Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27348399›Full record

SynthesisHaemophilia : the official journal of the World Federation of Hemophilia2016

Care models in the management of haemophilia: a systematic review.

C H T Yeung, N Santesso, M Pai, C Kessler, N S Key, M Makris, T Navarro-Ruan, J M Soucie, H J Schünemann, A Iorio

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Haemophilia : the official journal of the World Federation of Hemophilia, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. The UK haemophilia specialist nurse: Competencies fit for practice in the 21st century.Haemophilia : the official journal of the World Federation of Hemophilia · 2020
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Haemophilia in France: Modelisation of the Clinical Pathway for Patients.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Article
  8. Observational
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

C H T YeungDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
N SantessoDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
M PaiDepartment of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
C KesslerGeorgetown University, Washington, DC, USA.
N S KeyDepartment of Medicine, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
M MakrisDepartment of Infection, Immunity and Cardiovascular Disease, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.
T Navarro-RuanDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
J M SoucieCenters for Disease Control and Prevention, Division of Blood Disorders, National Center for Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities, Atlanta, GA, USA.
H J SchünemannDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
A IorioDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.

Funding

Intramural CDC HHS CC999999
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHaemophilia care is commonly provided via multidisciplinary specialized management. To date, there has been no systematic assessment of the impact of haemophilia care delivery models on patient-important outcomes.

objectiveTo conduct a systematic review of published studies assessing the effects of the integrated care model for persons with haemophilia (PWH). SEARCH

methodsWe searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL up to April 22, 2015, contacted experts in the field, and reviewed reference lists. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized and non-randomized studies of PWH or carriers, focusing mainly on the assessment of care models on delivery. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two investigators independently screened title, abstract, and full text of retrieved articles for inclusion. Risk of bias and overall quality of evidence was assessed using Cochrane's ACROBAT-NRSI tool and GRADE respectively. Relative risks, mean differences, proportions, and means and their variability were calculated as appropriate.

results27 non-randomized studies were included: eight comparative and 19 non-comparative studies. We found low- to very low-quality evidence that in comparison to other models of care, integrated care may reduce mortality, hospitalizations and emergency room visits, may lead to fewer missed days of school and work, and may increase knowledge seeking.

conclusionOur comprehensive review found low- to very low-quality evidence from a limited number of non-randomized studies assessing the impact of haemophilia care models on some patient-important outcomes. While the available evidence suggests that adoption of the integrated care model may provide benefit to PWH, further high-quality research in the field is needed.

Indexed as

Disease ManagementModels, NursingClinical Trials as TopicDatabases, FactualDelivery of Health CareHemophilia AHumansLength of Staycare modeldelivery of health carehaemophiliahealth care teamintegrated carereview

Identifiers

PMID27348399
PMCPMC5283751

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.