Podcasts about cinahl

Norton Healthcare's Plugged in to Nursing is the podcast that celebrates and informs the profession of nursing. Title: Serving All, Norton Healthcare Medical Librarians Summary: Did you know Norton Healthcare has its own medical librarians, medical journal, and archivist? In February's episode of Plugged In to Nursing, hear Adriana Barnes Clizbe, RN, Beth Johnson, system medical librarian, and Cece Railey, system medical librarian, discuss the many educational resources Norton Healthcare offers through its medical librarian team. Learn whom the librarians support, expectations when literature requests are placed, and how to connect with resources in-personand virtually. As Cece shares, the role of a librarian is similar to the work of an investigator; our librarians are here to help us gather information so we can provide the best care to all those we serve! Speakers: Adriana Barnes Clizbe, RN Norton Brownsboro Hospital Beth Johnson, MSLS, MSET System Medical Librarian Cece Railey, MSLS, AHIP-D, MPH  System Medical Librarian   Helpful Show Notes: ‘VML' is Norton Healthcare's Virtual Medical Library ‘Nsite' is Norton Healthcare's intranet ‘Epic' is Norton Healthcare's internal electronic medical record platform PubMed: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/ CINAHL: https://www.ebsco.com/products/research-databases/cinahl-database ClinicalKey: https://www.clinicalkey.com/#!/ Medline: https://medlineplus.gov/ UptoDate: https://www.wolterskluwer.com/en/solutions/uptodate DynaMed: https://www.dynamed.com/ ‘PDR' is the Physician's Desk Reference: https://www.pdr.net/ library@nortonhealthcare.org ‘RSV' is respiratory syncytial virus Shirley.Harmon@nortonhealthcare.org   About Norton Healthcare's Center for Nursing Practice Norton Healthcare's Center for Nursing Practice is responsible for readying student nurses for practice and transitioning new graduate nurses into practice.  Our team is committed to serving the profession of nursing, meeting people where they are and taking them to where they want to be. Contact Information:  PluggedInToNursing@nortonhealthcare.org

This is a re release of one of our most listened to episodes! Be sure you don't miss it this time around!It's common for people to ask what they can do to prepare themselves for labor and birth. On today's episode, we will talk about it all…exercises to do, foods to eat, things to drink, and practitioners to see!Mentioned articles:EBB 216 - The Evidence on Prenatal Perineal Massage for Preventing Tears in Childbirth with Dr. Rebecca Dekker - Evidence Based Birth®EBB 128 - Inducing Labor with Castor Oil and Dates - Evidence Based Birth®February 9, 2021, systematic review published in BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies evaluated 6 databases (CINAHL, MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Scopus, Web of Science Core Collection, and AMED database)Mentioned Instragram people to follow:MamasteFit: Gina & Roxanne (@mamastefit) • Instagram photos and videosPUSH fitness (@pushfitmom) • Instagram photos and videosPlease feel free to reach out to us with any recommendations for show episode ideas. If you'd like to be a guest, email us with some information about yourself and what type of podcast you'd like to record together. Thank you for all of your support and don't forget to follow and review our podcast, Birth, Baby!Instagram: @‌BirthBabyPodcastEmail: BirthBabyPodcast@gmail.comWebsite: https://birthbabypodcast.transistor.fm/Intro and Outro music by Longing for Orpheus. You can find them on Spotify!

