-
Archives of Disease in Childhood Oct 2016Leukaemia is the most common cancer of childhood, accounting for a third of cases. In order to assist clinicians in its early detection, we systematically reviewed all... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
Leukaemia is the most common cancer of childhood, accounting for a third of cases. In order to assist clinicians in its early detection, we systematically reviewed all existing data on its clinical presentation and estimated the frequency of signs and symptoms presenting at or prior to diagnosis.
DESIGN
We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE for all studies describing presenting features of leukaemia in children (0-18 years) without date or language restriction, and, when appropriate, meta-analysed data from the included studies.
RESULTS
We screened 12 303 abstracts for eligibility and included 33 studies (n=3084) in the analysis. All were cohort studies without control groups. 95 presenting signs and symptoms were identified and ranked according to frequency. Five features were present in >50% of children: hepatomegaly (64%), splenomegaly (61%), pallor (54%), fever (53%) and bruising (52%). An additional eight features were present in a third to a half of children: recurrent infections (49%), fatigue (46%), limb pain (43%), hepatosplenomegaly (42%), bruising/petechiae (42%), lymphadenopathy (41%), bleeding tendency (38%) and rash (35%). 6% of children were asymptomatic on diagnosis.
CONCLUSIONS
Over 50% of children with leukaemia have palpable livers, palpable spleens, pallor, fever or bruising on diagnosis. Abdominal symptoms such as anorexia, weight loss, abdominal pain and abdominal distension are common. Musculoskeletal symptoms such as limp and joint pain also feature prominently. Children with unexplained illness require a thorough history and focused clinical examination, which should include abdominal palpation, palpation for lymphadenopathy and careful scrutiny of the skin. Occurrence of multiple symptoms and signs should alert clinicians to possible leukaemia.
Topics: Abdominal Pain; Adolescent; Child; Child, Preschool; Contusions; Early Detection of Cancer; Exanthema; Fever; Gastrointestinal Diseases; Hemorrhage; Hepatomegaly; Humans; Infant; Infant, Newborn; Infections; Leukemia; Musculoskeletal Diseases; Recurrence; Skin Diseases; Splenomegaly
PubMed: 27647842
DOI: 10.1136/archdischild-2016-311251 -
International Journal of Environmental... May 2020Musculoskeletal diseases and pain (MSDs) are prevalent among dental professionals. They cause a growing inability to work and premature leaving of the occupation. Thus,...
Musculoskeletal diseases and pain (MSDs) are prevalent among dental professionals. They cause a growing inability to work and premature leaving of the occupation. Thus, the objective of this review was to summarize the evidence of ergonomic interventions for the prevention of MSDs among dental professionals. This review was conducted using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The literature search was carried out in May 2018, with an update in April 2019. Scientific databases such as MEDLINE, CINAHL, PubMed and Web of Science as well as reference lists of the included studies were used. Relevant data were extracted from the studies and summarized. The quality assessment was performed using a validated standardized instrument. Eleven studies were included in this review, of which four are of high quality. Eight studies focused on setting prevention strategies. Of those, in five studies, magnification loupes or prismatic spectacles were the subject of ergonomic interventions. Further subjects were the dental chair ( = 2) and dental instruments ( = 1). Three studies evaluated ergonomic training. In all studies, the ergonomic interventions had positive effects on the study outcome. Several ergonomic interventions to prevent MSDs among dental professionals were found to exert a positive effect on the prevalence of MSDs or working posture. This systematic review adds current evidence for the use of prismatic spectacles in order to prevent MSDs among dental professionals. Further intervention studies about the role of ergonomics for the prevention of MSDs among dental professionals are warranted.
Topics: Dentists; Ergonomics; Humans; Musculoskeletal Diseases; Occupational Diseases; Pain; Posture
PubMed: 32429439
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph17103482 -
RMD Open Jun 2022A EULAR taskforce was convened to develop recommendations for lifestyle behaviours in rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs). In this paper, the literature on the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Effects of diet on the outcomes of rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs): systematic review and meta-analyses informing the 2021 EULAR recommendations for lifestyle improvements in people with RMDs.
