-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2022Intermittent locking of central venous catheters (CVCs) is undertaken to help maintain their patency and performance. There are systematic variations in care: some... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Intermittent locking of central venous catheters (CVCs) is undertaken to help maintain their patency and performance. There are systematic variations in care: some practitioners use heparin (at different concentrations), whilst others use 0.9% sodium chloride (normal saline). This review looks at the effectiveness and safety of intermittent locking with heparin compared to normal saline, to see if the evidence establishes whether one is better than the other. This is an update of an earlier Cochrane Review.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the benefits and harms of intermittent locking of CVCs with heparin versus normal saline in adults to prevent occlusion.
SEARCH METHODS
We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was 20 October 2021.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials in adults ≥ 18 years of age with a CVC that compared intermittent locking with heparin at any concentration versus normal saline. We excluded studies on infants and children from this review.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were occlusion of CVCs and duration of catheter patency. Our secondary outcomes were CVC-related bloodstream infections and CVC-related colonisation, mortality, haemorrhage, heparin-induced thrombocytopaenia, CVC-related thrombosis, number of additional CVC insertions, abnormality of coagulation profile and allergic reactions to heparin. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified one new RCT with 30 participants for this update. We included a total of 12 RCTs with 2422 participants. Data for meta-analysis were available from all RCTs. We noted differences in methods used by the included studies and variation in heparin concentrations (10 to 5000 IU/mL), time to follow-up (1 to 251.8 days), and the unit of analysis used (participant, catheter, line access). Five studies included ICU (intensive care unit) patients, two studies included oncology patients, and the remaining studies included miscellaneous patients (chronic kidney disease, haemodialysis, home care patients, etc.). Primary outcomes Overall, combined results may show fewer occlusions with heparin compared to normal saline but this is uncertain (risk ratio (RR) 0.70, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.51 to 0.95; 10 studies; 1672 participants; low-certainty evidence). We pooled studies that used participant or catheter as the unit of analysis. We carried out subgroup analysis by unit of analysis. No clear differences were detected after testing for subgroup differences (P = 0.23). We found no clear evidence of a difference in the duration of catheter patency with heparin compared to normal saline (mean difference (MD) 0.44 days, 95% CI -0.10 to 0.99; 6 studies; 1788 participants; low-certainty evidence). Secondary outcomes We found no clear evidence of a difference in the following outcomes: CVC-related bloodstream infections (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.08 to 5.80; 3 studies; 1127 participants; very low-certainty evidence); mortality (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.31; 3 studies; 1100 participants; very low-certainty evidence); haemorrhage (RR 1.54, 95% CI 0.41 to 5.74; 3 studies; 1197 participants; very low-certainty evidence); or heparin-induced thrombocytopaenia (RR 0.21, 95% CI 0.01 to 4.27; 3 studies; 443 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The main reasons for downgrading the certainty of evidence for the primary and secondary outcomes were unclear allocation concealment, suspicion of publication bias, imprecision and inconsistency.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Given the low-certainty evidence, we are uncertain whether intermittent locking with heparin results in fewer central venous catheter occlusions than intermittent locking with normal saline in adults. Low-certainty evidence suggests that heparin may have little or no effect on catheter patency duration. Although we found no evidence of differences in safety (CVC-related bloodstream infections, mortality, or haemorrhage), the combined studies were not powered to detect rare adverse events such as heparin-induced thrombocytopaenia. Further research conducted over longer periods would reduce the current uncertainties.
Topics: Adult; Catheter-Related Infections; Central Venous Catheters; Hemorrhage; Heparin; Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Saline Solution; Sepsis; Thrombocytopenia
PubMed: 35849083
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008462.pub4 -
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders Oct 2019Globally, low back pain (LBP) is one of the greatest causes of disability. In people with LBP, dysfunction of muscles such as the gluteus medius have been demonstrated...
INTRODUCTION
Globally, low back pain (LBP) is one of the greatest causes of disability. In people with LBP, dysfunction of muscles such as the gluteus medius have been demonstrated to increase spinal loading and reduce spinal stability. Differences in gluteus medius function have been reported in those with LBP compared to those without, although this has only been reported in individual studies. The aim of this systematic review was to determine if adults with a history, or current LBP, demonstrate differences in measures of gluteus medius function when compared to adults without LBP.