Dr. Christina Prevett // #LeadershipThursday // www.ptonice.com  In today's episode of the PT on ICE Daily Show, ICE faculty member Christina Prevett emphasizes the crucial role of understanding statistics in making clinically relevant decisions. While staying up to date with the literature and being evidence-based are often emphasized in healthcare, Christina points out that it is not enough if one lacks the ability to comprehend the meaning of statistics and their application in a clinical setting. Christina acknowledges that interpreting statistics can be challenging, even for individuals with a PhD and experience in the field. This understanding leads the host to empathize with clinicians who may find statistics intimidating. It is recognized that being evidence-informed and evidence-based requires clinicians to possess the skills to understand and interpret the data they encounter. To make statistics more clinically relevant, Christina suggests utilizing systematic reviews and meta-analyses as tools for interpretation. Specifically, she delves into the interpretation of a forest plot, which graphically represents the results of a meta-analysis. By understanding how to interpret and analyze the data presented in systematic reviews and meta-analyses, clinicians can determine if the findings are significant enough to drive changes in their practice. Christina also highlights the importance of considering clinical relevance when interpreting statistical findings. The concept of the minimum clinically important difference (MCID) is introduced, which refers to the smallest change in an outcome measure that is considered clinically meaningful. An example is given of a statistically significant improvement in a timed up-and-go (TUG) test, but it is explained that it may not be clinically relevant if it does not meet the MCID for the TUG.   Take a listen to the podcast episode or read the full transcription below. If you're looking to learn more about courses designed to start your own practice, check out our Brick by Brick practice management course or our online physical therapy courses, check out our entire list of continuing education courses for physical therapy including our physical therapy certifications by checking out our website. Don't forget about all of our FREE eBooks, prebuilt workshops, free CEUs, and other physical therapy continuing education on our Resources tab. EPISODE TRANSCRIPTION INTRODUCTION Hey everyone, this is Alan. Chief Operating Officer here at ICE. Before we get started with today's episode, I want to talk to you about VersaLifts. Today's episode is brought to you by VersaLifts. Best known for their heel lift shoe inserts, VersaLifts has been a leading innovator in bringing simple but highly effective rehab tools to the market. If you have clients with stiff ankles, Achilles tendinopathy, or basic skeletal structure limitations keeping them from squatting with proper form and good depth, a little heel lift can make a huge difference. VersaLifts heel lifts are available in three different sizes and all of them add an additional half inch of h drop to any training shoe, helping athletes squat deeper with better form. Visit www.vlifts.com/icephysio or click the link in today's show notes to get your VersaLifts today. CHRISTINA PREVETTGood morning everybody and welcome to the PT on ICE daily show. My name is Christina Prevett. I am one of the lead faculty in our geriatric and pelvic health divisions. So usually you're seeing me on Monday and Wednesday, but today I'm putting on my PhD research hat to talk a little bit about statistics, which I know sounds really boring, but I promise I'm gonna make it really exciting. But before we do that, we have a couple of courses that are coming up across our divisions. So MMOA is in Wappinger's Falls, NY this weekend. Extremity Management is on the road in Woodstock, Georgia. And Cervical Spine is heading to Bridgewater, Massachusetts. And so if you are looking to get in some Con Ed before the end of the year, we still have a couple of opportunities across all of our different divisions. And so I encourage you to go to ptinice.com and take a look at some of those opportunities. Okay, so a little bit about my kind of hat outside of working with ice is that I recently finished my PhD at McMaster University at the end of this year. I just announced that I'm doing a part-time postdoctoral fellowship at the University of Alberta looking at resistance training and its interaction with pregnancy and pelvic floor function. BUMPING INTO STATISTICS What that means is that I am bumping into statistics all the time. And I'm going to like kind of start this off and say, I've been asked to do some webinars and things around statistics for the ice crew for a while. And to be honest, it's been really intimidating for me to do that, despite the fact that, you know, I have a PhD and I'm interacting with this stuff all the time. Um, statistics is hard and, you know, discussing statistics in a way that makes sense is also challenging. And when I reflect on that and the fact that you know, I feel uncomfortable sometimes with interpretation and you know, I did a part-time PhD for seven years and I'm in a postdoctoral position. I recognize how challenging it can be for clinicians. And, you know, we get told all the time, like, you know, stay evidence-informed, like it's important to be evidence-based. It's important to stay up to date with the literature. But your ability to stay up to date with the literature is only as good as your capacity to understand what it is trying to tell you. And I mean that in the best way possible, that it is so tough for us to gain insights from what the statistics mean into what is clinically relevant for us to understand and be able to bring into our clinics. So today I'm trying to take our statistics and make them clinically relevant to you. SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS WITH META-ANALYSIS One of the first ways that I want to do that, and if you like this type of podcast please let me know, and I'll do more, is around the systematic review and meta-analysis and then trying to kind of deep dive into interpreting a forest plot. So when we're thinking about a systematic review, this is the highest level of evidence when we have a systematic review of intervention or prospective studies. When we take a systematic review, we ask a very specific question. And I'm going to use the example, I'm working on a systematic review right now on resistance training and pregnancy. And I'm going to take some of that to make this relevant to how this happens. This is where we're trying to get an idea of the state of the literature. So we use a PICO format, which is the population that we're trying to look at. So in this case, it's individuals who are pregnant. The intervention is what you are trying to see if there's a positive or negative benefit or whatever that exposure may be. And that for me is resistance training. The comparison group is to usual obstetrical care. And then the outcomes, we are looking at fetal delivery, pregnancy, and pelvic floor-related outcomes. So we're looking at the