scale.
Data synthesis
Seventeen articles (16 studies) were included. Data analysis showed that POCD INR testing reduced the risk of major thromboembolic events (odds ratio [OR] = 0.51; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.35–0.74), was associated with fewer deaths (OR = 0.58; 95% CI = 0.38–0.89), and resulted in better INR control compared with laboratory INR testing. No significant difference between the two management modalities with respect to odds ratios for major hemorrhage was found.
Limitations
Quality scores varied from 1 to 3 (out of a maximum of 5). Only 3 studies defined how thromboembolic events would be diagnosed, casting doubt on the accuracy of the reporting of thromboembolic events. The studies suggest that only 24% of patients are good candidates for self-testing and self-management. Compared with patients managed with laboratory-based monitoring, POCD patients underwent INR testing at a much higher frequency and received much more intensive education on OAT management.
Conclusions
The use of POCDs is safe and may be more effective than laboratory-based monitoring. However, most patients are not good candidates for self-testing and self-management. Patient education and frequency of testing may be the most important factors in successful PODC management. Definitive conclusions about the clinical benefits provided by self-testing and self-management require more rigorously designed trials.
PMCID: PMC3113217  PMID: 21673942

Results 1-2 (2)