RepoMed (Medizinische Hochschule Hannover)
Not a member yet
3024 research outputs found
Sort by
A genomic perspective of the aging human and mouse lung with a focus on immune response and cellular senescence
Full text link
Emergency Physicians’ and Nurses’ Perspectives on Transgender, Intersexual, and Non-Binary Patients in Germany
Full text linkDrug interactions in patients with alcohol use disorder: results from a real-world study on an addiction-specific ward
Full text linkBackground The majority of patients with alcohol use disorder (AUD) regularly take medication. Alcohol interacts negatively with many commonly prescribed drugs. However, little is known about the characteristics and frequency of potential alcohol-medication and drug-drug interactions in patients with AUD. Objectives This study aimed to determine the prevalence and characteristics of drug interactions in patients with AUD during withdrawal therapy on an addiction-specific ward. Design Retrospective cohort study. Methods Medication charts were analyzed and screened for potential alcohol-medication and drug-drug interactions. For the screening of potential alcohol-medication interactions, the drugs.com classification was utilized and potential drug-drug interactions were identified using the mediQ electronic interaction program. Results In our study, almost two-thirds (66.3%; 1089/1643) of all patient cases were prescribed at least one drug that could potentially interact with alcohol. Four percent of all alcohol-medication interactions were classified as severe, 91.8% as moderate, and 4.3% as mild. Drug classes commonly involved in serious interactions with alcohol were analgesics and drugs used in diabetes. A total of 811 potential drug-drug interactions were identified, of which 3.3% were classified as severe and 96.5% as moderate. Psychoanaleptics (ATC N06) and psycholeptics (ATC N05) were most frequently associated with moderate to severe interactions. Conclusion Potential alcohol-medication and drug-drug interactions are common in hospitalized patients with AUD. Improvements in the quality of prescribing should focus on the use of psychotropic drugs
Wie viel Notarzt brauchen wir?: ein retrospektiver Vergleich notarztgebundener Rettungseinsätze mit den niedersächsischen Algorithmen für Notfallsanitäter
Full text linkNavigationsgestützte Kiefergelenkpunktion mit einer flexiblen Kanüle an humanen Ganzkörperspendern
Full text linkKlinische Bedeutung genetischer Diagnostik bei pädiatrischen Patienten mit autoinflammatorischen Phänotypen
Full text linkLong-Hep-C: persistent changes in the immune cell signatures after cure of hepatitis C?
Full text linkThe AMSTAR 2 publication lacks explicit instructions on how to assess the appropriateness of statistical methods (item 11) and publication bias (item 15) and does not reflect advances in meta-analysis
Full text linkBackground and Objectives As the quantity of published systematic reviews has increased substantially over the years, concerns about the methodological quality of this growing body of literature have been validly raised. AMSTAR 2, the updated version of AMSTAR, is an endorsed appraisal instrument aiming to critically assess the methodological aspects of a systematic review from conception to conduct and interpretation of the findings. However, since the publication of AMSTAR 2, several critiques have been expressed targeting various aspects of the instrument. The present commentary focuses on the AMSTAR 2 items that involve the appropriateness of statistical methods (item 11) and publication bias (item 15). Methods The refinements are based on the methodological advances in meta-analysis as summarized in the Cochrane Handbook and delineated in review methodological studies. Results Initially, the commentary outlines further issues and challenges with the formulation and implementation of AMSTAR 2 items 11 and 15, beyond those already raised by other authors. Then, refinements to the corresponding decision points of items 11 and 15 are suggested, with explanations for their importance in facilitating an evidence-based, transparent, and consistent evaluation among the involved appraisers. Conclusion The commentary strongly recommends that appraisers consult with meta-analysts when assessing the statistical methods of a systematic review and refer to the Cochrane Handbook, as it is regularly updated with recent methodological advances in meta-analysis. The appraisal teams could use the suggested refinements as a basis to predetermine the decision points for items 11 and 15 that align with the statistical expectations of the assessed systematic review, thereby preventing any ambiguity during the rating process