investigation of resistance training on incidents of gestational hypertension and preeclampsia, gestational diabetes, rights of cesarean section, the size of babies, and babies more likely to be too big or too small. What does their birth weight look like? How long are they pregnant? And then are they at increased risk for things like urinary incontinence, pelvic organ prolapse, diastasis recti, or pelvic girdle pain? So that's kind of the format of a systematic review we're trying to answer a very specific question. From there, we go to the literature and we want to make sure that we encompass as much literature as we can. in our search strategy. So that is usually why you'll see a list of PubMed and OVID, CINAHL, Sports Discus, like these types of different big searching platforms that are looked at. And then you're going to get a Prisma plot that you're going to see in the first figure. And that kind of describes a person's search strategy. So how many hits were given when this search was done? How many were excluded because of duplicates? How many were excluded from the title and abstract because they were done in rats instead of in humans? Or they were looking at an acute effect of resistance training versus being on a resistance training program like you're going to have a lot of those that are excluded. And then you're going to have kind of what is included in your systematic review, and then what is included in your meta-analysis if a meta-analysis is indicated or possible. When we're looking at a systematic review, we're looking at a qualitative synthesis. And what we mean by that is that we're trying to figure out, you know, where the state of the literature is. And when I'm reporting on something like the systematic review portion of a paper, You're seeing things like, you know, how many studies were done in resistance training in pregnancy? How long were those interventions? Were they done in the same cohort of individuals? What was, how many of them were statistically significant? What was the dosage of that intervention? Those are things that kind of come under the systematic review umbrella. But I would say really now the emphasis is being placed on the meta-analysis and that is the quantitative combination of these studies and that is what gives us this forest plot. So when we are going through and doing a meta-analysis, there are a couple of things that we need to make decisions on very early on. So the first thing is on a random or a fixed effects model. This is kind of getting into the weeds, but almost all papers are going to be a random effects model, which means that we're going to expect some variability in the population that we are working with, and we're going to account for that variability in the calculations that we're using for our forest plot. PRIORI SUBGROUP ANALYSES The second thing that we are looking at is a priori subgroup analysis. And so I'm going to use my research study to describe this. Before going into this meta-analysis and putting this forest plot together, we have to brainstorm around where possible sources of skew or bias would come into a forest plot. For example, in the resistance training intervention, it would be very different when we have resistance training in isolation versus resistance training as a component of a multi-component program. And so one of our subgroups analyses a priori we discussed was that we were going to subgroup studies that were only resistance training compared to our big meta-analysis, which included our resistance training in isolation or as a multi-pronged program. Another example in our systematic review is that some of our studies were on individuals with low risk at inception into the papers versus those that were brought into the study because they were diagnosed with a complication like gestational diabetes. we could think that the influence of resistance training on a person who has not been diagnosed with gestational diabetes versus those who have could be different. And so we did a secondary subgroup analysis where we looked at the differences between studies that looked at only individuals with gestational diabetes versus those that didn't. And so when you are looking at a forest plot, you will see the big analysis at the top, including all of the different studies. And then after that, you will see different subgroups where there's a repeater of what was in the main group, but it's a subsection of the included studies. And that's what we see. And then we try to see, you know, is resistance training and isolation positively associated with a benefit? versus multi-component or is there no difference and that gives us a lot of information too? So that's that subgroup analysis. Then you go into the results of the paper and there is a forest plot that is there and this forest plot has a bunch of different names of studies It has the total number of incidences and the weight. It has a confidence interval with a number around it. And then on the right-hand side, there's like dots with lots of lines and then a big thick dot at the bottom. I'm trying to explain this to our podcast listeners so that you can kind of understand. And I hope you're kind of thinking of a study in your mind that you have seen in the past. But we're going to kind of explain each of these different things. Okay, so when we're looking at what we are trying to find, it is going to depend if we are looking at a dichotomous variable like did gestational hypertension get diagnosed or not? And if it is a dichotomous variable, what we're looking at is an odds ratio with a 95% confidence interval. So if we are thinking that no difference between usual care and resistance training is one, then a reduction in risk for gestational hypertension with resistance training would be an odds ratio that is less than one. When it is less than one, it becomes statistically significant when the 95% confidence interval encompasses all numbers less than one. When the confidence interval, say for example, our odds ratio is 0.8, we can say that there is a 20% reduction in risk, because a one minus 0.8, of getting gestational hypertension because of resistance training. I'm making these numbers up. But that is only statistically significant if the confidence interval is 0.7 to 0.9. then we can say there's a statistically significant reduction in risk for gestational hypertension with resistance training in this systematic review of this meta-analysis. Where we cannot say it's statistically significant is if the odds ratio is 0.8 and the 95% confidence interval is 0.6 to 1.2. That crossing of one means that there is a higher likelihood that there is that variation is because of chance and not because of a true difference. And so what you see is that when you're looking at the odds ratio, the combination of all of those odds ratios from the individual studies are then pooled in that bolded line at the bottom of the forest plot to give us the confidence that we have based on all of the studies combined, that there is a true effect of resistance training in this example on gestational hypertension. I-SQUARED HETEROGENEITY The other kind of statistic that we're