The Alberta Kidney Disease Network is a collaborative nephrology research organization based on a central repository of laboratory and administrative data from the Canadian province of Alberta.

The objective of this study was to establish the effectiveness of interventions to reduce frequent emergency department (ED) use among a general adult high ED-use population. Systematic review of the literature from 1950-January 2015. Studies were included if they: had a control group (controlled trials or comparative cohort studies), were set in an ED or acute care facility, and examined the impact of an intervention to reduce frequent ED use in a general adult population. Studies reporting non-original data or focused on a specific patient population were excluded. Study design, patient population, intervention, the frequency of ED visits, and costs of frequent ED use and/or interventions were extracted and narratively synthesized. Among 17 included articles, three intervention categories were identified: case management (n = 12), individualized care plans (n = 3), and information sharing (n = 2). Ten studies examining case management reported reductions in mean (-0.66 to -37) or median (-0.1 to -20) number of ED visits after 12-months; one study reported an increase in mean ED visits (+2.79); and one reported no change. Of these, 6 studies also reported reduced hospital costs. Only 1 study evaluating individualized care plans examined ED utilization and found no change in median ED visits post-intervention. Costs following individualized care plans were also only evaluated in 1 study, which reported savings in hospital costs of $742/patient. Evidence was mixed regarding information sharing: 1 study reported no change in mean ED visits and did not examine costs; whereas the other reported a decrease in mean ED visits (-16.9) and ED cost savings of $15,513/patient. The impact of all three frequent-user interventions was modest. Case management had the most rigorous evidence base, yielded moderate cost savings, but with variable reductions in ED use. Future studies evaluating non-traditional interventions, tailoring to patient subgroups or socio-cultural contexts, are warranted.

Background: Application of knowledge translation (KT) theories, models, and frameworks (TMFs) is one method for successfully incorporating evidence into clinical care. However, there are multiple KT TMFs and little guidance on which to select. This study sought to identify and describe available full-spectrum KT TMFs to subsequently guide users. Methods: A scoping review was completed. Articles were identified through searches within electronic databases, previous reviews, grey literature, and consultation with KT experts. Search terms included combinations of KT terms and theory-related terms. Included citations had to describe full-spectrum KT TMFs that had been applied or tested. Titles/abstracts and full-text articles were screened independently by two investigators. Each KT TMF was described by its characteristics including name, context, key components, how it was used, primary target audience, levels of use, and study outcomes. Each KT TMF was also categorized into theoretical approaches as process models, determinant frameworks, classic theories, implementation theories, and evaluation frameworks. Within each category, KT TMFs were compared and contrasted to identify similarities and unique characteristics. Results: Electronic searches yielded 7160 citations. Additional citations were identified from previous reviews (n = 41) and bibliographies of included full-text articles (n = 6). Thirty-six citations describing 36 full-spectrum were identified. In 24 KT TMFs, the primary target audience was multi-level including patients/public, professionals, organizational, and financial/regulatory. The majority of the KT TMFs were used within public health, followed by research (organizational, translation, health), or in multiple contexts. Twenty-six could be used at the individual, organization, or policy levels, five at the individual/organization levels, three at the individual level only, and two at the organizational/policy level. Categorization of the KT TMFs resulted in 18 process models, eight classic theories, three determinant frameworks, three evaluation frameworks, and four that fit more than one category. There were no KT TMFs that fit the implementation theory category. Within each category, similarities and unique characteristics emerged through comparison. Conclusions: A systematic compilation of existing full-spectrum KT TMFs, categorization into different approaches, and comparison has been provided in a user-friendly way. This list provides options for users to select from when designing KT projects and interventions. Trial registration: A protocol outlining the methodology of this scoping review was developed and registered with PROSPERO (CRD42018088564).

BACKGROUND: Radiofrequency ablation (RFA), a procedure using heat to interrupt pain signals in spinal nerves, is an emerging treatment option for chronic low back pain. Its clinical efficacy has not yet been established.OBJECTIVE: To determine the efficacy of RFA for chronic low back pain associated with lumbar facet joints, sacroiliac joints, discogenic low back pain and the coccyx.METHODS: A systematic review was conducted. Medline, EMBASE, PubMed, SPORTDiscus, CINAHL and the Cochrane Library were searched up to August 2013. Abstracts and full‐text articles were reviewed in duplicate. Included articles were sham‐controlled randomized controlled trials (RCTs), assessed the efficacy of RFA, reported at least one month of follow‐up and included participants who had experienced back pain for at least three months. Data were extracted in duplicate and quality was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. Due to heterogeneity, as well as a lack of reported mean differences and SDs, meta‐analysis was not possible using these data.RESULTS: The present systematic review retrieved 1063 abstracts. Eleven sham‐controlled RCTs were included: three studies involving discogenic back pain; six studies involving lumbar facet joint pain; and two studies involving sacroiliac joint pain. No studies were identified assessing the coccyx. The evidence supports RFA as an efficacious treatment for lumbar facet joint and sacroiliac joint pain, with five of six and both of the RCTs demonstrating statistically significant pain reductions, respectively. The evidence supporting RFA for the treatment of discogenic pain is mixed.CONCLUSIONS: While the majority of the studies focusing on lumbar facet joints and sacroiliac joints suggest that RFA significantly reduces pain in short‐term follow‐up, the evidence base for discogenic low back pain is mixed. There is no RCT evidence for RFA for the coccyx. Future studies should examine the clinical significance of the achieved pain reduction and the long‐term efficacy of RFA.

Background With impending marijuana legislation in Canada, a broad understanding of the harms associated with marijuana use is needed to inform the clinical community and public, and to support evidence-informed public policy development. The purpose of the review was to synthesize the evidence on adverse health effects and harms of marijuana use. Methods We searched MEDLINE, The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Embase, PsycINFO, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and the Health Technology Assessment Database from the inception of each database to May 2018. Given that systematic reviews evaluating one or other specific harm have been published, this is an overview review with the primary objective of assessing a health effect or harm. Data on author, country and year of publication, search strategy and results, and outcomes were extracted. Quality was assessed using the AMSTAR (A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews) checklist. Results The final analysis included 68 reviews. Evidence of harm was reported in 62 reviews for several mental health disorders, brain changes, cognitive outcomes, pregnancy outcomes and testicular cancer. Inconclusive evidence was found for 20 outcomes (some mental health outcomes, other types of cancers and all-cause mortality). No evidence of harm was reported for 6 outcomes. Interpretation Harm was associated with most outcomes assessed. These results should be viewed with concern by physicians and policy-makers given the prevalence of use, the persistent reporting of a lack of recognition of marijuana as a possibly harmful substance and the emerging context of legalization for recreational use.