METHODS
MEDLINE, EMBASE, AMED, PsycINFO, PubMED, Pro Quest Database, CINAHL and SPORTDiscus were searched from inception until December 2018 for published journal articles and conference abstracts. No language restrictions were applied. Only case-control studies with participants 18 years and over were included. Participants could have had any type and duration of LBP. Studies could have assessed gluteus medius function with any quantifiable clinical assessment or measurement tool, with the participant non-weight bearing or weight bearing, and during static or dynamic activity. Quality appraisal and data extraction were independently performed by two authors.
RESULTS
The 24 included articles involved 1088 participants with LBP and 998 without LBP. The gluteus medius muscle in participants with LBP tended to demonstrate reduced strength and more trigger points compared to the gluteus medius muscle of those without LBP. The level of activity, fatigability, time to activate, time to peak activation, cross sectional area, and muscle thickness showed unclear results. Meta-analysis was not performed due to the heterogeneity of included studies.
CONCLUSION
Clinically, the findings from this systematic review should be considered when assessing and managing patients with LBP. Future studies that clearly define the type and duration of LBP, and prospectively assess gluteus medius muscle function in those with and without LBP are needed.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
PROSPERO ( CRD42017076773 ).
Topics: Buttocks; Humans; Low Back Pain; Muscle Strength; Muscle, Skeletal
PubMed: 31638962
DOI: 10.1186/s12891-019-2833-4 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2019Work-related musculoskeletal disorders are a group of musculoskeletal disorders that comprise one of the most common disorders related to occupational sick leave...
BACKGROUND
Work-related musculoskeletal disorders are a group of musculoskeletal disorders that comprise one of the most common disorders related to occupational sick leave worldwide. Musculoskeletal disorders accounted for 21% to 28% of work absenteeism days in 2017/2018 in the Netherlands, Germany and the UK. There are several interventions that may be effective in tackling the high prevalence of work-related musculoskeletal disorders among workers, such as physical, cognitive and organisational interventions. In this review, we will focus on work breaks as a measure of primary prevention, which are a type of organisational intervention.
OBJECTIVES
To compare the effectiveness of different work-break schedules for preventing work-related musculoskeletal symptoms and disorders in healthy workers, when compared to conventional or alternate work-break schedules.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, SCOPUS, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, to April/May 2019. In addition, we searched references of the included studies and of relevant literature reviews.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of work-break interventions for preventing work-related musculoskeletal symptoms and disorders among workers. The studies were eligible for inclusion when intervening on work-break frequency, duration and/or type, compared to conventional or an alternate work-break intervention. We included only those studies in which the investigated population included healthy, adult workers, who were free of musculoskeletal complaints during study enrolment, without restrictions to sex or occupation. The primary outcomes were newly diagnosed musculoskeletal disorders, self-reported musculoskeletal pain, discomfort or fatigue, and productivity or work performance. We considered workload changes as secondary outcomes.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently screened titles, abstracts and full texts for study eligibility, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We contacted authors for additional study data where required. We performed meta-analyses, where possible, and we assessed the overall quality of the evidence for each outcome of each comparison using the five GRADE considerations.