looking at is the I-squared statistic or the amount of heterogeneity. So when you're looking at that forest plot and you're seeing all the dots and those lines, the heterogeneity is basically saying how close are those dots? How much spread is there in those dots? And so if the heterogeneity is low, we can say that not only did we have a statistically significant result, but across all of the studies, we tended to see a trend in the same direction. So it allows us to have more strength and confidence in the results that we are getting. If we see a high amount of heterogeneity, so like there are some that are like really favoring control and saying that resistance training is bad for gestational hypertension, and then some are having really positive effects of gestational hypertension on resistance training, that I square statistic would be high, and then we would probably have to be doing more evaluation, and that's where we would rely really heavily on the subgroup and say, Well, is there certain subpopulations of this group that are skewing the data in one way or the other where their results may be different than the results of other individuals? And so that gives us a bit more information. So the odds ratio is when we're looking at the presence of an event and it's a binary variable of yes, this exposure exists or no, this exposure didn't. When we are looking at continuous variables, we are looking at like a time on an outcome measure, like the time to up and go, we are looking at a mean difference score between resistance training and a control. So the mean difference is going to be in the measurement of the outcome measure that we are looking at. So the target would be seconds. So then from the pool, it would be plus, Six seconds or mine I guess minus six seconds would be in favor of resistance training and that your tug score is six seconds less in a resistance training arm than a control arm or if it goes against resistance training it would be plus six and Again, we're looking at that 95% confidence interval. That average, that mean difference is also something that we would push against what our clinically relevant difference is. So we may see something that's statistically significant at a two-second improvement, but we know that the MCID for the TUG is four seconds. So while yes, it's statistically significant, it may not be a clinically relevant finding. So that's kind of where we build in clinical relevance. And then again, we look at that 95% confidence interval, see what that spread looks like, and look at that I squared statistic. Where it gets a little bit more complicated is when we have things that are measuring the same thing, but measuring it in a different way. So an example in the systematic review that I did on resistance training and lower extremity strength is that there are a lot of different ways for us to measure lower extremity strength. Some people may use an estimated one rep max, and Some people may use a five-time sit-to-stand as a conduit for functional strength training. Some people may use a dynamometer for knee extensor strength. There's a lot of different ways for us to do that. We can still do a meta-analysis on this, but what we have to do is transform all of those variables into one type of measure. And that's when we would see something called a standardized mean difference, an SMD. And in that SMD, we're essentially taking the impacts of all these different types of measurements that are telling us the same information and putting it into an effect size. And so the effect size gives us the amount of confidence that we can see in the influence of the intervention resistance training on the outcome of lower extremity strength. So an effect size using Cohen's d statistic would be that less than 2 is no effect, 2 to 5 is a moderate or minimal effect, 5 to 0.8 is a moderate effect, and 0.8 and above is a large effect. And so in my systematic review on lower extremity strength and resistance training in individuals with mobility disability, we saw a standardized mean difference of 3, which means that we can be really confident there was a large influence of resistance training on the development of lower extremity strength. So kind of pulling this all together, I know I threw a lot at you. When you were looking at the forest plot, you were looking at trends in the data that are pooling all of the different intervention studies, looking at the same construct and looking at the same outcome. When we are looking at the odds ratio, this is a binary variable. There's going to be a 95% confidence interval. And the pooled odds ratio that we look at with respect to making decisions is that bolded number at the bottom. Our I-squared statistic gives us an idea of the spread of the data and the results that we see. When we are looking at continuous variables, you're going to see either a mean difference or a standardized mean difference. The mean difference is reported in the measurement of the outcome measure that we're talking about. So it could be seconds, it could be points. A standardized mean difference is an effect size where we are transforming multiple different outcome measures into one output that's pooling these things together, but we have to do it in a standardized metric that looks at the magnitude of the effect of that outcome. So how do we think about this clinically? Well, the first thing is that we need to understand where these effect sizes are and if they are significant. And then we have to put it through the filter of, is this clinically relevant? When we have something that isn't statistically significant, the next thing to do is go into the methods and say, you know, was this dose appropriate? Was this done in the way that I would do this? And can I be confident that the interaction between what I would do in the clinic and what was done in these studies is significant enough for me to drive changes in my practice? All right, I hope you found that helpful. I'm at 18 minutes, I knew I would. But if you have any other questions about statistics and how to interpret them, please let me know. It's really important that we know how to understand the data that we're being presented with because that's how we're gonna change our clinical decisions based on what we are seeing. All right, have a wonderful afternoon, everyone. I promise hopefully I didn't stress your brain out by talking about math too much and hopefully, this was helpful and we can do it again sometime. OUTRO Hey, thanks for tuning in to the PT on Ice daily show. If you enjoyed this content, head on over to iTunes and leave us a review, and be sure to check us out on Facebook and Instagram at the Institute of Clinical Excellence. If you're interested in getting plugged into more ice content on a weekly basis while earning CEUs from home, check out our virtual ice online mentorship program at ptonice.com. While you're there, sign up for our Hump Day Hustling newsletter for a free email every Wednesday morning with our top five research articles and social media posts that we think are worth reading. Head over to ptonice.com and scroll to the bottom of the page to sign up.

