The Experts below are selected from a list of 9612 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Goh P. - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
A Proposed Minimum Standard Set of Outcome Measures for Cataract Surgery.
'American Medical Association (AMA)', 2015Co-Authors: Kelley T., Stowell C., Haripriya A., Boman A., Morlet Nigel, Pershing S., Pesudovs K., Goh P.Abstract:IMPORTANCE: Aligning outcome measures for cataract surgery, one of the most frequently performed procedures globally, may facilitate international comparisons that can drive improvements in the outcomes most meaningful to Patients. OBJECTIVE: To propose a minimum standard set of outcome measures for cataract surgery that enables global comparisons. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A working group of international experts in cataract outcomes and registries was convened, along with a Patient Advocate, to agree on a consensus of outcome measures for cataract surgery. In a modified Delphi process, the group met regularly between November 10, 2012, and November 21, 2013, to discuss which outcomes to include in a standard set. Included factors were based on extant literature, existing registries, and the experience of group members. Similarly, a series of consensus discussions were held to determine a set of risk factors to be gathered for each Patient. The final shortlist was compiled into a standard set. Analysis was performed from November 22, 2013, to April 5, 2014. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Development of a recommended standard set encompassing preoperative metrics including Patient risk factors, intraoperative factors including surgical complications, and postoperative cataract surgery outcomes. RESULTS: The recommended standard set encompasses all Patients treated for cataracts by 1 of 4 surgical approaches (phacoemulsification, sutured manual extracapsular cataract extraction, sutureless manual extracapsular cataract extraction, or intracapsular cataract extraction). The recommended metrics to be recorded preoperatively include demographics, ocular history and comorbidities, preoperative visual acuity, and Patient-reported visual function. The recommended outcomes were split into intraoperative and postoperative metrics. Intraoperative outcomes include capsule-related problems, dislocation of lens nucleus fragments into the vitreous, and other complications. Postoperative outcomes include visual acuity, refractive error, Patient-reported visual function, and early and late complications of surgery. The suggested follow-up for collection of postoperative outcomes is up to 3 months. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: A minimum standard set of outcome measures for cataract surgery is important for meaningful comparison across contexts. The proposed data set is a compromise between all useful data and the practicalities of data collection
Goh, Pik Pin - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
A Proposed Minimum Standard Set of Outcome Measures for Cataract Surgery
'American Medical Association (AMA)', 2015Co-Authors: Mahmud Imran, Morlet Nigel, Kelley Thomas, Stowell Caleb, Haripriya Aravind, Boman Anders, Kossler Ingrid, Pershing Suzann, Pesudovs Konrad, Goh, Pik PinAbstract:This article made available in accordance with the publisher's policy.Importance Aligning outcome measures for cataract surgery, one of the most frequently performed procedures globally, may facilitate international comparisons that can drive improvements in the outcomes most meaningful to Patients. Objective To propose a minimum standard set of outcome measures for cataract surgery that enables global comparisons. Design, Setting, and Participants A working group of international experts in cataract outcomes and registries was convened, along with a Patient Advocate, to agree on a consensus of outcome measures for cataract surgery. In a modified Delphi process, the group met regularly between November 10, 2012, and November 21, 2013, to discuss which outcomes to include in a standard set. Included factors were based on extant literature, existing registries, and the experience of group members. Similarly, a series of consensus discussions were held to determine a set of risk factors to be gathered for each Patient. The final shortlist was compiled into a standard set. Analysis was performed from November 22, 2013, to April 5, 2014. Main Outcomes and Measures Development of a recommended standard set encompassing preoperative metrics including Patient risk factors, intraoperative factors including surgical complications, and postoperative cataract surgery outcomes. Results The recommended standard set encompasses all Patients treated for cataracts by 1 of 4 surgical approaches (phacoemulsification, sutured manual extracapsular cataract extraction, sutureless manual extracapsular cataract extraction, or intracapsular cataract extraction). The recommended metrics to be recorded preoperatively include demographics, ocular history and comorbidities, preoperative visual acuity, and Patient-reported visual function. The recommended outcomes were split into intraoperative and postoperative metrics. Intraoperative outcomes include capsule-related problems, dislocation of lens nucleus fragments into the vitreous, and other complications. Postoperative outcomes include visual acuity, refractive error, Patient-reported visual function, and early and late complications of surgery. The suggested follow-up for collection of postoperative outcomes is up to 3 months. Conclusions and Relevance A minimum standard set of outcome measures for cataract surgery is important for meaningful comparison across contexts. The proposed data set is a compromise between all useful data and the practicalities of data collection
Morlet Nigel - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
A Proposed Minimum Standard Set of Outcome Measures for Cataract Surgery.