MAIN RESULTS
We included six studies (373 workers), four parallel RCTs, one cross-over RCT, and one combined parallel plus cross-over RCT. At least 295 of the employees were female and at least 39 male; for the remaining 39 employees, the sex was not specified in the study trial. The studies investigated different work-break frequencies (five studies) and different work-break types (two studies). None of the studies investigated different work-break durations. We judged all studies to have a high risk of bias. The quality of the evidence for the primary outcomes of self-reported musculoskeletal pain, discomfort and fatigue was low; the quality of the evidence for the primary outcomes of productivity and work performance was very low. The studies were executed in Europe or Northern America, with none from low- to middle-income countries. One study could not be included in the data analyses, because no detailed results have been reported.Changes in the frequency of work breaksThere is low-quality evidence that additional work breaks may not have a considerable effect on musculoskeletal pain, discomfort or fatigue, when compared with no additional work breaks (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.08; 95% CI -0.35 to 0.18; three studies; 225 participants). Additional breaks may not have a positive effect on productivity or work performance, when compared with no additional work breaks (SMD -0.07; 95% CI -0.33 to 0.19; three studies; 225 participants; very low-quality evidence).We found low-quality evidence that additional work breaks may not have a considerable effect on participant-reported musculoskeletal pain, discomfort or fatigue (MD 1.80 on a 100-mm VAS scale; 95% CI -41.07 to 64.37; one study; 15 participants), when compared to work breaks as needed (i.e. microbreaks taken at own discretion). There is very low-quality evidence that additional work breaks may have a positive effect on productivity or work performance, when compared to work breaks as needed (MD 542.5 number of words typed per 3-hour recording session; 95% CI 177.22 to 907.78; one study; 15 participants).Additional higher frequency work breaks may not have a considerable effect on participant-reported musculoskeletal pain, discomfort or fatigue (MD 11.65 on a 100-mm VAS scale; 95% CI -41.07 to 64.37; one study; 10 participants; low-quality evidence), when compared to additional lower frequency work breaks. We found very low-quality evidence that additional higher frequency work breaks may not have a considerable effect on productivity or work performance (MD -83.00 number of words typed per 3-hour recording session; 95% CI -305.27 to 139.27; one study; 10 participants), when compared to additional lower frequency work breaks.Changes in the duration of work breaksNo trials were identified that assessed the effect of different durations of work breaks.Changes in the type of work breakWe found low-quality evidence that active breaks may not have a considerable positive effect on participant-reported musculoskeletal pain, discomfort and fatigue (MD -0.17 on a 1-7 NRS scale; 95% CI -0.71 to 0.37; one study; 153 participants), when compared to passive work breaks.Relaxation work breaks may not have a considerable effect on participant-reported musculoskeletal pain, discomfort or fatigue, when compared to physical work breaks (MD 0.20 on a 1-7 NRS scale; 95% CI -0.43 to 0.82; one study; 97 participants; low-quality evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We found low-quality evidence that different work-break frequencies may have no effect on participant-reported musculoskeletal pain, discomfort and fatigue. For productivity and work performance, evidence was of very low-quality that different work-break frequencies may have a positive effect. For different types of break, there may be no effect on participant-reported musculoskeletal pain, discomfort and fatigue according to low-quality evidence. Further high-quality studies are needed to determine the effectiveness of frequency, duration and type of work-break interventions among workers, if possible, with much higher sample sizes than the studies included in the current review. Furthermore, work-break interventions should be reconsidered, taking into account worker populations other than office workers, and taking into account the possibility of combining work-break intervention with other interventions such as ergonomic training or counselling, which may may possibly have an effect on musculoskeletal outcomes and work performance.
Topics: Adult; Ergonomics; Health Personnel; Health Workforce; Humans; Musculoskeletal Diseases; Occupational Diseases; Personnel Staffing and Scheduling; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Workplace
PubMed: 31334564
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012886.pub2 -
Journal of Medical Internet Research Sep 2023Providing informed consent means agreeing to participate in a clinical trial and having understood what is involved. Flawed informed consent processes, including missing... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Providing informed consent means agreeing to participate in a clinical trial and having understood what is involved. Flawed informed consent processes, including missing dates and signatures, are common regulatory audit findings. Electronic consent (eConsent) uses digital technologies to enable the consenting process. It aims to improve participant comprehension and engagement with study information and to address data quality concerns.
OBJECTIVE
This systematic literature review aimed to assess the effectiveness of eConsent in terms of patient comprehension, acceptability, usability, and study enrollment and retention rates, as well as the effects of eConsent on the time patients took to perform the consenting process ("cycle time") and on-site workload in comparison with traditional paper-based consenting.
METHODS
The systematic review was conducted and reported in accordance with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. Ovid Embase and Ovid MEDLINE were systematically searched for publications reporting original, comparative data on the effectiveness of eConsent in terms of patient comprehension, acceptability, usability, enrollment and retention rates, cycle time, and site workload. The methodological validity of the studies that compared outcomes for comprehension, acceptability, and usability across paper consent and eConsent was assessed. Study methodologies were categorized as having "high" validity if comprehensive assessments were performed using established instruments.
