ABSTRACT
INTRODUCCIÓN Y OBJETIVOS: Las revisiones sistemáticas son la forma de revisión más exhaustiva y deberían ser consideradas antes de realizar un ensayo clínico o revisión sobre un tema. El objetivo de este estudio es describir la utilización de revisiones sistemáticas en los ensayos clínicos y revisiones narrativas publicadas en dermatología. MATERIAL Y MÉTODOS: Se diseñó un estudio descriptivo transversal. Se seleccionaron ensayos clínicos aleatorizados y revisiones narrativas de las revistas más relevantes (por factor de impacto) de investigación clínica de dermatología y de Actas Dermosifiliográficas y se evaluó si hacían referencia a revisiones sistemáticas y Cochrane (en caso de existir) en la bibliografía. RESULTADOS: En el grupo de ensayos clínicos se hacía referencia a alguna de las revisiones sistemáticas existentes en el 33,3% de los artículos (15,6% de las revisiones Cochrane que existían y 32,2% de las no Cochrane sobre el tema). En el grupo de revisiones narrativas alguna de las revisiones sistemáticas existentes eran referenciadas en el 41,7% de los trabajos (20% Cochrane y 35,3% no Cochrane). En Actas Dermosifiliográficas existían muy pocos ensayos clínicos publicados; las revisiones narrativas reproducían lo que se observaba en el resto de revistas. CONCLUSIONES: Las revisiones sistemáticas son poco tenidas en cuenta en la realización de ensayos clínicos y revisiones narrativas, lo que puede llevar a estudios y publicaciones redundantes. Además las revisiones Cochrane parecen ser incluso menos empleadas, obviando así los autores una de las principales fuentes de evidencia existentes
INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: Systematic reviews -the most comprehensive type of literature review-should be taken into account before a clinical trial or a narrative review on a topic is undertaken. The objective of this study was to describe the use of systematic reviews in clinical trials and narrative reviews in dermatology. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This was a descriptive cross-sectional study. We selected randomized clinical trials and narrative reviews from the dermatological clinical research journals identified as most important (according to impact factor) and from Actas Dermosifiliográficas , and studied the bibliographies to ascertain whether the authors made reference to existing systematic reviews and Cochrane reviews. RESULTS: Of the 72 clinical trials for which a systematic review was available, 24 (33.3%) cited at least 1 review; reference was made to relevant Cochrane reviews in 15.6% of cases and to non-Cochrane reviews in 32%. In the case of the 24 narrative reviews for which a review was available, 10 (41.7%) cited at least 1 review; Cochrane reviews were cited in 20% and non-Cochrane reviews in 35.3%.In the case of Actas Dermosifiliográficas , very few clinical trials were found and the findings for narrative review articles were similar to those observed for the other journals. CONCLUSIONS: Systematic reviews are not often taken into account by the authors of clinical trials and narrative reviews and this may lead to redundant studies and publications. Authors appear to use Cochrane reviews even less than non-Cochrane reviews and are therefore ignoring one of the main sources of available evidence
Subject(s)
Clinical Trials as Topic/methods , Skin Diseases , Review Literature as Topic , Evidence-Based Medicine , Biomedical Research/methodsABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: Systematic reviews -the most comprehensive type of literature review-should be taken into account before a clinical trial or a narrative review on a topic is undertaken. The objective of this study was to describe the use of systematic reviews in clinical trials and narrative reviews in dermatology. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This was a descriptive cross-sectional study. We selected randomized clinical trials and narrative reviews from the dermatological clinical research journals identified as most important (according to impact factor) and from Actas Dermosifiliográficas, and studied the bibliographies to ascertain whether the authors made reference to existing systematic reviews and Cochrane reviews. RESULTS: Of the 72 clinical trials for which a systematic review was available, 24 (33.3%) cited at least 1 review; reference was made to relevant Cochrane reviews in 15.6% of cases and to non-Cochrane reviews in 32%. In the case of the 24 narrative reviews for which a review was available, 10 (41.7%) cited at least 1 review; Cochrane reviews were cited in 20% and non-Cochrane reviews in 35.3%.In the case of Actas Dermosifiliográficas, very few clinical trials were found and the findings for narrative review articles were similar to those observed for the other journals. CONCLUSIONS: Systematic reviews are not often taken into account by the authors of clinical trials and narrative reviews and this may lead to redundant studies and publications. Authors appear to use Cochrane reviews even less than non-Cochrane reviews and are therefore ignoring one of the main sources of available evidence.
