Refine
Document Type
- Article (4)
Language
- English (4) (remove)
Has Fulltext
- yes (4)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (4)
Keywords
- Evidence-based dentistry (2)
- Evidence-based medicine (2)
- Adverse drug reaction (1)
- Coxibs (1)
- Dental practice (1)
- Dentistry (1)
- E-Learning (1)
- Evaluation (1)
- Evidence-based guidelines (1)
- Intolerance (1)
Institute
- Medizin (4) (remove)
Adverse events triggered by non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are among the most common drug-related intolerance reactions in medicine; they are possibly related to inhibition of cyclooxygenase-1. Coxibs, preferentially inhibiting cyclooxygenase-2, may therefore represent safe alternatives in patients with NSAID intolerance. We reviewed the literature in a systematic and structured manner to identify and evaluate studies on the tolerance of coxibs in patients with NSAID intolerance. We searched MEDLINE (1966–2006), the COCHRANE LIBRARY (4th Issue 2006) and EMBASE (1966–2006) up to December 9, 2006, and analysed all publications included using a predefined evaluation sheet. Symptoms and severity of adverse events to coxibs were analysed based on all articles comprising such information. Subsequently, the probability for adverse events triggered by coxibs was determined on analyses of double-blind prospective trials only. Among 3,304 patients with NSAID intolerance, 119 adverse events occurred under coxib medication. All adverse events, except two, have been allergic/urticarial in nature; none was lethal, but two were graded as life-threatening (grade 4). The two non-allergic adverse events were described as a grade 1 upper respiratory tract haemorrhage, and a grade 1 gastrointestinal symptom, respectively. In 13 double-blind prospective studies comprising a total of 591 patients with NSAID intolerance, only 13 adverse reactions to coxib provocations were observed. The triggering coxibs were rofecoxib (2/286), celecoxib (6/208), etoricoxib (4/56), and valdecoxib (1/41). This review documents the good tolerability of coxibs in patients with NSAID intolerance, for whom access to this class of drugs for short-term treatment of pain and inflammation is advantageous.
Psoriasis vulgaris is a common and chronic inflammatory skin disease which has the potential to significantly reduce the quality of life in severely affected patients. The incidence of psoriasis in Western industrialized countries ranges from 1.5 to 2%. Despite the large variety of treatment options available, patient surveys have revealed insufficient satisfaction with the efficacy of available treatments and a high rate of medication non-compliance. To optimize the treatment of psoriasis in Germany, the Deutsche Dermatologische Gesellschaft and the Berufsverband Deutscher Dermatologen (BVDD) have initiated a project to develop evidence-based guidelines for the management of psoriasis. The guidelines focus on induction therapy in cases of mild, moderate, and severe plaque-type psoriasis in adults. The short version of the guidelines reported here consist of a series of therapeutic recommendations that are based on a systematic literature search and subsequent discussion with experts in the field; they have been approved by a team of dermatology experts. In addition to the therapeutic recommendations provided in this short version, the full version of the guidelines includes information on contraindications, adverse events, drug interactions, practicality, and costs as well as detailed information on how best to apply the treatments described (for full version, please see Nast et al., JDDG, Suppl 2:S1–S126, 2006; or http://www.psoriasis-leitlinie.de).
Background: In the area of education research, it is well-known that studies of a defi ned question are seldom replicated. Furthermore, e-learning resources with evidence-based content in dentistry have received relatively little attention from researchers.
The Context and Purpose of the Study: The aim of this clinical study was to evaluate how dentistry students from two consecutive cohorts in their fi rst clinical semester rate a long-standing evidencebased dentistry (EbD) resource in an e-learning environment using a questionnaire of 43 specifi c items on 1) general questions regarding user-friendliness and acceptability, as well as 2) specifi c questions on content and functional range (A), handling and technical aspects (B), and didactics and educational value (C) based on a Likert scale from 0 = ‘strongly disagree’ to 3 = ‘strongly agree’, and how this compares to a primary study in which the resource was addressed as a novelty. The data were analyzed statistically using a one-way ANOVA followed by a Kruskal-Wallis multiple-comparison Z-test.
Results: A response rate of 100% was achieved. The majority of the users thought the topic of EbD to be important. The e-learning resource was rated with a score of 2.40 ± 0.66 (on a Likert scale from 1-6 where 1 = "very good" and 6 = "insuffi cient"). 86.15% of the students stated that they consider the resource benefi cial for their study in clinical simulation and in patient treatment courses. The results averaged for A: 1.92 (±0.57; median: 1.928), B: 1.48 (±0.60), and C: 2.27 (±0.67). The obtained results in the replication study showed no statistical signifi cant differences to the primary study.
Conclusions: The e-learning resource with dentistry vignettes cases and learning components on evidence-based principles was consistently rated positively by the students. Owing to their agreement with the data of the primary study, the results of the present study point to the remarkable validity of the method of evaluation. This should be addressed in future studies with larger cohorts.
Background: The purpose of this pilot study was to create a valid and reliable set of assessment questions for examining Evidence-based Dentistry (EbD) knowledge. For this reason, we adapted and validated for dental students the Berlin Questionnaire (BQ), which assesses Evidence-based Medicine (EbM) abilities.
Methods: The Berlin Questionnaire was validated with medical residents. We adapted it for use in a dentistry setting. An expert panel reviewed the adapted BQ for content validity. A cross-sectional cohort representing four training levels (EbD-novice dental students, EbD-trained dental students, dentists, and EbM−/EbD-expert faculty) completed the questionnaire. A total of 140 participants comprised the validation set. Internal reliability, item difficulty and item discrimination were assessed. Construct validity was assessed by comparing the mean total scores of students to faculty and comparing proportions of students and faculty who passed each item.
Results: Among the 133 participants (52 EbD-novice dental students, 53 EbD-trained dental students, 12 dentists, and 16 EbM-/ EbD-expert faculty), a statistically significant (p < 0.001) difference was evident in the total score corresponding to the training level. The total score reliability and psychometric properties of items modified for discipline-specific content were acceptable. Cronbach’s alpha was 0.648.
Conclusion: The adapted Berlin Questionnaire is a reliable and valid instrument to assess competence in Evidence-based Dentistry in dental students. Future research will focus on refining the instrument further.