RESULTS
Overall, 37 publications describing 35 studies (13,281 participants) were included. All studies comparing eConsenting and paper-based consenting for comprehension (20/35, 57% of the studies; 10 with "high" validity), acceptability (8/35, 23% of the studies; 1 with "high" validity), and usability (5/35, 14% of the studies; 1 with "high" validity) reported significantly better results with eConsent, better results but without significance testing, or no significant differences in overall results. None of the studies reported better results with paper than with eConsent. Among the "high" validity studies, 6 studies on comprehension reported significantly better understanding of at least some concepts, the study on acceptability reported statistically significant higher satisfaction scores, and the study on usability reported statistically significant higher usability scores with eConsent than with paper (P<.05 for all). Cycle times were increased with eConsent, potentially reflecting greater patient engagement with the content. Data on enrollment and retention were limited. Comparative data from site staff and other study researchers indicated the potential for reduced workload and lower administrative burden with eConsent.
CONCLUSIONS
This systematic review showed that compared with patients using paper-based consenting, patients using eConsent had a better understanding of the clinical trial information, showed greater engagement with content, and rated the consenting process as more acceptable and usable. eConsent solutions thus have the potential to enhance understanding, acceptability, and usability of the consenting process while inherently being able to address data quality concerns, including those related to flawed consenting processes.
Topics: Humans; Data Accuracy; Digital Technology; Electronics; Informed Consent; Patient Participation
PubMed: 37656499
DOI: 10.2196/43883 -
Journal of Athletic Training Feb 2020Sport-related concussions (SRCs) are known to have short-term effects on cognitive processes, which can result in diverse clinical presentations. The long-term effects...
BACKGROUND
Sport-related concussions (SRCs) are known to have short-term effects on cognitive processes, which can result in diverse clinical presentations. The long-term effects of SRC and repeated exposure to head impacts that do not result in SRC on specific cognitive health outcomes remain unclear.
OBJECTIVES
To synthesize and appraise the evidence base regarding cognitive health in living retired athletes with a history of head-impact exposure or SRC.
DATA SOURCES
A systematic search of the EMBASE, PsycINFO, MEDLINE/PubMed, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Web of Science databases was conducted from inception to April 2018 using common key words and medical subject headings related to 3 components: (1) the participant (eg, retired athlete), (2) the primary outcome measure (eg, cognitive test used), and (3) the secondary outcome measure (eg, history of sport concussion).
STUDY SELECTION
Cross-sectional studies of living retired male or female athletes in which at least 1 cognitive test was used as an outcome measure were included. Two reviewers independently screened studies.
DATA EXTRACTION
Data extraction was performed using Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology guidelines. Methodologic quality was assessed independently by 2 reviewers using the Downs and Black tool.
DATA SYNTHESIS
The search yielded 46 cross-sectional observational studies that were included in a qualitative synthesis. Most included studies (80%, n = 37) were published in the 5 years before our review. A large proportion of these studies (n = 20) included retired American National Football League players. The other research investigated professional, university, high school, and amateur retired athletes participating in sports such as American and Australian football, boxing, field and ice hockey, rugby, and soccer. The total sample consisted of 13 975 participants: 7387 collision-sport athletes, 662 contact-sport athletes, 3346 noncontact-sport athletes, and 2580 participants classified as controls. Compared with control participants or normative data, retired athletes displayed worse performance in 17 of 31 studies (55%) of memory, 6 of 11 studies (55%) of executive function, and 4 of 6 studies (67%) of psychomotor function and increased subjective concerns about cognitive function in 11 of 14 studies (79%). The authors of 13 of 46 investigations (28%) reported a frequency-response relationship, with poorer cognitive outcomes in athletes who had greater levels of exposure to head impacts or concussions. However, these results must be interpreted in light of the lack of methodologic rigor and moderate quality assessment of the included studies.
CONCLUSIONS
Evidence of poorer cognitive health among retired athletes with a history of concussion and head-impact exposure is evolving. Our results suggest that a history of SRC may more greatly affect the cognitive domains of memory, executive function, and psychomotor function. Retired athletes appeared to have increased self-reported cognitive difficulties, but the paucity of high-quality, prospective studies limited the conclusions that could be drawn regarding a cause-and-effect relationship between concussion and long-term health outcomes. Future researchers should consider a range of cognitive health outcomes, as well as premorbid ability, in diverse samples of athletes with or without a history of concussion or head-impact exposure to delineate the long-term effects of sport participation on cognitive functioning.
