scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Institution

University College London

EducationLondon, United Kingdom
About: University College London is a education organization based out in London, United Kingdom. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Population & Context (language use). The organization has 81105 authors who have published 210603 publications receiving 9868552 citations. The organization is also known as: UCL & University College, London.


Papers
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: This systematic review of interventions to improve antibiotic prescribing to hospital inpatients showed interventions to be associated with improvement in prescribing according to antibiotic policy in routine clinical practice, with 70% of interventions being hospital-wide compared with 31% for RCTs.
Abstract: BACKGROUND: Antibiotic resistance is a major public health problem. Infections caused by multidrug-resistant bacteria are associated with prolonged hospital stay and death compared with infections caused by susceptible bacteria. Appropriate antibiotic use in hospitals should ensure effective treatment of patients with infection and reduce unnecessary prescriptions. We updated this systematic review to evaluate the impact of interventions to improve antibiotic prescribing to hospital inpatients. OBJECTIVES: To estimate the effectiveness and safety of interventions to improve antibiotic prescribing to hospital inpatients and to investigate the effect of two intervention functions: restriction and enablement. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library), MEDLINE, and Embase. We searched for additional studies using the bibliographies of included articles and personal files. The last search from which records were evaluated and any studies identified incorporated into the review was January 2015. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomised studies (NRS). We included three non-randomised study designs to measure behavioural and clinical outcomes and analyse variation in the effects: non- randomised trials (NRT), controlled before-after (CBA) studies and interrupted time series (ITS) studies. For this update we also included three additional NRS designs (case control, cohort, and qualitative studies) to identify unintended consequences. Interventions included any professional or structural interventions as defined by the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group. We defined restriction as 'using rules to reduce the opportunity to engage in the target behaviour (or increase the target behaviour by reducing the opportunity to engage in competing behaviours)'. We defined enablement as 'increasing means/reducing barriers to increase capability or opportunity'. The main comparison was between intervention and no intervention. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors extracted data and assessed study risk of bias. We performed meta-analysis and meta-regression of RCTs and meta-regression of ITS studies. We classified behaviour change functions for all interventions in the review, including those studies in the previously published versions. We analysed dichotomous data with a risk difference (RD). We assessed certainty of evidence with GRADE criteria. MAIN RESULTS: This review includes 221 studies (58 RCTs, and 163 NRS). Most studies were from North America (96) or Europe (87). The remaining studies were from Asia (19), South America (8), Australia (8), and the East Asia (3). Although 62% of RCTs were at a high risk of bias, the results for the main review outcomes were similar when we restricted the analysis to studies at low risk of bias.More hospital inpatients were treated according to antibiotic prescribing policy with the intervention compared with no intervention based on 29 RCTs of predominantly enablement interventions (RD 15%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 14% to 16%; 23,394 participants; high-certainty evidence). This represents an increase from 43% to 58% .There were high levels of heterogeneity of effect size but the direction consistently favoured intervention.The duration of antibiotic treatment decreased by 1.95 days (95% CI 2.22 to 1.67; 14 RCTs; 3318 participants; high-certainty evidence) from 11.0 days. Information from non-randomised studies showed interventions to be associated with improvement in prescribing according to antibiotic policy in routine clinical practice, with 70% of interventions being hospital-wide compared with 31% for RCTs. The risk of death was similar between intervention and control groups (11% in both arms), indicating that antibiotic use can likely be reduced without adversely affecting mortality (RD 0%, 95% CI -1% to 0%; 28 RCTs; 15,827 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Antibiotic stewardship interventions probably reduce length of stay by 1.12 days (95% CI 0.7 to 1.54 days; 15 RCTs; 3834 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). One RCT and six NRS raised concerns that restrictive interventions may lead to delay in treatment and negative professional culture because of breakdown in communication and trust between infection specialists and clinical teams (low-certainty evidence).Both enablement and restriction were independently associated with increased compliance with antibiotic policies, and enablement enhanced the effect of restrictive interventions (high-certainty evidence). Enabling interventions that included feedback were probably more effective than those that did not (moderate-certainty evidence).There was very low-certainty evidence about the effect of the interventions on reducing Clostridium difficile infections (median -48.6%, interquartile range -80.7% to -19.2%; 7 studies). This was also the case for resistant gram-negative bacteria (median -12.9%, interquartile range -35.3% to 25.2%; 11 studies) and resistant gram-positive bacteria (median -19.3%, interquartile range -50.1% to +23.1%; 9 studies). There was too much variance in microbial outcomes to reliably assess the effect of change in antibiotic use. Heterogeneity of intervention effect on prescribing outcomesWe analysed effect modifiers in 29 RCTs and 91 ITS studies. Enablement and restriction were independently associated with a larger effect size (high-certainty evidence). Feedback was included in 4 (17%) of 23 RCTs and 20 (47%) of 43 ITS studies of enabling interventions and was associated with greater intervention effect. Enablement was included in 13 (45%) of 29 ITS studies with restrictive interventions and enhanced intervention effect. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found high-certainty evidence that interventions are effective in increasing compliance with antibiotic policy and reducing duration of antibiotic treatment. Lower use of antibiotics probably does not increase mortality and likely reduces length of stay. Additional trials comparing antibiotic stewardship with no intervention are unlikely to change our conclusions. Enablement consistently increased the effect of interventions, including those with a restrictive component. Although feedback further increased intervention effect, it was used in only a minority of enabling interventions. Interventions were successful in safely reducing unnecessary antibiotic use in hospitals, despite the fact that the majority did not use the most effective behaviour change techniques. Consequently, effective dissemination of our findings could have considerable health service and policy impact. Future research should instead focus on targeting treatment and assessing other measures of patient safety, assess different stewardship interventions, and explore the barriers and facilitators to implementation. More research is required on unintended consequences of restrictive interventions.