'American Medical Association (AMA)', 2015Co-Authors: Kelley T., Stowell C., Haripriya A., Boman A., Morlet Nigel, Pershing S., Pesudovs K., Goh P.Abstract:IMPORTANCE: Aligning outcome measures for cataract surgery, one of the most frequently performed procedures globally, may facilitate international comparisons that can drive improvements in the outcomes most meaningful to Patients. OBJECTIVE: To propose a minimum standard set of outcome measures for cataract surgery that enables global comparisons. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A working group of international experts in cataract outcomes and registries was convened, along with a Patient Advocate, to agree on a consensus of outcome measures for cataract surgery. In a modified Delphi process, the group met regularly between November 10, 2012, and November 21, 2013, to discuss which outcomes to include in a standard set. Included factors were based on extant literature, existing registries, and the experience of group members. Similarly, a series of consensus discussions were held to determine a set of risk factors to be gathered for each Patient. The final shortlist was compiled into a standard set. Analysis was performed from November 22, 2013, to April 5, 2014. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Development of a recommended standard set encompassing preoperative metrics including Patient risk factors, intraoperative factors including surgical complications, and postoperative cataract surgery outcomes. RESULTS: The recommended standard set encompasses all Patients treated for cataracts by 1 of 4 surgical approaches (phacoemulsification, sutured manual extracapsular cataract extraction, sutureless manual extracapsular cataract extraction, or intracapsular cataract extraction). The recommended metrics to be recorded preoperatively include demographics, ocular history and comorbidities, preoperative visual acuity, and Patient-reported visual function. The recommended outcomes were split into intraoperative and postoperative metrics. Intraoperative outcomes include capsule-related problems, dislocation of lens nucleus fragments into the vitreous, and other complications. Postoperative outcomes include visual acuity, refractive error, Patient-reported visual function, and early and late complications of surgery. The suggested follow-up for collection of postoperative outcomes is up to 3 months. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: A minimum standard set of outcome measures for cataract surgery is important for meaningful comparison across contexts. The proposed data set is a compromise between all useful data and the practicalities of data collection
-
A Proposed Minimum Standard Set of Outcome Measures for Cataract Surgery
'American Medical Association (AMA)', 2015Co-Authors: Mahmud Imran, Morlet Nigel, Kelley Thomas, Stowell Caleb, Haripriya Aravind, Boman Anders, Kossler Ingrid, Pershing Suzann, Pesudovs Konrad, Goh, Pik PinAbstract:This article made available in accordance with the publisher's policy.Importance Aligning outcome measures for cataract surgery, one of the most frequently performed procedures globally, may facilitate international comparisons that can drive improvements in the outcomes most meaningful to Patients. Objective To propose a minimum standard set of outcome measures for cataract surgery that enables global comparisons. Design, Setting, and Participants A working group of international experts in cataract outcomes and registries was convened, along with a Patient Advocate, to agree on a consensus of outcome measures for cataract surgery. In a modified Delphi process, the group met regularly between November 10, 2012, and November 21, 2013, to discuss which outcomes to include in a standard set. Included factors were based on extant literature, existing registries, and the experience of group members. Similarly, a series of consensus discussions were held to determine a set of risk factors to be gathered for each Patient. The final shortlist was compiled into a standard set. Analysis was performed from November 22, 2013, to April 5, 2014. Main Outcomes and Measures Development of a recommended standard set encompassing preoperative metrics including Patient risk factors, intraoperative factors including surgical complications, and postoperative cataract surgery outcomes. Results The recommended standard set encompasses all Patients treated for cataracts by 1 of 4 surgical approaches (phacoemulsification, sutured manual extracapsular cataract extraction, sutureless manual extracapsular cataract extraction, or intracapsular cataract extraction). The recommended metrics to be recorded preoperatively include demographics, ocular history and comorbidities, preoperative visual acuity, and Patient-reported visual function. The recommended outcomes were split into intraoperative and postoperative metrics. Intraoperative outcomes include capsule-related problems, dislocation of lens nucleus fragments into the vitreous, and other complications. Postoperative outcomes include visual acuity, refractive error, Patient-reported visual function, and early and late complications of surgery. The suggested follow-up for collection of postoperative outcomes is up to 3 months. Conclusions and Relevance A minimum standard set of outcome measures for cataract surgery is important for meaningful comparison across contexts. The proposed data set is a compromise between all useful data and the practicalities of data collection
Maggie Wilcox - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
abstract p1 10 01 Patient Advocate involvement shapes uk s first national breast cancer tissue bank the breast cancer campaign tissue bank