Topics: Athletic Injuries; Australia; Boxing; Brain Concussion; Cognition; Executive Function; Football; Hockey; Humans; Memory; Psychomotor Performance; Retirement; Soccer
PubMed: 31935139
DOI: 10.4085/1062-6050-297-18 -
Sports (Basel, Switzerland) Dec 2023Sports participation and the risk of osteoarthritis (OA) have been a concern for decades. Few research efforts have been dedicated to clarify this issue for females,... (Review)
Review
Sports participation and the risk of osteoarthritis (OA) have been a concern for decades. Few research efforts have been dedicated to clarify this issue for females, although they are considered at greater risk of developing OA than males. In contrast, several reviews have established an association between sports participation and OA for males. The aim of the systematic review was to assess the association between OA and participation in popular sports for females. PubMed, Embase, and Google Scholar were searched and yielded 578 articles. Nine eligible studies were included and covered ballet (age range: 19-54 years), running or tennis (age range: 40-65 years), Olympic sports (age range: not specified), volleyball (age range: 16.0 ± 0.8 to 46.8 ± 5.1 years), and cross-country skiing (age range: 15 to ≥60 years). For females, participating in sports at an elite level was associated with a higher risk of OA and an increased need for surgical treatment. At non-elite level, it was associated with a higher risk of OA, but it did not materialize to an increased risk for surgical treatment. Few studies compared females and males, and these studies suggested that sex did not affect the risk of developing OA from participating in sports. Nevertheless, to isolate the precise effect of sports participation on the development of OA remains difficult as injuries are common among athletes and are independently associated with an increased risk of OA.
PubMed: 38251289
DOI: 10.3390/sports12010015 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2020The current COVID-19 pandemic has been identified as a possible trigger for increases in loneliness and social isolation among older people due to the restrictions on... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
The current COVID-19 pandemic has been identified as a possible trigger for increases in loneliness and social isolation among older people due to the restrictions on movement that many countries have put in place. Loneliness and social isolation are consistently identified as risk factors for poor mental and physical health in older people. Video calls may help older people stay connected during the current crisis by widening the participant's social circle or by increasing the frequency of contact with existing acquaintances.
OBJECTIVES
The primary objective of this rapid review is to assess the effectiveness of video calls for reducing social isolation and loneliness in older adults. The review also sought to address the effectiveness of video calls on reducing symptoms of depression and improving quality of life.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, PsycINFO and CINAHL from 1 January 2004 to 7 April 2020. We also searched the references of relevant systematic reviews.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs (including cluster designs) were eligible for inclusion. We excluded all other study designs. The samples in included studies needed to have a mean age of at least 65 years. We included studies that included participants whether or not they were experiencing symptoms of loneliness or social isolation at baseline. Any intervention in which a core component involved the use of the internet to facilitate video calls or video conferencing through computers, smartphones or tablets with the intention of reducing loneliness or social isolation, or both, in older adults was eligible for inclusion. We included studies in the review if they reported self-report measures of loneliness, social isolation, symptoms of depression or quality of life. Two review authors screened 25% of abstracts; a third review author resolved conflicts. A single review author screened the remaining abstracts. The second review author screened all excluded abstracts and we resolved conflicts by consensus or by involving a third review author. We followed the same process for full-text articles.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
One review author extracted data, which another review author checked. The primary outcomes were loneliness and social isolation and the secondary outcomes were symptoms of depression and quality of life. One review author rated the certainty of evidence for the primary outcomes according to the GRADE approach and another review author checked the ratings. We conducted fixed-effect meta-analyses for the primary outcome, loneliness, and the secondary outcome, symptoms of depression.