-
Clinical Rehabilitation Jun 2024To review the effectiveness of different physical therapies for acute and sub-acute low back pain supported by evidence, and create clinical recommendations and expert... (Review)
Review Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
To review the effectiveness of different physical therapies for acute and sub-acute low back pain supported by evidence, and create clinical recommendations and expert consensus for physiotherapists on clinical prescriptions.
DATA SOURCES
A systematic search was conducted in PubMed and the Cochrane Library for studies published within the previous 15 years.
REVIEW METHODS
Systematic review and meta-analysis, randomized controlled trials assessing patients with acute and sub-acute low back pain were included. Two reviewers independently screened relevant studies using the same inclusion criteria. The Physiotherapy Evidence Database and the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews tool were used to grade the quality assessment of randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews, respectively. The final recommendation grades were based on the consensus discussion results of the Delphi of 22 international experts.
RESULTS
Twenty-one systematic reviews and 21 randomized controlled trials were included. Spinal manipulative therapy and low-level laser therapy are recommended for acute low back pain. Core stability exercise/motor control, spinal manipulative therapy, and massage can be used to treat sub-acute low back pain.
CONCLUSIONS
The consensus statements provided medical staff with appliable recommendations of physical therapy for acute and sub-acute low back pain. This consensus statement will require regular updates after 5-10 years.
Topics: Humans; Low Back Pain; Physical Therapy Modalities; Consensus; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Female; Acute Pain; Male
PubMed: 38317586
DOI: 10.1177/02692155241229398 -
International Journal of Law and... 2024To systematically review the literature on methods for the standardized and objective assessment of Testamentary Capacity (TC), to identify the best evidence-based and... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
To systematically review the literature on methods for the standardized and objective assessment of Testamentary Capacity (TC), to identify the best evidence-based and clinically pragmatic method to assess TC. Doubts concerning TC can have far-reaching legal and financial implications.
METHOD
A systematic search of the literature was conducted, using PRISMA guidelines, to identify studies which describe methods or tools for the assessment of TC.
RESULTS
The Testamentary Definition Scale (TDS); the Testamentary Capacity Assessment Tool (TCAT); and the Testamentary Capacity Instrument (TCI) all have good psychometric properties, but TDS only partially assesses TC, and the TCI is designed for research rather than day-to-day clinical practice.
CONCLUSION
The TCAT could usefully supplement the clinical assessment of TC, coupled with a standardized examination of cognition. There is room to develop an all-encompassing TC assessment tool. Currently, the clinical judgement of a medical professional, taking account of the medical, legal, ethical issues informing a capacity or competency decision, remains the gold standard for assessing TC.
Topics: Humans; Expert Testimony; Mental Competency; Wills; Cognition; Emotions
PubMed: 38422563
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijlp.2024.101969 -
European Urology Oct 2023In the oncology setting, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) provide important data that help to ensure patient-relevant endpoints are captured and reported. Use... (Review)
Review
CONTEXT
In the oncology setting, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) provide important data that help to ensure patient-relevant endpoints are captured and reported. Use of this information for treatment decision-making by clinicians and patients in real-world settings is facilitated by consistent and transparent reporting of trial methods.
OBJECTIVE
To identify and compare PROMs used in advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) trials in terms of the rationale for the choice of measure, endpoint hierarchy (primary, secondary, exploratory), assessment time points, statistical methods, and statistical metrics for interpretation.
EVIDENCE ACQUISITION
A systematic literature review via searches of four online databases (2016-2021) and recent conference abstracts (2019-2021) identified 2616 articles, of which 33 were included in the review according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines.
EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS
Among the 33 clinical studies included, 19 different PROMs were identified: three kidney cancer-specific scales, two cancer-specific scales, two generic scales, and 12 symptom-specific scales. The endpoint hierarchy for patient reported outcome (PRO) assessment was reported in 42% of the studies; one study included PROs as a primary endpoint. Reporting of time points, minimal important differences, and statistical analyses was highly heterogeneous.
CONCLUSIONS
A diverse range of PROMs have been included in clinical studies for patients with advanced/metastatic RCC. Prespecified analyses for PRO assessments were generally not stated, while analytical methods and reporting varied. An improvement in alignment across studies would better inform regulatory, market-access, reimbursement, and clinical decision-making to improve patient care.