1,480 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: It is concluded that the signal transduction pathways controlled by the four small GTPases, Rho, Rac, Cdc42, and Ras, cooperate to promote cell movement.
Abstract: Cell movement is essential during embryogenesis to establish tissue patterns and to drive morphogenetic pathways and in the adult for tissue repair and to direct cells to sites of infection. Animal cells move by crawling and the driving force is derived primarily from the coordinated assembly and disassembly of actin filaments. The small GTPases, Rho, Rac, and Cdc42, regulate the organization of actin filaments and we have analyzed their contributions to the movement of primary embryo fibroblasts in an in vitro wound healing assay. Rac is essential for the protrusion of lamellipodia and for forward movement. Cdc42 is required to maintain cell polarity, which includes the localization of lamellipodial activity to the leading edge and the reorientation of the Golgi apparatus in the direction of movement. Rho is required to maintain cell adhesion during movement, but stress fibers and focal adhesions are not required. Finally, Ras regulates focal adhesion and stress fiber turnover and this is essential for cell movement. We conclude that the signal transduction pathways controlled by the four small GTPases, Rho, Rac, Cdc42, and Ras, cooperate to promote cell movement.

1,477 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
14 Dec 2006-Nature
TL;DR: The data suggest that SCN9A is an essential and non-redundant requirement for nociception in humans, and should stimulate the search for novel analgesics that selectively target this sodium channel subunit.
Abstract: The complete inability to sense pain in an otherwise healthy individual is a very rare phenotype. In three consanguineous families from northern Pakistan, we mapped the condition as an autosomal-recessive trait to chromosome 2q24.3. This region contains the gene SCN9A, encoding the alpha-subunit of the voltage-gated sodium channel, Na(v)1.7, which is strongly expressed in nociceptive neurons. Sequence analysis of SCN9A in affected individuals revealed three distinct homozygous nonsense mutations (S459X, I767X and W897X). We show that these mutations cause loss of function of Na(v)1.7 by co-expression of wild-type or mutant human Na(v)1.7 with sodium channel beta(1) and beta(2) subunits in HEK293 cells. In cells expressing mutant Na(v)1.7, the currents were no greater than background. Our data suggest that SCN9A is an essential and non-redundant requirement for nociception in humans. These findings should stimulate the search for novel analgesics that selectively target this sodium channel subunit.

1,474 citations

Book
12 Mar 2012
TL;DR: Comprehensive and coherent, this hands-on text develops everything from basic reasoning to advanced techniques within the framework of graphical models, and develops analytical and problem-solving skills that equip them for the real world.
Abstract: Machine learning methods extract value from vast data sets quickly and with modest resources They are established tools in a wide range of industrial applications, including search engines, DNA sequencing, stock market analysis, and robot locomotion, and their use is spreading rapidly People who know the methods have their choice of rewarding jobs This hands-on text opens these opportunities to computer science students with modest mathematical backgrounds It is designed for final-year undergraduates and master's students with limited background in linear algebra and calculus Comprehensive and coherent, it develops everything from basic reasoning to advanced techniques within the framework of graphical models Students learn more than a menu of techniques, they develop analytical and problem-solving skills that equip them for the real world Numerous examples and exercises, both computer based and theoretical, are included in every chapter Resources for students and instructors, including a MATLAB toolbox, are available online