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified three cluster quasi-randomised trials, which together included 201 participants. The included studies compared video call interventions to usual care in nursing homes. None of these studies were conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic. Each study measured loneliness using the UCLA Loneliness Scale. Total scores range from 20 (least lonely) to 80 (most lonely). The evidence was very uncertain and suggests that video calls may result in little to no difference in scores on the UCLA Loneliness Scale compared to usual care at three months (mean difference (MD) -0.44, 95% confidence interval (CI) -3.28 to 2.41; 3 studies; 201 participants), at six months (MD -0.34, 95% CI -3.41 to 2.72; 2 studies; 152 participants) and at 12 months (MD -2.40, 95% CI -7.20 to 2.40; 1 study; 90 participants). We downgraded the certainty of this evidence by three levels for study limitations, imprecision and indirectness. None of the included studies reported social isolation as an outcome. Each study measured symptoms of depression using the Geriatric Depression Scale. Total scores range from 0 (better) to 30 (worse). The evidence was very uncertain and suggests that video calls may result in little to no difference in scores on the Geriatric Depression Scale compared to usual care at three months' follow-up (MD 0.41, 95% CI -0.90 to 1.72; 3 studies; 201 participants) or six months' follow-up (MD -0.83, 95% CI -2.43 to 0.76; 2 studies, 152 participants). The evidence suggests that video calls may have a small effect on symptoms of depression at one-year follow-up, though this finding is imprecise (MD -2.04, 95% CI -3.98 to -0.10; 1 study; 90 participants). We downgraded the certainty of this evidence by three levels for study limitations, imprecision and indirectness. Only one study, with 62 participants, reported quality of life. The study measured quality of life using a Taiwanese adaptation of the Short-Form 36-question health survey (SF-36), which consists of eight subscales that measure different aspects of quality of life: physical function; physical role; emotional role; social function; pain: vitality; mental health; and physical health. Each subscale is scored from 0 (poor health) to 100 (good health). The evidence is very uncertain and suggests that there may be little to no difference between people allocated to usual care and those allocated to video calls in three-month scores in physical function (MD 2.88, 95% CI -5.01 to 10.77), physical role (MD -7.66, 95% CI -24.08 to 8.76), emotional role (MD -7.18, 95% CI -16.23 to 1.87), social function (MD 2.77, 95% CI -8.87 to 14.41), pain scores (MD -3.25, 95% CI -15.11 to 8.61), vitality scores (MD -3.60, 95% CI -9.01 to 1.81), mental health (MD 9.19, 95% CI 0.36 to 18.02) and physical health (MD 5.16, 95% CI -2.48 to 12.80). We downgraded the certainty of this evidence by three levels for study limitations, imprecision and indirectness.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Based on this review there is currently very uncertain evidence on the effectiveness of video call interventions to reduce loneliness in older adults. The review did not include any studies that reported evidence of the effectiveness of video call interventions to address social isolation in older adults. The evidence regarding the effectiveness of video calls for outcomes of symptoms of depression was very uncertain. Future research in this area needs to use more rigorous methods and more diverse and representative participants. Specifically, future studies should target older adults, who are demonstrably lonely or socially isolated, or both, across a range of settings to determine whether video call interventions are effective in a population in which these outcomes are in need of improvement.
Topics: Aged; Betacoronavirus; COVID-19; Coronavirus Infections; Depression; Homes for the Aged; Humans; Loneliness; Nursing Homes; Online Social Networking; Pandemics; Pneumonia, Viral; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; SARS-CoV-2; Social Control, Informal; Social Isolation
PubMed: 32441330
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013632 -
The Lancet. Neurology Dec 2023The safety and efficacy of oral anticoagulation for prevention of major adverse cardiovascular events in people with atrial fibrillation and spontaneous intracranial... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Effects of oral anticoagulation in people with atrial fibrillation after spontaneous intracranial haemorrhage (COCROACH): prospective, individual participant data meta-analysis of randomised trials.
BACKGROUND
The safety and efficacy of oral anticoagulation for prevention of major adverse cardiovascular events in people with atrial fibrillation and spontaneous intracranial haemorrhage are uncertain. We planned to estimate the effects of starting versus avoiding oral anticoagulation in people with spontaneous intracranial haemorrhage and atrial fibrillation.
METHODS
In this prospective meta-analysis, we searched bibliographic databases and trial registries using the strategies of a Cochrane systematic review (CD012144) on June 23, 2023. We included clinical trials if they were registered, randomised, and included participants with spontaneous intracranial haemorrhage and atrial fibrillation who were assigned to either start long-term use of any oral anticoagulant agent or avoid oral anticoagulation (ie, placebo, open control, another antithrombotic agent, or another intervention for the prevention of major adverse cardiovascular events). We assessed eligible trials using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. We sought data for individual participants who had not opted out of data sharing from chief investigators of completed trials, pending completion of ongoing trials in 2028. The primary outcome was any stroke or cardiovascular death. We used individual participant data to construct a Cox regression model of the time to the first occurrence of outcome events during follow-up in the intention-to-treat dataset supplied by each trial, followed by meta-analysis using a fixed-effect inverse-variance model to generate a pooled estimate of the hazard ratio (HR) with 95% CI. This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42021246133.