It's common for people to ask what they can do to prepare themselves for labor and birth. On today's episode, we will talk about it all…exercises to do, foods to eat, things to drink, and practitioners to see!SummaryIn this episode, Ciarra and Samantha discuss how to prepare for labor and birth. They emphasize the importance of education, knowing your options, and taking a well-rounded childbirth class. They also talk about the benefits of exercise during pregnancy, including walking, prenatal yoga, and strength exercises. The hosts highlight the significance of nutrition, such as consuming high protein and high fiber foods, and getting essential vitamins and minerals. They also stress the importance of staying hydrated with water. Overall, the episode provides valuable information and tips for preparing for labor and birth. In this episode, the hosts discuss various methods that can help prepare the body for labor, including drinking red raspberry leaf tea, eating dates, and practicing perineal massage. They also touch on the benefits of chiropractic care, pelvic floor therapy, and acupuncture. While some of these methods have limited scientific evidence, they emphasize the importance of listening to your body and finding what works best for you. They also acknowledge that not everyone has access to or can afford these methods, and suggest alternative options like spinning babies exercises and self-performed perineal massage.TakeawaysTake a well-rounded childbirth class to learn about your options for labor and birth.Engage in regular exercise during pregnancy to build stamina and strength.Focus on nutrition by consuming high protein and high fiber foods and getting essential vitamins and minerals.Stay hydrated with water and limit caffeine intake.Be in tune with your body and listen to its needs throughout pregnancy. Drinking red raspberry leaf tea, eating dates, and practicing perineal massage are thought to help prepare the body for labor, although the scientific evidence is limited.Chiropractic care, pelvic floor therapy, and acupuncture can also be beneficial in preparing the body for labor.It's important to listen to your body and find what works best for you, as not all methods may be effective for everyone.Alternative options like spinning babies exercises and self-performed perineal massage can be helpful for those who cannot access or afford other methods.Mentioned articles:EBB 216 - The Evidence on Prenatal Perineal Massage for Preventing Tears in Childbirth with Dr. Rebecca Dekker - Evidence Based Birth®EBB 128 - Inducing Labor with Castor Oil and Dates - Evidence Based Birth®February 9, 2021, systematic review published in BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies evaluated 6 databases (CINAHL, MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Scopus, Web of Science Core Collection, and AMED database)Mentioned Instragram people to follow:MamasteFit: Gina & Roxanne (@mamastefit) • Instagram photos and videosPUSH fitness (@pushfitmom) • Instagram photos and videosPlease feel free to reach out to us with any recommendations for show episode ideas. If you'd like to be a guest, email us with some information about yourself and what type of podcast you'd like to record together. Thank you for all of your support and don't forget to follow and review our podcast, Birth, Baby!Instagram: @‌BirthBabyPodcastEmail: BirthBabyPodcast@gmail.comWebsite: https://birthbabypodcast.transistor.fm/Intro and Outro music by Longing for Orpheus. You can find them on Spotify! (00:00) - Preparing for Labor and Birth: Education and Options (07:50) - Exercise During Pregnancy: Building Stamina and Strength (11:54) - Nutrition During Pregnancy: High Protein and High Fiber Foods (24:55) - Being in Tune with Your Body: Listening to its Needs (30:51) - Preparing the Body for Labor: Red Raspberry Leaf Tea, Dates, and Perineal Massage (33:02) - Additional Methods for Labor Preparation: Chiropractic Care, Pelvic Floor Therapy, and Acupuncture (44:10) - Perineal Massage and Scar Tissue (50:52) - Balancing the Body: Chiropractic Care, Pelvic Floor Therapy, and Acupuncture (58:23) - Alternative Options for Labor Preparation: Spinning Babies Exercises and Self-Performed Perineal Massage

Moving together is better: a systematic review with meta-analysis of sports-focused interventions aiming to improve physical activity participation in children and adolescents with cerebral palsyRicardo Rodrigues de Sousa Junior, Deisiane Oliveira Souto, Ana Cristina Resende Camargos, Georgina L Clutterbuck, Hércules Ribeiro LeiteAbstractPurpose: To analyze the effectiveness of sports-focused interventions on the participation of children and adolescents with cerebral palsy (CP).Methods: Study searches were conducted on EMBASE, PubMed, Scielo, PEDro, CINAHL, SPORTDiscuss in June 2022. We included randomized controlled trials that investigated the effectiveness of sports-focused interventions in children and adolescents with CP in comparison with control. Risk of bias was assessed with PEDro scale and evidence certainty with GRADE approach. Data were pooled in random-effects meta-analyses and results were presented as standardized mean differences.Results: Ten RCTs were selected with different modalities, mostly for ambulant children and adolescents. Significant pooled effects on participation in leisure-time physical activity were seen only in group interventions (modified sports, gross motor training, and fitness training), in comparison with control [SMD(95% CI) = 0.32(0.01-0.73) p = 0.04]. No pooled effects were seen in participation in other life areas in comparison with control (p > 0.05). Current certainty of evidence of all sports-focused interventions included was moderate due to imprecision.Conclusion: Positive results on leisure-time participation were seen at short-term follow-up for group interventions. Sports-focused interventions did not improve participation in other life areas, reinforcing the importance of specificity when conducting participation interventions. Studies investigating sports-focused interventions including non-ambulatory individuals are still necessary. IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATIONSports-focused interventions target leisure-time physical activity participation. They present moderate evidence of their effectiveness to improve physical activity participation in individuals with cerebral palsy. Group interventions are effective in improving leisure-time physical activity participation.Sports-focused interventions did not improve participation in other life areas.