1,474 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
Rupert R A Bourne1, Seth Flaxman2, Tasanee Braithwaite1, Maria V Cicinelli, Aditi Das, Jost B. Jonas3, Jill E Keeffe4, John H Kempen5, Janet L Leasher6, Hans Limburg, Kovin Naidoo7, Kovin Naidoo8, Konrad Pesudovs9, Serge Resnikoff7, Serge Resnikoff10, Alexander J Silvester11, Gretchen A Stevens12, Nina Tahhan7, Nina Tahhan10, Tien Yin Wong13, Hugh R. Taylor14, Rupert R A Bourne1, Peter Ackland, Aries Arditi, Yaniv Barkana, Banu Bozkurt15, Alain M. Bron16, Donald L. Budenz17, Feng Cai, Robert J Casson18, Usha Chakravarthy19, Jaewan Choi, Maria Vittoria Cicinelli, Nathan Congdon19, Reza Dana20, Rakhi Dandona21, Lalit Dandona22, Iva Dekaris, Monte A. Del Monte23, Jenny deva24, Laura Dreer25, Leon B. Ellwein26, Marcela Frazier25, Kevin D. Frick27, David S. Friedman27, João M. Furtado28, H. Gao29, Gus Gazzard30, Ronnie George, Stephen Gichuhi31, Victor H. Gonzalez, Billy R. Hammond32, Mary Elizabeth Hartnett33, Minguang He14, James F. Hejtmancik26, Flavio E. Hirai34, John J Huang35, April D. Ingram36, Jonathan C. Javitt27, Jost B. Jonas3, Charlotte E. Joslin, John H. Kempen20, John H. Kempen37, Moncef Khairallah, Rohit C Khanna4, Judy E. Kim38, George N. Lambrou39, Van C. Lansingh, Paolo Lanzetta40, Jennifer I. Lim41, Kaweh Mansouri, Anu A. Mathew42, Alan R. Morse, Beatriz Munoz27, David C. Musch23, Vinay Nangia, Maria Palaiou20, Maurizio Battaglia Parodi, Fernando Yaacov Pena42, Tunde Peto19, Harry A. Quigley27, Murugesan Raju43, Pradeep Y. Ramulu27, Alan L. Robin27, Luca Rossetti44, Jinan B. Saaddine45, Mya Sandar46, Janet B. Serle47, Tueng T. Shen22, Rajesh K. Shetty48, Pamela C. Sieving26, Juan Carlos Silva49, Rita S. Sitorus50, Dwight Stambolian37, Gretchen Stevens12, Hugh Taylor14, Jaime Tejedor, James M. Tielsch27, Miltiadis K. Tsilimbaris51, Jan C. van Meurs52, Rohit Varma53, Gianni Virgili54, Jimmy Volmink55, Ya Xing Wang, Ningli Wang56, Sheila K. West27, Peter Wiedemann57, Tien Wong13, Richard Wormald58, Yingfeng Zheng46 
Anglia Ruskin University1, University of Oxford2, Heidelberg University3, L V Prasad Eye Institute4, Massachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmary5, Nova Southeastern University6, Brien Holden Vision Institute7, University of KwaZulu-Natal8, Flinders University9, University of New South Wales10, Royal Liverpool University Hospital11, World Health Organization12, National University of Singapore13, University of Melbourne14, Selçuk University15, University of Burgundy16, University of Miami17, University of Adelaide18, Queen's University Belfast19, Harvard University20, The George Institute for Global Health21, University of Washington22, University of Michigan23, Universiti Tunku Abdul Rahman24, University of Alabama25, National Institutes of Health26, Johns Hopkins University27, University of São Paulo28, Henry Ford Health System29, University College London30, University of Nairobi31, University of Georgia32, University of Utah33, Federal University of São Paulo34, Yale University35, Alberta Children's Hospital36, University of Pennsylvania37, Medical College of Wisconsin38, Novartis39, University of Udine40, University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign41, Royal Children's Hospital42, University of Missouri43, University of Milan44, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention45, Singapore National Eye Center46, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai47, Mayo Clinic48, Pan American Health Organization49, University of Indonesia50, University of Crete51, Erasmus University Rotterdam52, University of Southern California53, University of Florence54, Stellenbosch University55, Capital Medical University56, Leipzig University57, Moorfields Eye Hospital58
TL;DR: There is an ongoing reduction in the age-standardised prevalence of blindness and visual impairment, yet the growth and ageing of the world's population is causing a substantial increase in number of people affected, highlighting the need to scale up vision impairment alleviation efforts at all levels.

1,473 citations


Authors

Showing all 82293 results

NameH-indexPapersCitations
Trevor W. Robbins2311137164437
George Davey Smith2242540248373
Karl J. Friston2171267217169
Robert J. Lefkowitz214860147995
Cyrus Cooper2041869206782
David Miller2032573204840
Mark I. McCarthy2001028187898
André G. Uitterlinden1991229156747
Raymond J. Dolan196919138540
Michael Marmot1931147170338
Nicholas G. Martin1921770161952
David R. Williams1782034138789
John Hardy1771178171694
James J. Heckman175766156816
Kay-Tee Khaw1741389138782
Network Information
Related Institutions (5)
University of Cambridge
282.2K papers, 14.4M citations

97% related

University of Oxford
258.1K papers, 12.9M citations

97% related

University of Toronto
294.9K papers, 13.5M citations

95% related

Columbia University
224K papers, 12.8M citations

95% related

Harvard University
530.3K papers, 38.1M citations

95% related

Performance
Metrics
No. of papers from the Institution in previous years
YearPapers
20251
20241
2023456
20222,034
202115,408
202014,651