PATIENT SUMMARY
We reviewed how the impact of cancer therapies on health outcomes from the patient's point of view is being measured in clinical trials for kidney cancer. The techniques and reporting varied across trials. Standardisation of how these data are captured and reported may improve care and decision-making for patients with kidney cancer.
Topics: Humans; Carcinoma, Renal Cell; Patient Reported Outcome Measures; Kidney Neoplasms; Patient Outcome Assessment; Research Design
PubMed: 37550153
DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2023.07.006 -
Supportive Care in Cancer : Official... Dec 2023This systematic review updates the MASCC/ESMO recommendations for high-emetic-risk chemotherapy (HEC) published in 2016-2017. HEC still includes cisplatin, carmustine,...
PURPOSE
This systematic review updates the MASCC/ESMO recommendations for high-emetic-risk chemotherapy (HEC) published in 2016-2017. HEC still includes cisplatin, carmustine, dacarbazine, mechlorethamine, streptozocin, and cyclophosphamide in doses of > 1500 mg/m and the combination of cyclophosphamide and an anthracycline (AC) in women with breast cancer.
METHODS
A systematic review report following the PRISMA guidelines of the literature from January 1, 2015, until February 1, 2023, was performed. PubMed (Ovid), Scopus (Google), and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched. The literature search was limited to randomized controlled trials, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses.
RESULTS
Forty-six new references were determined to be relevant. The main topics identified were (1) steroid-sparing regimens, (2) olanzapine-containing regimens, and (3) other issues such as comparisons of antiemetics of the same drug class, intravenous NK receptor antagonists, and potentially new antiemetics. Five updated recommendations are presented.
CONCLUSION
There is no need to prescribe steroids (dexamethasone) beyond day 1 after AC HEC, whereas a 4-day regimen is recommended in non-AC HEC. Olanzapine is now recommended as a fixed part of a four-drug prophylactic antiemetic regimen in both non-AC and AC HEC. No major differences between 5-HT receptor antagonists or between NK receptor antagonists were identified. No new antiemetic agents qualified for inclusion in the updated recommendations.
Topics: Female; Humans; Emetics; Antiemetics; Consensus; Olanzapine; Nausea; Vomiting; Antineoplastic Agents; Cyclophosphamide; Anthracyclines
PubMed: 38127246
DOI: 10.1007/s00520-023-08221-4 -
International Journal of Nursing... Dec 2023Nurses' clinical decision-making, i.e., the data collection, analysis, and evaluation process through which they reach clinical judgements and makes clinical decisions,... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Nurses' clinical decision-making, i.e., the data collection, analysis, and evaluation process through which they reach clinical judgements and makes clinical decisions, is at the core of nursing practice and essential to provide safe and quality care. Instruments to assess nurses' perceptions of their clinical decision-making abilities or skills have been developed for research and education. Thus, it is essential to determine the most valid and reliable instruments available to reflect nurses' self-reported clinical decision-making accurately.
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the measurement properties of self-reported clinical decision-making instruments in nursing.
METHODS
A systematic review based on the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) was conducted (PROSPERO registration: CRD42022364549). Five bibliographical databases were searched in July 2022 using descriptors and keywords related to nurses, clinical decision-making, and studies on measurement properties. Two independent reviewers conducted reference selection and data extraction. The evaluation of the instruments' measurement properties involved assessing the quality of the studies, the quality of each measurement property (i.e., validity, reliability, responsiveness), and the quality of evidence based on the COSMIN.
RESULTS
Nine instruments evaluated in eleven studies with registered nurses or nursing students from various clinical contexts were identified. Five of the nine instruments were originals; four were translations or adaptations. Most focused on analytical and intuitive decision-making, although some were based on clinical judgment and clinical reasoning theories. Structural validity and internal consistency were the most frequently reported measurement properties; other properties, such as measurement error, criterion validity, and responsiveness, were not assessed for any instruments. A gap was also identified in the involvement of nurses or nursing students in the instrument development process and the content validity assessment. Six instruments appear promising based on the COSMIN criteria, but further studies are needed to confirm their validity and reliability.
CONCLUSIONS
The evidence regarding instruments to assess nurses' self-reported clinical decision-making is still minimal. Although no instruments could be recommended based on the COSMIN criteria, the Nurses Clinical Reasoning Scale had the most robust supporting evidence, followed by the adapted version of the Clinical Decision Making in Nursing Scale. Future efforts should be made to systematically assess content validity through the involvement of the target population and by ensuring that the results of other measurement properties, such as reliability, measurement error, or hypothesis testing, are rigorously assessed and reported.