BACKGROUND
A EULAR taskforce was convened to develop recommendations for lifestyle behaviours in rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs). In this paper, the literature on the effect of diet on the progression of RMDs is reviewed.
METHODS
Systematic reviews and meta-analyses were performed of studies related to diet and disease outcomes in seven RMDs: osteoarthritis (OA), rheumatoid arthritis (RA), systemic lupus erythematosus, axial spondyloarthritis, psoriatic arthritis, systemic sclerosis and gout. In the first phase, existing relevant systematic reviews and meta-analyses, published from 2013 to 2018, were identified. In the second phase, the review was expanded to include published original studies on diet in RMDs, with no restriction on publication date. Systematic reviews or original studies were included if they assessed a dietary exposure in one of the above RMDs, and reported results regarding progression of disease (eg, pain, function, joint damage).
RESULTS
In total, 24 systematic reviews and 150 original articles were included. Many dietary exposures have been studied (n=83), although the majority of studies addressed people with OA and RA. Most dietary exposures were assessed by relatively few studies. Exposures that have been assessed by multiple, well conducted studies (eg, OA: vitamin D, chondroitin, glucosamine; RA: omega-3) were classified as moderate evidence of small effects on disease progression.
CONCLUSION
The current literature suggests that there is moderate evidence for a small benefit for certain dietary components. High-level evidence of clinically meaningful effect sizes from individual dietary exposures on outcomes in RMDs is missing.
Topics: Arthritis, Rheumatoid; Diet; Humans; Life Style; Muscular Diseases; Musculoskeletal Diseases; Osteoarthritis; Rheumatic Diseases
PubMed: 35654458
DOI: 10.1136/rmdopen-2021-002167 -
Occupational and Environmental Medicine Jan 2016The burden of disabling musculoskeletal pain and injuries (musculoskeletal disorders, MSDs) arising from work-related causes in many workplaces remains substantial.... (Review)
Review
The burden of disabling musculoskeletal pain and injuries (musculoskeletal disorders, MSDs) arising from work-related causes in many workplaces remains substantial. There is little consensus on the most appropriate interventions for MSDs. Our objective was to update a systematic review of workplace-based interventions for preventing and managing upper extremity MSD (UEMSD). We followed a systematic review process developed by the Institute for Work & Health and an adapted best evidence synthesis. 6 electronic databases were searched (January 2008 until April 2013 inclusive) yielding 9909 non-duplicate references. 26 high-quality and medium-quality studies relevant to our research question were combined with 35 from the original review to synthesise the evidence on 30 different intervention categories. There was strong evidence for one intervention category, resistance training, leading to the recommendation: Implementing a workplace-based resistance training exercise programme can help prevent and manage UEMSD and symptoms. The synthesis also revealed moderate evidence for stretching programmes, mouse use feedback and forearm supports in preventing UEMSD or symptoms. There was also moderate evidence for no benefit for EMG biofeedback, job stress management training, and office workstation adjustment for UEMSD and symptoms. Messages are proposed for both these and other intervention categories.
Topics: Ergonomics; Exercise Therapy; Humans; Musculoskeletal Diseases; Occupational Diseases; Occupational Health Services; Outcome Assessment, Health Care; Upper Extremity; Work; Workplace
PubMed: 26552695
DOI: 10.1136/oemed-2015-102992 -
International Journal of Molecular... Apr 2023Spinal diseases are commonly associated with pain and neurological symptoms, which negatively impact patients' quality of life. Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) is an... (Review)
Review
Spinal diseases are commonly associated with pain and neurological symptoms, which negatively impact patients' quality of life. Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) is an autologous source of multiple growth factors and cytokines, with the potential to promote tissue regeneration. Recently, PRP has been widely used for the treatment of musculoskeletal diseases, including spinal diseases, in clinics. Given the increasing popularity of PRP therapy, this article examines the current literature for basic research and emerging clinical applications of this therapy for treating spinal diseases. First, we review in vitro and in vivo studies, evaluating the potential of PRP in repairing intervertebral disc degeneration, promoting bone union in spinal fusion surgeries, and aiding in neurological recovery from spinal cord injury. Second, we address the clinical applications of PRP in treating degenerative spinal disease, including its analgesic effect on low back pain and radicular pain, as well as accelerating bone union during spinal fusion surgery. Basic research demonstrates the promising regenerative potential of PRP, and clinical studies have reported on the safety and efficacy of PRP therapy for treating several spinal diseases. Nevertheless, further high-quality randomized controlled trials would be required to establish clinical evidence of PRP therapy.
