Ahmed M Negm

Dr. Ahmed M Negm

University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
orcid

Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

14Years (2013-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
3 October 2019 in The Journal of nutrition, health and aging
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
EDE. Dent
E. Dent
JMJ. E. Morley
J. E. Morley
ACA. J. Cruz-Jentoft
A. J. Cruz-Jentoft
LWL. Woodhouse
L. Woodhouse
LRL. Rodríguez-Mañas
L. Rodríguez-Mañas
BVB. Vellas
B. Vellas
The task force of the International Conference of Frailty and Sarcopenia Research (ICFSR) developed these clinical practice guidelines to overview the current evidence-base and to provide recommendations for the identification and management of frailty in older adults.

1 October 2019 in Journal of the American Medical Directors Association
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
ANAhmed M Negm
Ahmed M Negm
CKCourtney C. Kennedy
Courtney C. Kennedy
LTLehana Thabane
Lehana Thabane
AVAreti-Angeliki Veroniki
Areti-Angeliki Veroniki
JAJonathan Derrick Adachi
Jonathan Derrick Adachi
APAlexandra Papaioannou
Alexandra Papaioannou

18 February 2022 in Journal of the American Medical Directors Association
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
ANAhmed M Negm
Ahmed M Negm
JLJeremy Lee
Jeremy Lee
RHRadmehr Hamidian
Radmehr Hamidian
CJC. Allyson Jones
C. Allyson Jones
RKRachel G. Khadaroo
Rachel G. Khadaroo

27 October 2014 in PLOS ONE
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
KPKaren S Palmer
Karen S Palmer
TAThomas Agoritsas
Thomas Agoritsas
DMDanielle Martin
Danielle Martin
TSTaryn Scott
Taryn Scott
SMSohail M Mulla
Sohail M Mulla
GGGordon H Guyatt
Gordon H Guyatt
Activity-based funding (ABF) of hospitals is a policy intervention intended to re-shape incentives across health systems through the use of diagnosis-related groups. Many countries are adopting or actively promoting ABF. We assessed the effect of ABF on key measures potentially affecting patients and health care systems: mortality (acute and post-acute care); readmission rates; discharge rate to post-acute care following hospitalization; severity of illness; volume of care. We undertook a systematic review and meta-analysis of the worldwide evidence produced since 1980. We included all studies reporting original quantitative data comparing the impact of ABF versus alternative funding systems in acute care settings, regardless of language. We searched 9 electronic databases (OVID MEDLINE, EMBASE, OVID Healthstar, CINAHL, Cochrane CENTRAL, Health Technology Assessment, NHS Economic Evaluation Database, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Business Source), hand-searched reference lists, and consulted with experts. Paired reviewers independently screened for eligibility, abstracted data, and assessed study credibility according to a pre-defined scoring system, resolving conflicts by discussion or adjudication. Of 16,565 unique citations, 50 US studies and 15 studies from 9 other countries proved eligible (i.e. Australia, Austria, England, Germany, Israel, Italy, Scotland, Sweden, Switzerland). We found consistent and robust differences between ABF and no-ABF in discharge to post-acute care, showing a 24% increase with ABF (pooled relative risk = 1.24, 95% CI 1.18–1.31). Results also suggested a possible increase in readmission with ABF, and an apparent increase in severity of illness, perhaps reflecting differences in diagnostic coding. Although we found no consistent, systematic differences in mortality rates and volume of care, results varied widely across studies, some suggesting appreciable benefits from ABF, and others suggesting deleterious consequences. Transitioning to ABF is associated with important policy- and clinically-relevant changes. Evidence suggests substantial increases in admissions to post-acute care following hospitalization, with implications for system capacity and equitable access to care. High variability in results of other outcomes leaves the impact in particular settings uncertain, and may not allow a jurisdiction to predict if ABF would be harmless. Decision-makers considering ABF should plan for likely increases in post-acute care admissions, and be aware of the large uncertainty around impacts on other critical outcomes.

1 February 2019 in JBJS Reviews
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
YCYaping Chang
Yaping Chang
MBMohit Bhandari
Mohit Bhandari
KZKan Lun Zhu
Kan Lun Zhu
RMReza Donald Mirza
Reza Donald Mirza
MRMelody Ren
Melody Ren
Gordon H. GuyattGordon H. Guyatt
Gordon H. Guyatt
Background: Evidence with regard to antibiotic prophylaxis for patients with open fractures of the extremities is limited. We therefore conducted a systematic survey addressing current practice and recommendations.Methods: We included publications from January 2007 to June 2017. We searched Embase, MEDLINE, CINAHL, the Cochrane Central Registry of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for clinical studies and surveys of surgeons; WorldCat for textbooks; and web sites for guidelines and institutional protocols.Results: We identified 223 eligible publications that reported 100 clinical practice patterns and 276 recommendations with regard to systemic antibiotic administration, and 3 recommendations regarding local antibiotic administration alone. Most publications of clinical practice patterns used regimens with both gram-positive and gram-negative coverage and continued the administration for 2 to 3 days. Most publications recommended prophylactic systemic antibiotics. Most recommendations suggested gram-positive coverage for less severe injuries and administration duration of 3 days or less. For more severe injuries, most recommendations suggested broad antimicrobial coverage continued for 2 to 3 days. Most publications reported intravenous administration of antibiotics immediately.Conclusions: Current practice and recommendations strongly support early systemic antibiotic prophylaxis for patients with open fractures of the extremities. Differences in antibiotic regimens, doses, and durations of administration remain in both practice and recommendations. Consensus with regard to optimal practice will likely require well-designed randomized controlled trials.Clinical Relevance: The current survey of literature systematically provides surgeons’ practice and the available expert recommendations from 2007 to 2017 on the use of prophylactic antibiotics in the management of open fractures of extremities.

19 July 2022 in Arthroplasty Today
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
ANAhmed M Negm
Ahmed M Negm
LBLauren A. Beaupre
Lauren A. Beaupre
CGC. Michael Goplen
C. Michael Goplen
CWColleen Weeks
Colleen Weeks
CJC Allyson Jones
C Allyson Jones
Total hip arthroplasty (THA) in younger patients is projected to increase by a factor of 5 by 2030 and will have important implications for clinical practice, policymaking, and research. This scoping review aimed to synthesize and summarize THA implants' survival, reoperation, and wear rates and identify indications and risk factors for reoperation following THA in patients ≤55 years old. Standardized scoping review methodology was applied. We searched 4 electronic databases (Medline, Embase, CINAHL, and Web of Science) from January 1990 to May 2019. Selection criteria were patients aged ≤55 years, THA survival, reoperation, and/or wear rate reported, a minimum of 20 reoperations included, and minimum level III based on the Oxford Level of Evidence. Two authors independently reviewed the citations, extracted data, and assessed quality. Of the 2255 citations screened, 35 retrospective cohort studies were included. Survival rates for THA at 5 and 20 years were 90%-100% and 60.4%-77.7%, respectively. Reoperation rates at ≤5-year post THA ranged from 1.6% to 5.4% and increased at 10-20 years post THA (8.2%-67%). Common causes for reoperation were aseptic loosening of hip implants, osteolysis, wear, and infection. Higher reoperation and lower survival rates were seen with hip dysplasia and avascular necrosis than with other primary diagnoses. Over time, THA prosthetic survival rates decreased, and reoperation increased in patients ≤55 years. Aseptic loosening of hip implants, osteolysis, wear, and infection were the most frequent reasons for the reoperation.