Having usual source of care has been associated with improved receipt of preventive services and control of chronic diseases (such as hypertension, diabetes, and hypercholesterolemia). The objective of this study was to examine whether having usual source of care is associated with improved receipt of preventive services and control of chronic diseases.
We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane, CINAHL, KMbase, KoreaMed, RiSS4U, National Assembly Library, and KISS for studies released through May 31st 2011. Two authors independently extracted the data. We manually searched the references and twenty recent related articles on PubMed. To assess the risk of bias RoBANS tool was used.
We identified 10 studies. Most having usual source of care were associated with improved receipt of preventive services (cervical cancer screening, clinical breast exam, mammogram, prostate cancer screening, and flu shot) compared with no usual source of care. However, gastric cancer and colon cancer screening were difficult to conclude and blood pressure checkup showed mixed results. Overall there was no association between having usual source of care and smoking behaviors and the effect on chronic disease control was difficult to conclude.
Having usual source of care was associated with improved receipt of preventive services and overall the results were consistent. So, the results suggested that having usual source of care may help to receive preventive services. Hereafter, cohort studies are needed to evaluate casual relationships and more studies are needed in various countries and systems.
Citations
Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and acetaminophen are widely used in the treatment of tension headache. The objective of this study was to evaluate and compare the efficacy and safety of single doses of acetaminophen and NSAIDs using meta-analysis of randomized placebo-controlled trial studies.
We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane, KMbase, KoreaMed, RiCH, National Assembly Library, Riss4u, and DBPIA for studies released through 27th July 2010. Two authors independently extracted the data. To assess the risk of bias, the Cochrane Collaborations risk of bias tool was used. Review Manager 5.0 was used for statistics.
We identified 6 studies. The relative benefit of the NSAIDs group compared to the acetaminophen group for participants with at least 50% pain relief was 1.18 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.99 to 1.39; I2 = 85%). We did subgroup analysis based on allocation concealment versus non-allocation concealment, and low-dose NSAIDs versus high-dose NSAIDs. The relative benefit of the low-dose NSAIDs subgroup to the acetaminophen group was 0.98 (95% CI, 0.91 to 1.06; I2 = 0%). However, the heterogeneity of other subgroup analysis was not settled. The relative risk for using rescue medication of the NSAIDs group compared to the acetaminophen group was 0.84 (95% CI, 0.64 to 1.12; I2 = 47%). The relative risk for adverse events was 1.31(95% CI, 0.96 to 1.80; I2 = 0%).
In this meta-analysis, there was no difference between low-dose NSAIDs and acetaminophen in the efficacy of the treatment for tension type headache. The results suggested that high-dose NSAIDs have more effect but also have more adverse events. The balance of benefit and harm needs to be considered when using high-dose NSAIDs for tension headache.
Citations
In reporting results of case-control studies, odds ratios are useful methods of reporting findings. However, odds ratios are often misinterpreted in the literature and by general readers.
We searched all original articles which were published in the Korean Journal of Family Medicine from 1980 to May 2011 and identified those that report "odds ratios." Misinterpretation of odds ratios as relative risks has been identified. Estimated risk ratios were calculated when possible and compared with odds ratios.
One hundred and twenty-eight articles using odds ratios were identified. Among those, 122 articles were analyzed for the frequency of misinterpretation of odds ratios as relative risks. Twenty-two reports out of these 122 articles misinterpreted odds ratios as relative risks. The percentage of misinterpreting reports decreased over years. Seventy-seven reports were analyzed to compare the estimated risk ratios with odds ratios. In most of these articles, odds ratios were greater than estimated risk ratios, 60% of which had larger than 20% standardized differences.
In reports published in the Korean Journal of Family Medicine, odds ratios are frequently used. They were misinterpreted in part of the reports, although decreasing trends over years were observed.
Citations
First
Prev