Topics: Humans; Quality of Life; Intervertebral Disc Degeneration; Low Back Pain; Platelet-Rich Plasma; Intercellular Signaling Peptides and Proteins
PubMed: 37108837
DOI: 10.3390/ijms24087677 -
Physical Therapy May 2021Telerehabilitation is an option that should be adapted as soon as possible to face the crisis caused by coronavirus disease 2019. An umbrella and mapping review with... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
Telerehabilitation is an option that should be adapted as soon as possible to face the crisis caused by coronavirus disease 2019. An umbrella and mapping review with meta-meta-analysis (MMA) of the available scientific evidence was performed to determine whether telerehabilitation could be an effective alternative to conventional rehabilitation in physical therapist practice.
METHODS
A systematic review of reviews and a synthesis of the findings of all systematic evidence published to date with a visual map and a meta-meta-analysis (MMA) were performed. A systematic search was realized in Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, MEDLINE (PubMed), and Google Scholar. Two independent reviewers performed a data analysis and assessed the quality of the included reviews, assessing the risk of bias using ROBIS.
RESULTS
Twenty-nine articles that met the inclusion criteria were selected and divided according to the type of patient targeted for rehabilitation (patients with cardiorespiratory, musculoskeletal, and neurological conditions). The MMA regarding physical function between telerehabilitation and usual care rehabilitation did not reveal a statistically significant difference for patients with cardiorespiratory and musculoskeletal conditions. For patients with neurological conditions, the MMA revealed a statistically significant but negligible effect size in 6 reviews in favor of telerehabilitation (standardized mean difference = 0.18; 95% CI = 0.03-0.34).
CONCLUSION
The results of the present review showed that telerehabilitation offers positive clinical results, even comparable to conventional face-to-face rehabilitation approaches.
IMPACT
The advantages of lower cost and less interference by the rehabilitation processes in patients' daily life could justify implementing telerehabilitation in clinical settings in the coronavirus disease 2019 era.
Topics: COVID-19; Cardiac Rehabilitation; Humans; Musculoskeletal Diseases; Nervous System Diseases; Pandemics; Physical Therapy Modalities; Review Literature as Topic; SARS-CoV-2; Telerehabilitation
PubMed: 33611598
DOI: 10.1093/ptj/pzab075 -
American Journal of Industrial Medicine Jan 2022Lateral epicondylitis (LE) is a highly prevalent musculoskeletal disorder in workers, often associated with physically demanding work. Knowledge of work-relatedness of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Lateral epicondylitis (LE) is a highly prevalent musculoskeletal disorder in workers, often associated with physically demanding work. Knowledge of work-relatedness of LE is crucial to develop appropriate preventive measures. This study investigates the prospective association between work-related physical risk factors and LE.
METHODS
A systematic literature review was conducted in MedLine using PubMed from January 1, 2010 until February 16, 2021. Published reports were included if: (1) LE was clinically assessed, (2) exposure to work-related physical risk factors was assessed, and (3) associations between LE and work-related physical risk factors were reported in prospective studies. Quality of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation.
RESULTS
In total, 318 workers with LE from a population of 5036 workers in five studies were included. Meta-analyses revealed high-quality evidence for associations between LE and a Strain Index (SI) score >5.1 (odds ratio [OR]: 1.75, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.11-2.78) and moderate-quality evidence for forearm rotation >4 h/day or forearm rotation ≥45° for ≥45% time (OR: 1.85, 95% CI: 1.10-3.10). Gripping, flexion and extension of the wrist, and repetitive movements showed no significant associations with LE.
CONCLUSION
High-quality evidence was found indicating that a higher SI increased the risk of LE. Moderate-quality evidence was found for an association between forearm rotation and LE. No associations were found between other physical risk factors and LE. Primary preventive interventions should focus on a reduction of the SI and of high forearm rotation in work.