Subject(s)
Dermatology , Evidence-Based Medicine , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , Review Literature as Topic , Cross-Sectional Studies , HumansABSTRACT
Introducción, La práctica de la medicina fundamentada en pruebas científicas requiere el acceso eficiente a la información derivada de los ensayos clínicos (EC) correspondientes. Objetivos. Localizar con la mayor exhaustividad posible los EC publicados en MEDICINA CUTANEA IBERO-LATINO-AMERICANA (MCllA) entre 1970 y 2000, describir sus características, valorar su calidad e incorporarlos a la base de datos mundial de EC de la Colaboración Cochrane. Material y métodos. Los EC se han identificado por revisión manual sistemática de todos los números de MCllA. Se ha llevado a cabo un análisis descriptivo de las características y una valoración metodológica de los ensayos localizados. Resultados. En este periodo se han publicado 23 EC en MCllA, la mayoría de ellos con importantes lagunas en la información reportada y una pobre calidad metodológica. Conclusión. Para mejorar la calidad y difusión de los EC dentro del ámbito de las revistas de dermatología iberoamericana, sería recomendable que los autores y los editores se adhirieran a las iniciativas internacionales de consenso para la publicación de estos trabajos (AU)
Background. The practice of evidence-based medicine requires efficient access to information from clinical trials (Ct). Objectives. To locate, with the greatest possible exhaustivity, all CT published in Medicina Cutánea lbero-Latino-Americana (MCILA) between 1970 and 2000 and to describe their characteristics, evaluate their quality, and incorporate them into the worldwide CT database maintained by the Cochrane Callaboration. Material and methods. CT were identified by a systematic, manual review of all the issues of MCILA. Descriptive analysis of their characteristics and methodological assessment of the CT found were performed. Results. In the period under consideration, 23 CT were published in MCILA. Most were lacking important information and the methodological quality was poor. Conclusion. To improve the quality and dissemination of CT published in Iberoamerican journals of dermatology, we recommend that authors and editors adhere to the international consensus initiatives for the publication of CT (AU)
Subject(s)
Drugs, Investigational , Dermatologic Agents , Clinical Trials as Topic/statistics & numerical data , Periodicals as Topic/statistics & numerical data , Evidence-Based PracticeABSTRACT
We report a case of Jacquet erosive diaper dermatitis that occurred as a consequence of severe diarrhea following extensive colectomy and coloanal anastomosis for Hirschsprung disease. Perianal pseudoverrucous papules and nodules and granuloma gluteal infantum have also been seen following this kind of surgery. We propose that these three entities represent variants in a spectrum of skin lesions associated with severe diaper dermatitis.
Subject(s)
Colectomy/adverse effects , Diaper Rash/etiology , Hirschsprung Disease/surgery , Female , Hirschsprung Disease/complications , Humans , InfantABSTRACT
Bovine pituitary glands contain one or more factors that are important for keratinocyte proliferation in serum-free culture medium. We used a tissue culture system in which the growth of keratinocytes in basal medium (KBM) containing insulin was dependent upon exogenous growth factors. Using this experimental system, we began to purify and characterize the pituitary factor(s) necessary for clonal growth of human keratinocytes in serum-free medium. Proteins of approximately 150 kDa and 95 kDa bound specifically to living keratinocytes, and we suggest that the 95 kDa protein is a likely novel mitogen. Although prolactin has been previously identified as a pituitary hormone that may act as an in vitro mitogen for keratinocytes, imunoblots indicated that the 95 kDa protein was unrelated to prolactin. Furthermore, the 95 kDa protein showed high homology with a bovine 90 kDa heat shock protein in the limited sequencing of an internal peptide.