Cancer Research, 2013Co-Authors: Adrienne Morgan, J Gath, Mairead Mackenzie, H Stobart, L Turner, A Matthews, Maggie WilcoxAbstract:The Breast Cancer Campaign Tissue Bank (BCCTB) was initiated in 2010 after the charity Breast Cancer Campaign heard from breast cancer experts that insufficient high quality breast cancer tissue was preventing research which would impact people with breast cancer1. The charity decided to involve Patient Advocates in the development of the BCCTB from the beginning. Two Advocates reviewed the initial applications to form the BCCTB. These included both single and multi-centre applications so they suggested that, rather than choosing one centre to form the Bank, the charity consider a collaboration of centres. Throughout the development of the BCCTB, the Patient Advocates asked the ‘elephant in the room’ questions and brought a different perspective. They also helped to design the Bank9s processes, including the consent process and asking that all tissue applicants produce a lay summary of their research. There are now two Advocates on the Board which provides strategic direction to the BCCTB. The Advocates have equal status to other Board members. There are also three Advocates on the Tissue Access Committee which controls the use of tissue in the Bank. Lay summaries of projects have to be approved by all Advocates before an application can proceed. This means that no precious tissue is released without the approval of a lay person, who can ensure maximum Patient benefit will be achieved from any research. The Bank9s data return policy was also driven by the Patient Advocates who were keen that the tissues donated were used to their maximum benefit. This has resulted in the first publication from BCCTB 2 Patient Advocates have been involved in promoting the use of tissue from the bank presenting at conferences and at BCCTB road shows. Patient Advocates have also been involved in asking potential donors to consent to donate to the tissue bank. The involvement of Patient Advocates in the development and oversight of the BCCTB has shown researchers that Patient and public involvement works. The Advocates can also help promote the Bank and the benefits of tissue donation to both professionals and lay groups. The Patient Advocates involved in the Breast Cancer Campaign Tissue Bank are members of the charity Independent Cancer Patients’ Voice 1. Thompson P, Brennan K, Cox A, Gee J, Harcourt D, Harris A, Harvie M, Holen I, Howell A, Nicholson R, Steel M, Streuli C. Evaluation of the current knowledge limitations in breast cancer research: a gap analysis. Breast Cancer Res 2008: 10(2); R26. 2. Speirs V, Morgan A. Investment biobanking – increased returns on tissue samples. Nat Rev Clin Onc 2013; 10:128-129. Citation Information: Cancer Res 2013;73(24 Suppl): Abstract nr P1-10-01.
Thomas Lehrnbecher - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
guideline for the management of fever and neutropenia in children with cancer and hematopoietic stem cell transplantation recipients 2017 update
Journal of Clinical Oncology, 2017Co-Authors: Thomas Lehrnbecher, Sarah Alexander, Fabianne Carlesse, Brian T Fisher, Paula D Robinson, Roland A Ammann, Melissa Beauchemin, Andreas H GrollAbstract:Purpose To update a clinical practice guideline (CPG) for the empirical management of fever and neutropenia (FN) in children with cancer and hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation recipients. Methods The International Pediatric Fever and Neutropenia Guideline Panel is a multidisciplinary and multinational group of experts in pediatric oncology and infectious diseases that includes a Patient Advocate. For questions of risk stratification and evaluation, we updated systematic reviews of observational studies. For questions of therapy, we conducted a systematic review of randomized trials of any intervention applied for the empirical management of pediatric FN. The Grading of Recommendation Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach was used to make strong or weak recommendations and to classify levels of evidence as high, moderate, low, or very low. Results Recommendations related to initial presentation, ongoing management, and empirical antifungal therapy of pediatric FN were reviewed; the most substantial changes were related to empirical antifungal therapy. Key differences from our 2012 FN CPG included the listing of a fourth-generation cephalosporin for empirical therapy in high-risk FN, refinement of risk stratification to define Patients with high-risk invasive fungal disease (IFD), changes in recommended biomarkers and radiologic investigations for the evaluation of IFD in prolonged FN, and a weak recommendation to withhold empirical antifungal therapy in IFD low-risk Patients with prolonged FN. Conclusion Changes to the updated FN CPG recommendations will likely influence the care of pediatric Patients with cancer and those undergoing hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation. Future work should focus on closing research gaps and on identifying ways to facilitate implementation and adaptation.
-
guideline for the management of fever and neutropenia in children with cancer and or undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplantation
Journal of Clinical Oncology, 2012Co-Authors: Thomas Lehrnbecher, Robert S Phillips, Sarah Alexander, Frank Alvaro, Fabianne Carlesse, Brian T Fisher, Hana Hakim, Maria Elena Santolaya, Elio Castagnola, Bonnie L DavisAbstract:Purpose To develop an evidence-based guideline for the empiric management of pediatric fever and neutropenia (FN). Methods The International Pediatric Fever and Neutropenia Guideline Panel is a multidisciplinary and multinational group composed of experts in pediatric oncology and infectious disease as well as a Patient Advocate. The Panel was convened for the purpose of creating this guideline. We followed previously validated procedures for creating evidence-based guidelines. Working groups focused on initial presentation, ongoing management, and empiric antifungal therapy. Each working group developed key clinical questions, conducted systematic reviews of the published literature, and compiled evidence summaries. The Grades of Recommendation Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach was used to generate summaries, and evidence was classified as high, moderate, low, or very low based on methodologic considerations. Results Recommendations were made related to initial presentation (risk stratification, initial evaluation, and treatment), ongoing management (modification and cessation of empiric antibiotics), and empiric antifungal treatment (risk stratification, evaluation, and treatment) of pediatric FN. For each recommendation, the strength of the recommendation and level of evidence are presented. Conclusion This guideline represents an evidence-based approach to FN specific to children with cancer. Although some recommendations are similar to adult-based guidelines, there are key distinctions in multiple areas. Implementation will require adaptation to the local context.
