Browsing by Author "Jonas, Daniel E"

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Auriculotherapy for pain management: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
    (J Altern Complement Med, 2010-10) Asher, Gary N; Jonas, Daniel E; Coeytaux, Remy R; Reilly, Aimee C; Loh, Yen L; Motsinger-Reif, Alison A; Winham, Stacey J
    OBJECTIVES: Side-effects of standard pain medications can limit their use. Therefore, nonpharmacologic pain relief techniques such as auriculotherapy may play an important role in pain management. Our aim was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies evaluating auriculotherapy for pain management. DESIGN: MEDLINE,(®) ISI Web of Science, CINAHL, AMED, and Cochrane Library were searched through December 2008. Randomized trials comparing auriculotherapy to sham, placebo, or standard-of-care control were included that measured outcomes of pain or medication use and were published in English. Two (2) reviewers independently assessed trial eligibility, quality, and abstracted data to a standardized form. Standardized mean differences (SMD) were calculated for studies using a pain score or analgesic requirement as a primary outcome. RESULTS: Seventeen (17) studies met inclusion criteria (8 perioperative, 4 acute, and 5 chronic pain). Auriculotherapy was superior to controls for studies evaluating pain intensity (SMD, 1.56 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.85, 2.26]; 8 studies). For perioperative pain, auriculotherapy reduced analgesic use (SMD, 0.54 [95% CI: 0.30, 0.77]; 5 studies). For acute pain and chronic pain, auriculotherapy reduced pain intensity (SMD for acute pain, 1.35 [95% CI: 0.08, 2.64], 2 studies; SMD for chronic pain, 1.84 [95% CI: 0.60, 3.07], 5 studies). Removal of poor quality studies did not alter the conclusions. Significant heterogeneity existed among studies of acute and chronic pain, but not perioperative pain. CONCLUSIONS: Auriculotherapy may be effective for the treatment of a variety of types of pain, especially postoperative pain. However, a more accurate estimate of the effect will require further large, well-designed trials.
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Chapter 11: challenges in and principles for conducting systematic reviews of genetic tests used as predictive indicators.
    (Journal of general internal medicine, 2012-06) Jonas, Daniel E; Wilt, Timothy J; Taylor, Brent C; Wilkins, Tania M; Matchar, David B
    In this paper, we discuss common challenges in and principles for conducting systematic reviews of genetic tests. The types of genetic tests discussed are those used to 1). determine risk or susceptibility in asymptomatic individuals; 2). reveal prognostic information to guide clinical management in those with a condition; or 3). predict response to treatments or environmental factors. This paper is not intended to provide comprehensive guidance on evaluating all genetic tests. Rather, it focuses on issues that have been of particular concern to analysts and stakeholders and on areas that are of particular relevance for the evaluation of studies of genetic tests. The key points include: The general principles that apply in evaluating genetic tests are similar to those for other prognostic or predictive tests, but there are differences in how the principles need to be applied or the degree to which certain issues are relevant. A clear definition of the clinical scenario and an analytic framework is important when evaluating any test, including genetic tests. Organizing frameworks and analytic frameworks are useful constructs for approaching the evaluation of genetic tests. In constructing an analytic framework for evaluating a genetic test, analysts should consider preanalytic, analytic, and postanalytic factors; such factors are useful when assessing analytic validity. Predictive genetic tests are generally characterized by a delayed time between testing and clinically important events. Finding published information on the analytic validity of some genetic tests may be difficult. Web sites (FDA or diagnostic companies) and gray literature may be important sources. In situations where clinical factors associated with risk are well characterized, comparative effectiveness reviews should assess the added value of using genetic testing along with known factors compared with using the known factors alone. For genome-wide association studies, reviewers should determine whether the association has been validated in multiple studies to minimize both potential confounding and publication bias. In addition, reviewers should note whether appropriate adjustments for multiple comparisons were used.