Comparison of the Informed Health Choices Key Concepts Framework to other frameworks relevant to teaching and learning how to think critically about health claims and choices: a systematic review.

Background: The Informed Health Choices (IHC) Key Concepts are principles for evaluating the trustworthiness of claims about treatment effects. The Key Concepts provide a framework for developing learning-resources to help people use the concepts when treatment claims are made, and when they make health choices. Objective: To compare the framework provided by the IHC Key Concepts to other frameworks intended to promote critical thinking about treatment (intervention) claims and choices. Methods: We identified relevant frameworks from reviews of frameworks, searching Google Scholar, citation searches, and contact with key informants. We included frameworks intended to provide a structure for teaching or learning to think critically about the basis for claims, evidence used to support claims, or informed choices. For a framework to be included, there had to be a description of its purpose; a list of concepts, competences, or dispositions; and definitions of key terms. We made independent assessments of framework eligibility and extracted data for each included framework using standardised forms. Results: Twenty-two frameworks met our inclusion criteria. The purpose of the IHC Framework is similar to that of two frameworks for critical thinking and somewhat similar to that of a framework for evidence-based practice. Those frameworks have broader scopes than the IHC Framework. An important limitation of broad frameworks is that they do not provide an adequate basis (concepts) for deciding which claims to believe and what to do. There was at most some overlap between the concepts, competences, and dispositions in each of the 22 included frameworks and those in the IHC Framework. Conclusions: The IHC Key Concepts Framework appears to be unique.  Our review has shown how it and other frameworks can be improved by taking account of the ways in which other related frameworks have been developed, evaluated, and made useful.

Multicenter clinical evaluation of alinity m HBV assay performance.

BACKGROUND: Accurate molecular methods to detect and quantify hepatitis B virus (HBV) DNA are essential to diagnose chronic infections, guide treatment decisions, assess response to treatment, and determine risk of HBV-related complications. New generations of real-time HBV DNA assay platforms provide results in less than 2-3 h, with continuous loading of specimens and true random-access capability. OBJECTIVES: We examined the clinical performance of the new Alinity m HBV assay, run on the fully automated, continuous, random-access Alinity m platform, to accurately detect and quantify HBV DNA in a large series of patient samples infected with different HBV genotypes frequently encountered in clinical practice. STUDY DESIGN: This international, multisite study assessed the precision and reproducibility of the Alinity m HBV assay and compared its performance to four HBV assays currently in clinical use. RESULTS: The Alinity m HBV assay demonstrated linear quantitation of HBV DNA in plasma samples, with high precision (coefficient of variation 4.1 %-8.8 %) and reproducibility. The Alinity m HBV assay showed excellent correlation (correlation coefficients ≥0.947) with comparator HBV assays, with an overall observed bias ranging from -0.07 to 0.17 Log10 IU/mL. 97 % of quantifiable patient results were <1 Log10 IU/mL different than the respective comparator assays, with comparable results across HBV genotypes. CONCLUSIONS: The newly developed real-time PCR-based Alinity m HBV assay is sensitive, reproducible, and accurately quantifies HBV DNA levels from HBsAg-positive patients across the full dynamic range of quantification.

Factors influencing mortality in patients undergoing surgery for acute pancreatitis: importance of peripancreatic tissue and fluid infection.

OBJECTIVES: The aims of present study were to analyze the mortality risk factors in patients who had surgery for acute pancreatitis and to assess the importance of culturing peripancreatic tissue or fluid infection to ascertain the infection status. METHODS: Surgery was indicated both in patients with infected severe acute pancreatitis and in those with sterile pancreatitis with an unfavorable course. During surgery, cultures were taken of tissues (pancreatic necrosis and peripancreatic fat), intra-abdominal fluid, and bile. RESULTS: Of 107 patients operated on, fluid culture was analyzed in 94 patients, pancreatic necrosis in 61 patients, peripancreatic fat in 39 patients, and bile in 38 patients. Sterile pancreatitis with sterile ascites was found in 17 patients, sterile pancreatitis with infected ascites in 22, and pancreatic tissue infection in 60. Multivariate analysis demonstrated that sterile tissue cultures, age over 65 years, and fewer than 12 days between the beginning of pain and surgery were risk factors for mortality. Sterile pancreatitis with sterile ascites and sterile pancreatitis with infected ascites had similar postoperative mortality (41% and 50%, respectively); the group with pancreatic tissue infection had a lower mortality (20%). CONCLUSIONS: Early surgery, advanced age, and sterility of tissue cultures have been demonstrated as mortality factors for acute pancreatitis. Intra-abdominal fluid may be infected in the presence of sterile necrosis.