TWEETABLE ABSTRACT
Despite limited evidence, this COSMIN review identified six promising instruments to assess nurses' clinical #decision-making, especially the Nurses Clinical Reasoning Scale and an adaptation of the Clinical Decision Making in Nursing Scale. #nursingresearch #nursingeducation.
PubMed: 38746590
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijnsa.2023.100122 -
Journal of Foot and Ankle Research Sep 2023Surgical resection of Morton's neuroma includes dorsal and plantar approaches. However, there is no consensus on the choice of approach in clinic. The purpose of this... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Surgical resection of Morton's neuroma includes dorsal and plantar approaches. However, there is no consensus on the choice of approach in clinic. The purpose of this study was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the surgical results of dorsal and plantar approaches.
METHODS
The literatures of PubMed, Cochrane library, Embase and Web of Science were searched on April 26th, 2023. A systematic review was performed using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines. The data were extracted after screening the literature and evaluating the quality of the methodology included in the study. The RevMan5.4 software was used to analyze and calculate the OR value and 95% confidence interval.
RESULTS
A total of 7 randomized controlled trials and comparative studies were published, of which only 5 were included. There were 158 feet via plantar approach (plantar group, PG) and 189 via dorsal approach (dorsal group, DG). There was no significant difference between PG and DG in overall adverse events, sensory problems, incision infection and deep vein thrombosis (p > 0.05). In terms of scar problems, PG showed more than DG (OR, 2.90[95%CI, 1.40 to 5.98]; p = 0.004). Other outcome indicators such as visual analogue scale (VAS) scores and American Orthopedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) scores were difficult to be included in the comparison.
CONCLUSIONS
Based on the relatively low quality and small amount of available evidence, the meta-analysis conducted produces a hypothesis that the frequency of adverse events in surgical treatment of Morton's neuroma, dorsal approach and plantar approach may be the same, but the types are different. More high-level evidence is needed to further verify this hypothesis.
Topics: Humans; Morton Neuroma; Consensus; Lower Extremity; Orthopedics; Software
PubMed: 37674248
DOI: 10.1186/s13047-023-00660-w -
Indian Journal of Gastroenterology :... Dec 2023Least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (Lasso) regression is a statistical technique that can be used to study the effects of clinical variables in outcome... (Review)
Review
Least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (Lasso) regression is a statistical technique that can be used to study the effects of clinical variables in outcome prediction. In this study, we aimed at systematically reviewing the application of Lasso regression in gastroenterology for developing predictive models and providing a method of performing Lasso regression. A comprehensive search strategy was conducted in PubMed, Embase and Cochrane CENTRAL databases (Keywords: lasso regression; gastrointestinal tract/diseases) following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Studies were screened for eligibility based on pre-defined selection criteria and the data was extracted using a standardized form. Total 16 studies were included, comprising a diverse range of gastroenterological disease-related outcomes. Sample sizes ranged from 134 to 8861 subjects. Eleven studies reported liver disease-related prediction models, while five focused on non-hepatic etiology models. Lasso regression was applied for variable selection, risk prediction and model development, with various validation methods and performance metrics used. Model performance metrics included Area Under the Receiver Operating Characteristics (AUROC), C-index and calibration plots. In gastroenterology, Lasso regression has been used in various diseases such as inflammatory bowel disease, liver disease and esophageal cancer. It is valuable for complex scenarios with many predictors. However, its effectiveness depends on high-quality and complete data. While it identifies important variables, it doesn't provide causal interpretations. Therefore, cautious interpretation is necessary considering the study design and data quality.
Topics: Humans; Gastroenterology; Prognosis; ROC Curve; Gastrointestinal Tract; Liver Diseases
PubMed: 37594652
DOI: 10.1007/s12664-023-01426-9 -
European Journal of Surgical Oncology :... May 2024Clinical decision-making in gastrointestinal surgery is complex due to the unpredictability of tumoral behavior and postoperative complications. Artificial intelligence... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Clinical decision-making in gastrointestinal surgery is complex due to the unpredictability of tumoral behavior and postoperative complications. Artificial intelligence (AI) could aid in clinical decision-making by predicting these surgical outcomes. The current status of AI-based clinical decision-making within gastrointestinal surgery is unknown in recent literature. This review aims to provide an overview of AI models used for clinical decision-making within gastrointestinal surgery.
