Back to Authors

Englesakis, Marina

0000-0002-2199-1056

Mayo Clinic

Library and Information Services, University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

Citations 2

Practice advisory for intravenous management of headache disorders in hospitalized patients: a review of the evidence and consensus recommendations
Hoydonckx, Yasmine , Feoktistov, Alexander, Amoozegar, Farnaz , Anderson, C. , Barad, Meredith , Burke, Emeralda , Chitsantikul, Prin, Doshi, Tina L , Englesakis, Marina , Goel, Akash , Gupta, Himanshu , Kirschner, Abby, Kohan, Lynn , Lauritsen, Clinton G. , Miller, Franziska , Monsour, Danny, Nader, Antoun , Ogunlaja, Oyindamola, Silberstein, Stephen D., Souza, Dmitri , Kohan, Lynn R , Nader, Antoun , Schwenk, Eric S , Yuan, Hsiangkuo , Englesakis, Marina , Doshi, Tina L , Barad, Meredith J , Gupta, Himanshu, Kissoon, Narayan , Schuster, Nathaniel M. , Schwenk, Eric S. , Yuan, Hsiangkuo , Narouze, Samer

Regional Anesthesia & Pain Medicine | July 2, 2025 | Volume: 51 | Issue: 2 | Pages: 117-131

10.1136/rapm-2025-106718 Get It

Introduction Patients hospitalized for headache treatment pose unique challenges to the healthcare system. Currently, there is a lack of evidence-based guidance on management. This practice advisory aims to fill this critical gap by systematically reviewing the existing literature and providing comprehensive, evidence-based recommendations for managing headache patients during hospitalization. Methods In February 2023, the American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine approved this practice advisory proposal. The steering committee selected committee members based on clinical and research expertise in the field of headache medicine. Nine questions were formulated by the committee, and each question was assigned to a group composed of 3–4 members. A systematic literature search for each question was performed in Medline, Embase, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and Web of Science on June 21, 2023. The results from each search were imported into separate Covidence projects for screening, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment. Additionally, relevant systematic reviews (SR) were screened. Each group submitted a structured narrative review along with statements and recommendations based on the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) format for grading of evidence. While the USPSTF framework was used, including the language in the recommendations, the formal USPSTF methodology, including the SR with meta-analysis and summary tables with forest plots, was not followed because of low overall evidence quality. The interim draft was shared electronically with each collaborator, who was requested to vote anonymously using two rounds of the modified Delphi approach. A consensus recommendation required >75% agreement. Results The panel generated 12 statements and 17 recommendations, along with their strength and certainty of evidence. Following two rounds of Delphi voting, a high consensus was achieved for all statements and recommendations. Most statements received a low-to-moderate level of certainty, and all but one recommendation received grade B or C, which was consistent with the lack of randomized controlled trials supporting most of the drugs in this document. Conclusions This evidence-based practice advisory provides a foundational step toward standardizing inpatient headache care and highlights existing gaps in the literature that should be addressed through rigorous prospective randomized studies.
Establishing best practices in cancer online support groups: protocol for a realist review
Babinski, Stephanie , Wong, Geoff , Tricco, Andrea C. , Englesakis, Marina , Cyr, Alaina , Potts, Henry , Perski, Olga , Young, Colleen , Wassersug, Richard J. , Forster, Victoria J. , Soobiah, Charlene , Fox, Colleen , Gothard-Huang, Alison, Bender, Jacqueline L , Wong, Geoff , Tricco, Andrea C , Englesakis, Marina , Potts, Henry , Perski, Olga , Young, Colleen D , Wassersug, Richard , Forster, Victoria , Papadakos, Janet , Soobiah, Charlene , Witteman, Holly , Esplen, Mary Jane

BMJ Open | November 3, 2021 | Volume: 11 | Issue: 11 | Pages: e053916

10.1136/bmjopen-2021-053916 Get It

Introduction Considerable observational evidence suggests that cancer online support groups reduce feelings of isolation, depression and anxiety, enhance coping and self-management, and lead to better informed patients. Other studies indicate that cancer online support groups can increase distress. Yet no studies theorise the complex, context-dependent mechanisms by which cancer online support groups generate their—sometimes contrasting—outcomes. Methods and analysis Guided by an integrated knowledge translation approach and the strategy for patient-oriented research, we will conduct a realist review of cancer online support groups in partnership with stakeholders. We will follow Pawson’s five steps and existing quality standards to develop a program theory that explains how cancer online support groups work, for whom and in what circumstances. The specific research questions will be: what positive and negative outcomes have been reported on cancer online support groups? What are the mechanisms that are associated with these outcomes, in which contexts and for whom? Through a rigorous review of relevant scientific and grey literature, as well as ongoing dialogue with stakeholders, a program theory will be developed to explain who benefits from cancer online support groups and who does not, what benefits they derive (or do not), and the factors that affect these outcomes. Ethics and dissemination The use of secondary data for this review precludes the need for ethical approval. Dissemination will be informed by the knowledge-to-action framework and will consist of tailored knowledge products that are conceived of collaboratively with stakeholders. These will include peer-reviewed publications on how cancer online support groups can be optimised and best practice recommendations to maximise the benefits experienced by people with cancer. These traditional scientific outputs, along with their respective evidence summaries, will be amplified through strategic social media events hosted and promoted by knowledge users. PROSPERO registration number CRD42021250046.