Early Intervention for Children Aged 0 to 2 Years With or at High Risk of Cerebral Palsy: International Clinical Practice Guideline Based on Systematic ReviewsCatherine Morgan, Linda Fetters, Lars Adde, Nadia Badawi, Ada Bancale, Roslyn N Boyd, Olena Chorna, Giovanni Cioni, Diane L Damiano, Johanna Darrah, Linda S de Vries, Stacey Dusing, Christa Einspieler, Ann-Christin Eliasson, Donna Ferriero, Darcy Fehlings, Hans Forssberg, Andrew M Gordon, Susan Greaves, Andrea Guzzetta, Mijna Hadders-Algra, Regina Harbourne, Petra Karlsson, Lena Krumlinde-Sundholm, Beatrice Latal, Alison Loughran-Fowlds, Catherine Mak, Nathalie Maitre, Sarah McIntyre, Cristina Mei, Angela Morgan, Angelina Kakooza-Mwesige, Domenico M Romeo, Katherine Sanchez, Alicia Spittle, Roberta Shepherd, Marelle Thornton, Jane Valentine, Roslyn Ward, Koa Whittingham, Alieh Zamany, Iona Novak.Free articleAbstractImportance: Cerebral palsy (CP) is the most common childhood physical disability. Early intervention for children younger than 2 years with or at risk of CP is critical. Now that an evidence-based guideline for early accurate diagnosis of CP exists, there is a need to summarize effective, CP-specific early intervention and conduct new trials that harness plasticity to improve function and increase participation. Our recommendations apply primarily to children at high risk of CP or with a diagnosis of CP, aged 0 to 2 years.Objective: To systematically review the best available evidence about CP-specific early interventions across 9 domains promoting motor function, cognitive skills, communication, eating and drinking, vision, sleep, managing muscle tone, musculoskeletal health, and parental support.Evidence review: The literature was systematically searched for the best available evidence for intervention for children aged 0 to 2 years at high risk of or with CP. Databases included CINAHL, Cochrane, Embase, MEDLINE, PsycInfo, and Scopus. Systematic reviews and randomized clinical trials (RCTs) were appraised by A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) or Cochrane Risk of Bias tools. Recommendations were formed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) framework and reported according to the Appraisal of Guidelines, Research, and Evaluation (AGREE) II instrument.Findings: Sixteen systematic reviews and 27 RCTs met inclusion criteria. Quality varied. Three best-practice principles were supported for the 9 domains: (1) immediate referral for intervention after a diagnosis of high risk of CP, (2) building parental capacity for attachment, and (3) parental goal-setting at the commencement of intervention. Twenty-eight recommendations (24 for and 4 against) specific to the 9 domains are supported with key evidence: motor function (4 recommendations), cognitive skills (2), communication (7), eating and drinking (2), vision (4), sleep (7), tone (1), musculoskeletal health (2), and parent support (5).Conclusions and relevance: When a child meets the criteria of high risk of CP, intervention should start as soon as possible. Parents want an early diagnosis and treatment and support implementation as soon as possible. Early intervention builds on a critical developmental time for plasticity of developing systems. Referrals for intervention across the 9 domains should be specific as per recommendations in this guideline.