Topics: Humans; Musculoskeletal Diseases; Occupational Diseases; Prospective Studies; Risk Factors; Tennis Elbow
PubMed: 34674287
DOI: 10.1002/ajim.23303 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2018Work-related upper limb and neck musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) are one of the most common occupational disorders worldwide. Studies have shown that the percentage of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Work-related upper limb and neck musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) are one of the most common occupational disorders worldwide. Studies have shown that the percentage of office workers that suffer from MSDs ranges from 20 to 60 per cent. The direct and indirect costs of work-related upper limb MSDs have been reported to be high in Europe, Australia, and the United States. Although ergonomic interventions are likely to reduce the risk of office workers developing work-related upper limb and neck MSDs, the evidence is unclear. This is an update of a Cochrane Review which was last published in 2012.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of physical, cognitive and organisational ergonomic interventions, or combinations of those interventions for the prevention of work-related upper limb and neck MSDs among office workers.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, CINAHL, Web of Science (Science Citation Index), SPORTDiscus, Embase, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health database, and the World Health Organization's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, to 10 October 2018.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of ergonomic interventions for preventing work-related upper limb or neck MSDs (or both) among office workers. We only included studies where the baseline prevalence of MSDs of the upper limb or neck, or both, was less than 25%.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We included studies with relevant data that we judged to be sufficiently homogeneous regarding the interventions and outcomes in the meta-analysis. We assessed the overall quality of the evidence for each comparison using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 15 RCTs (2165 workers). We judged one study to have a low risk of bias and the remaining 14 studies to have a high risk of bias due to small numbers of participants and the potential for selection bias.Physical ergonomic interventionsThere is inconsistent evidence for arm supports and alternative computer mouse designs. There is moderate-quality evidence that an arm support with an alternative computer mouse (two studies) reduced the incidence of neck or shoulder MSDs (risk ratio (RR) 0.52; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.27 to 0.99), but not the incidence of right upper limb MSDs (RR 0.73; 95% CI 0.32 to 1.66); and low-quality evidence that this intervention reduced neck or shoulder discomfort (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.41; 95% CI -0.69 to -0.12) and right upper limb discomfort (SMD -0.34; 95% CI -0.63 to -0.06).There is moderate-quality evidence that the incidence of neck or shoulder and right upper limb disorders were not considerably reduced when comparing an alternative computer mouse and a conventional mouse (two studies; neck or shoulder: RR 0.62; 95% CI 0.19 to 2.00; right upper limb: RR 0.91; 95% CI 0.48 to 1.72), and also when comparing an arm support with a conventional mouse and a conventional mouse alone (two studies) (neck or shoulder: RR 0.91; 95% CI 0.12 to 6.98; right upper limb: RR 1.07; 95% CI 0.58 to 1.96).Workstation adjustment (one study) and sit-stand desks (one study) did not have an effect on upper limb pain or discomfort, compared to no intervention.Organisational ergonomic interventionsThere is very low-quality evidence that supplementary breaks (two studies) reduce discomfort of the neck (MD -0.25; 95% CI -0.40 to -0.11), right shoulder or upper arm (MD -0.33; 95% CI -0.46 to -0.19), and right forearm or wrist or hand (MD -0.18; 95% CI -0.29 to -0.08) among data entry workers.Training in ergonomic interventionsThere is low to very low-quality evidence in five studies that participatory and active training interventions may or may not prevent work-related MSDs of the upper limb or neck or both.Multifaceted ergonomic interventionsFor multifaceted interventions there is one study (very low-quality evidence) that showed no effect on any of the six upper limb pain outcomes measured in that study.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We found inconsistent evidence that the use of an arm support or an alternative mouse may or may not reduce the incidence of neck or shoulder MSDs. For other physical ergonomic interventions there is no evidence of an effect. For organisational interventions, in the form of supplementary breaks, there is very low-quality evidence of an effect on upper limb discomfort. For training and multifaceted interventions there is no evidence of an effect on upper limb pain or discomfort. Further high-quality studies are needed to determine the effectiveness of these interventions among office workers.