METHODS
A systematic literature search was performed in databases PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane, and Web of Science. To be eligible for inclusion, studies needed to use AI models for clinical decision-making involving patients undergoing gastrointestinal surgery. Studies reporting on reviews, children, and study abstracts were excluded. The Probast risk of bias tool was used to evaluate the methodological quality of AI methods.
RESULTS
Out of 1073 studies, 10 articles were eligible for inclusion. AI models have been used to make clinical decisions between surgical procedures, selection of chemotherapy, selection of postoperative follow up programs, and implementation of a temporary ileostomy. Most studies have used a Random Forest or Gradient Boosting model with AUCs up to 0.97. All studies involved a retrospective study design, in which external validation was performed in one study.
CONCLUSIONS
This review shows that AI models have the potentiality to select the most optimal treatments for patients undergoing gastrointestinal surgery. Clinical benefits could be gained if AI models were used for clinical decision-making. However, prospective studies and randomized controlled trials will reveal the definitive role of AI models in clinical decision-making.
PubMed: 38755062
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejso.2024.108385 -
Ultrasound in Medicine & Biology Dec 2023Imaging modalities provide information on plaque morphology and vulnerability; however, they are operator dependent and miss a great deal of microscopic information.... (Review)
Review
Imaging modalities provide information on plaque morphology and vulnerability; however, they are operator dependent and miss a great deal of microscopic information. Recently, many radiomics models for carotid plaque that identify unstable plaques and predict cardiovascular outcomes have been proposed. This systematic review was aimed at assessing whether radiomics is a reliable and reproducible method for the clinical prediction of carotid plaque. A systematic search was conducted to identify studies published in PubMed and Cochrane library from January 1, 2001, to September 30, 2022. Both retrospective and prospective studies that developed and/or validated machine learning models based on radiomics data to classify or predict carotid plaques were included. The general characteristics of each included study were selected, and the methodological quality of radiomics reports and risk of bias were evaluated using the radiomics quality score (RQS) tool and Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2, respectively. Two investigators independently reviewed each study, and the consensus data were used for analysis. A total of 2429 patients from 16 studies were included. The mean area under the curve of radiomics models for diagnostic or predictive performance of the included studies was 0.88 ± 0.02, with a range of 0.741-0.989. The mean RQS was 9.25 (standard deviation: 6.04), representing 25.7% of the possible maximum value of 36, whereas the lowest point was -2, and the highest score was 22. Radiomics models have revealed additional information on patients with carotid plaque, but with respect to methodological quality, radiomics reports are still in their infancy, and many hurdles need to be overcome.
Topics: Humans; Prospective Studies; Retrospective Studies; Consensus; Machine Learning
PubMed: 37718124
DOI: 10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2023.06.008 -
Journal of Medical Imaging and... May 2024The intrinsic stochasticity of patients' response to treatment is a major consideration for clinical decision-making in radiation therapy. Markov models are powerful... (Review)
Review
The intrinsic stochasticity of patients' response to treatment is a major consideration for clinical decision-making in radiation therapy. Markov models are powerful tools to capture this stochasticity and render effective treatment decisions. This paper provides an overview of the Markov models for clinical decision analysis in radiation oncology. A comprehensive literature search was conducted within MEDLINE using PubMed, following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Only studies published from 2000 to 2023 were considered. Selected publications were summarized in two categories: (i) studies that compare two (or more) fixed treatment policies using Monte Carlo simulation and (ii) studies that seek an optimal treatment policy through Markov Decision Processes (MDPs). Relevant to the scope of this study, 61 publications were selected for detailed review. The majority of these publications (n = 56) focused on comparative analysis of two or more fixed treatment policies using Monte Carlo simulation. Classifications based on cancer site, utility measures and the type of sensitivity analysis are presented. Five publications considered MDPs with the aim of computing an optimal treatment policy; a detailed statement of the analysis and results is provided for each work. As an extension of Markov model-based simulation analysis, MDP offers a flexible framework to identify an optimal treatment policy among a possibly large set of treatment policies. However, the applications of MDPs to oncological decision-making have been understudied, and the full capacity of this framework to render complex optimal treatment decisions warrants further consideration.
PubMed: 38766899
DOI: 10.1111/1754-9485.13656