Measurement of Upper Limb Range of Motion Using Wearable Sensors: A Systematic ReviewCorrin P Walmsley, Sîan A Williams, Tiffany Grisbrook, Catherine Elliott, Christine Imms, Amity CampbellAffiliations expandPMID: 30499058PMCID: PMC6265374DOI: 10.1186/s40798-018-0167-7Free PMC articleAbstractBackground: Wearable sensors are portable measurement tools that are becoming increasingly popular for the measurement of joint angle in the upper limb. With many brands emerging on the market, each with variations in hardware and protocols, evidence to inform selection and application is needed. Therefore, the objectives of this review were related to the use of wearable sensors to calculate upper limb joint angle. We aimed to describe (i) the characteristics of commercial and custom wearable sensors, (ii) the populations for whom researchers have adopted wearable sensors, and (iii) their established psychometric properties.Methods: A systematic review of literature was undertaken using the following data bases: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science, SPORTDiscus, IEEE, and Scopus. Studies were eligible if they met the following criteria: (i) involved humans and/or robotic devices, (ii) involved the application or simulation of wearable sensors on the upper limb, and (iii) calculated a joint angle.Results: Of 2191 records identified, 66 met the inclusion criteria. Eight studies compared wearable sensors to a robotic device and 22 studies compared to a motion analysis system. Commercial (n = 13) and custom (n = 7) wearable sensors were identified, each with variations in placement, calibration methods, and fusion algorithms, which were demonstrated to influence accuracy.Conclusion: Wearable sensors have potential as viable instruments for measurement of joint angle in the upper limb during active movement. Currently, customised application (i.e. calibration and angle calculation methods) is required to achieve sufficient accuracy (error < 5°). Additional research and standardisation is required to guide clinical application.Trial registration: This systematic review was registered with PROSPERO ( CRD42017059935 ).

Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IBD) is a chronic disabling disease of the gastrointestinal tract. The disease is strongly associated with limited performance of everyday activities and restrictions in work and employment, recreation and relationships to others, as well as reduced quality of life. Thus, suffering from IBD includes not only impairments of body functions and body structures but also limitations of activities in everyday life and restrictions in participation. Consequentially, a comprehensive approach of functioning and disability is required when addressing the impact of IBD. There are a large number of outcome measures that assess health status problems of persons with IBD. Many of these measures used in clinical practice or research are classification or scoring systems that refer to disease activity and symptomatology in IBD in terms of impaired body functions and structures (e.g., Crohn's Disease Activity Index (CDAI), Harvey Bradshaw Index). Hence, disability and functioning from a comprehensive point of view are poorly addressed in these measures and do not cover the whole spectrum of problems persons with IBD have to deal with. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) offer the possibility to assess health status problems from the perspective of persons suffering a disease. The number of IBD-specific PROMs which focus on aspects of functioning, disability and health (e.g., Inflammatory Bowel Disease Questionnaire (IBDQ-32), Rating Form of IBD Patient Concerns (RFIPC), Inflammatory Bowel Disease Stress Index (IBDSI)) has increased over the last years so that the selection of appropriate PROMs for specific purposes or subpopulations has become a challenge for clinicians and researchers. However, up to now it remains unclear whether currently used IBD-specific PROMs cover the whole spectrum of functioning and disability. This doctoral thesis examines the content of IBD-specific PROMs using the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) as a reference to facilitate the selection of appropriate PROMs by clinicians and researchers. The ICF endorsed by the World Health Organization as a common language of functioning and disability is a proven and useful tool for the examination and comparison of the content of outcome measures. A systematic literature review was performed to identify IBD-specific PROMs used in studies involving persons with IBD. Searches were performed in the literature databases Medline®, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL and CENTRAL. Searches were limited to English articles published between 1999 and 2009. Eligibility checks of abstracts and full-texts were performed applying pre-defined inclusion and exclusion criteria. IBD-specific PROMs reported in the selected studies, as well as study-related characteristics, were extracted. The items of the identified PROMs were translated (“linked”) to the most specific ICF category according to standardized and established linking rules. The linked ICF categories provided the basis of the descriptive analysis and the comparison of the content of the different PROMs presented in this thesis. A total of 9,728 papers were identified by the searches in the five electronic databases. The randomly selected abstracts of 2,579 papers were checked on inclusion and exclusion criteria according to the defined eligibility criteria. Based on this abstract check, 221 studies were identified for further analysis. Screening these 221 full-text articles, 46 studies were finally selected that reported the use of IBD-specific PROMs. The following eight IBD-specific PROMs were identified: Cleveland Global Quality of Life (Faszio Score) (CGQL), Inflammatory Bowel Disease Quality of Life Questionnaire (IBDQOL), IBDQ-32, IBDSI, Inflammatory Bowel Disease Questionnaire – short form (IBDQ-9), RFIPC, Short Inflammatory Bowel Disease Questionnaire (SIBDQ) and Work Productivity and Activity Impairment: Crohn’s Disease (WPAI:CD). In total, these eight IBD-specific PROMs included 129 items which were linked to ICF categories. The most frequently identified ICF categories are 'b1300 Energy level' and 'b5254 Flatulence' (IBDQOL, IBDQ-32, IBDQ-9, RFIPC and SIBDQ), as well as 'd920 Recreation and leisure' (IBDQOL, IBDQ-32, IBDSI, IBS-QOL and SIBDQ). Most of the analyzed questionnaires do not cover a wide range of aspects needed to assess functioning and disability from a comprehensive perspective; they only focus on selected aspects of functioning and disability of persons with IBD (e.g., emotional functions, pain, intimate relationships and remunerative employment). This doctoral thesis provides an item-based examination of the content of IBD- specific PROMs using the ICF as a reference. It offers a clear and precise picture of the addressed PROMs and their contents and enable physicians and researchers a direct comparison of these contents. The ICF was established as a useful framework for examining and comparing IBD-specific PROMs and their items with respect to the areas of functioning and disability covered. This information can be useful in selecting PROMs for clinical practice, as well as for any kind of investigations in which functioning and disability of persons with IBD is a relevant study outcome.