Topics: Adult; Computer Peripherals; Equipment Design; Ergonomics; Humans; Musculoskeletal Diseases; Neck; Occupational Diseases; Orthotic Devices; Patient Education as Topic; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Rest; Upper Extremity
PubMed: 30350850
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008570.pub3 -
Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases Jun 2023To develop EULAR recommendations for screening and prophylaxis of chronic and opportunistic infections in patients with autoimmune inflammatory rheumatic diseases...
OBJECTIVES
To develop EULAR recommendations for screening and prophylaxis of chronic and opportunistic infections in patients with autoimmune inflammatory rheumatic diseases (AIIRD).
METHODS
An international Task Force (TF) (22 members/15 countries) formulated recommendations, supported by systematic literature review findings. Level of evidence and grade of recommendation were assigned for each recommendation. Level of agreement was provided anonymously by each TF member.
RESULTS
Four overarching principles (OAP) and eight recommendations were developed. The OAPs highlight the need for infections to be discussed with patients and with other medical specialties, in accordance with national regulations. In addition to biologic/targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) for which screening for latent tuberculosis (TB) should be performed, screening could be considered also before conventional synthetic DMARDs, glucocorticoids and immunosuppressants. Interferon gamma release assay should be preferred over tuberculin skin test, where available. Hepatitis B (HBV) antiviral treatment should be guided by HBV status defined prior to starting antirheumatic drugs. All patients positive for hepatitis-C-RNA should be referred for antiviral treatment. Also, patients who are non-immune to varicella zoster virus should be informed about the availability of postexposure prophylaxis should they have contact with this pathogen. Prophylaxis against seems to be beneficial in patients treated with daily doses >15-30 mg of prednisolone or equivalent for >2-4 weeks.
CONCLUSIONS
These recommendations provide guidance on the screening and prevention of chronic and opportunistic infections. Their adoption in clinical practice is recommended to standardise and optimise care to reduce the burden of opportunistic infections in people living with AIIRD.
Topics: Humans; Adult; Antirheumatic Agents; Immunosuppressive Agents; Opportunistic Infections; Rheumatic Diseases; Antiviral Agents
PubMed: 36328476
DOI: 10.1136/ard-2022-223335 -
International Journal of Environmental... Jan 2023Healthcare professionals perform daily activities that can lead to musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs). The objective of this review was to summarize these MSDs by body... (Review)
Review
Healthcare professionals perform daily activities that can lead to musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs). The objective of this review was to summarize these MSDs by body areas in relation to healthcare professions. The underlying question is, worldwide, whether there are areas that are more exposed depending on the occupation or whether there are common areas that are highly exposed to MSDs. This issue has been extended to risk factors and responses to reduce MSDs. The review was conducted according to the PRISMA guidelines between February and May 2022. Google scholar and Science Direct databases were scanned to identify relevant studies. Two authors independently reviewed, critically appraised, and extracted data from these studies. Overall and body area prevalence, risk factors, and responses to MSDs were synthetized by occupational activity. Among the 21,766 records identified, 36 covering six healthcare professions were included. The lower back, neck, shoulder and hand/wrist were the most exposed areas for all healthcare professionals. Surgeons and dentists presented the highest prevalence of lower back (>60%), shoulder and upper extremity (35-55%) MSDs. The highest prevalence of MSDs in the lower limbs was found for nurses (>25%). The main causes reported for all healthcare professionals were maintenance and repetition of awkward postures, and the main responses were to modify these postures. Trends by continent seem to emerge regarding the prevalence of MSDs by healthcare profession. Africa and Europe showed prevalence three times higher than Asia and America for lower back MSDs among physiotherapists. African and Asian nurses presented rates three times higher for elbow MSDs than Oceanians. It becomes necessary to objectively evaluate postures and their level of risk using ergonomic tools, as well as to adapt the work environment to reduce exposure to MSDs with regard to the specificities of each profession.
Topics: Humans; Prevalence; Musculoskeletal Diseases; Health Personnel; Ergonomics; Risk Factors; Delivery of Health Care; Occupational Diseases
PubMed: 36613163
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph20010841