The premier resource for peer-reviewed, full-text journals and reference sources, Academic OneFile is a 2009 and 2008 CODiE Award Finalist for Best Online General Reference Service. Perfect for research libraries, graduate schools, universities and community colleges, Academic OneFile is a sophisticated, current and easy-to-use resource for extensive research. With millions of articles available in both PDF and HTML full text, researchers are able to find accurate information quickly. Academic OneFile includes: More than 14,000 titles, including more than 9,000 peer-reviewed journals and more than 6,000 in full text Full text of The New York Times from 1985 to present Links with JSTOR for archival access to periodicals and Open URL compliances for access to e-journal and subscription materials Thousands of podcasts and transcripts from NPR, CNN and CBC Links to hundreds of medical videos from OR-Live Full linking to and from Thomson's ISI Web of Science.® Academic OneFile offers: Strong coverage of hard sciences, medicine, engineering and business Full collection of Elsevier abstracts for every Elsevier journal from 1996 to present Full text of the London Times and Financial Times Full text for periodicals covered in major bibliographic resources such as CINAHL, BIOSIS, MLS, PsycInfo, ERIC, EconLit, RILM and others Key, peer-reviewed journals published in Spanish, French and other languages n Ability to translate all content to 11 different languages 24/7 access Access to a range of additional collections created to fill subject-specific curricular needs

Details the operation of CINAHL (the cumulative index to nursing and allied health literature), including the use of common limiters, methods for narrowing subjects, and the process of citation.

CINAHL provides access to citations from virtually all English language nursing journals, publications from the American Nurses' Association and the National League for Nursing, and primary journals from seventeen allied health disciplines. More than 2,800 serial publications are indexed, including 70 full-text journal publications. Selected nursing and allied health-related books are also included. CINAHL contains records from 1982 to the present.

CINAHL is the Cumulative Index to Nursing & Allied Health Literature - and thus the primary nursing database. This module will show you how to access and use the database through the Pollak Library. These modules complement the Library Guide for Nursing found at: http://faculty.fullerton.edu/rclemens/nursing.htm

CINAHL is the Cumulative Index to Nursing & Allied Health Literature - and thus the primary nursing database. This module will show you how to access and use the database through the Pollak Library. These modules complement the Library Guide for Nursing found at: http://faculty.fullerton.edu/rclemens/nursing.htm

Study design: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Objectives: To evaluate the effectiveness of segmental stabilizing exercises for acute, subacute and chronic low back pain with regard to pain, recurrence of pain, disability and return to work. Methods: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, PEDro and article reference lists were searched from 1988 onward. Randomized controlled trials with segmental stabilizing exercises for adult low back pain patients were included. Four comparisons were foreseen: (1) effectiveness of segmental stabilizing exercises versus treatment by general practitioner (GP); (2) effectiveness of segmental stabilizing exercises versus other physiotherapy treatment; (3) effectiveness of segmental stabilizing exercises combined with other physiotherapy treatment versus treatment by GP and (4) effectiveness of segmental stabilizing exercises combined with other physiotherapy treatment versus other physiotherapy treatment. Results: Seven trials were included. For acute low back pain, segmental stabilizing exercises are equally effective in reducing short-term disability and pain and more effective in reducing long-term recurrence of low back pain than treatment by GP. For chronic low back pain, segmental stabilizing exercises are, in the short and long term, more effective than GP treatment and may be as effective as other physiotherapy treatments in reducing disability and pain. There is limited evidence that segmental stabilizing exercises additional to other physiotherapy treatment are equally effective for pain and more effective concerning disability than other physiotherapy treatments alone. There is no evidence concerning subacute low back pain. Conclusion: For low back pain, segmental stabilizing exercises are more effective than treatment by GP but they are not more effective than other physiotherapy interventions.