FINDINGS
We identified four eligible trials; three were restricted to participants with atrial fibrillation and intracranial haemorrhage (SoSTART [NCT03153150], with 203 participants) or intracerebral haemorrhage (APACHE-AF [NCT02565693], with 101 participants, and NASPAF-ICH [NCT02998905], with 30 participants), and one included a subgroup of participants with previous intracranial haemorrhage (ELDERCARE-AF [NCT02801669], with 80 participants). After excluding two participants who opted out of data sharing, we included 412 participants (310 [75%] aged 75 years or older, 249 [60%] with CHADS-VASc score ≤4, and 163 [40%] with CHADS-VASc score >4). The intervention was a direct oral anticoagulant in 209 (99%) of 212 participants who were assigned to start oral anticoagulation, and the comparator was antiplatelet monotherapy in 67 (33%) of 200 participants assigned to avoid oral anticoagulation. The primary outcome of any stroke or cardiovascular death occurred in 29 (14%) of 212 participants who started oral anticoagulation versus 43 (22%) of 200 who avoided oral anticoagulation (pooled HR 0·68 [95% CI 0·42-1·10]; I=0%). Oral anticoagulation reduced the risk of ischaemic major adverse cardiovascular events (nine [4%] of 212 vs 38 [19%] of 200; pooled HR 0·27 [95% CI 0·13-0·56]; I=0%). There was no significant increase in haemorrhagic major adverse cardiovascular events (15 [7%] of 212 vs nine [5%] of 200; pooled HR 1·80 [95% CI 0·77-4·21]; I=0%), death from any cause (38 [18%] of 212 vs 29 [15%] of 200; 1·29 [0·78-2·11]; I=50%), or death or dependence after 1 year (78 [53%] of 147 vs 74 [51%] of 145; pooled odds ratio 1·12 [95% CI 0·70-1·79]; I=0%).
INTERPRETATION
For people with atrial fibrillation and intracranial haemorrhage, oral anticoagulation had uncertain effects on the risk of any stroke or cardiovascular death (both overall and in subgroups), haemorrhagic major adverse cardiovascular events, and functional outcome. Oral anticoagulation reduced the risk of ischaemic major adverse cardiovascular events, which can inform clinical practice. These findings should encourage recruitment to, and completion of, ongoing trials.
FUNDING
British Heart Foundation.
Topics: Humans; Atrial Fibrillation; Prospective Studies; Stroke; Intracranial Hemorrhages; Anticoagulants; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 37839434
DOI: 10.1016/S1474-4422(23)00315-0 -
Sports Medicine (Auckland, N.Z.) Dec 2022No previous systematic review has examined the physical health benefits of playing golf or caddying.
BACKGROUND
No previous systematic review has examined the physical health benefits of playing golf or caddying.
OBJECTIVE
To establish the influence of golf participation and physical health in golfers and caddies. More specifically, the review intended to explore the domains of cardiovascular, metabolic and musculoskeletal health, in addition to body composition.
DESIGN
Systematic review.
DATA SOURCES
Electronic literature searches were conducted using PubMed, SPORTDiscus and CINAHL databases in July 2021.
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA
Experimental (randomised controlled trials, quasi-experiment, pre-post) and non-experimental (case-control, cross-sectional, cohort) articles relating to health and golf, written in English and published in peer-reviewed journals.
RESULTS
Of the 572 articles initially identified, 109 full-text articles were assessed for eligibility with 23 meeting the inclusion criteria. Sixteen articles were rated 'good 'and seven 'fair'. The influence of golf on physical health was mixed, although various articles displayed improvements in balance, systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP), high density lipoprotein-cholesterol (HDL-C) and the ratio of HDL to total cholesterol within golfers. Caddies observed improvements in bone mineral density (BMD), stiffness index and strength. Most of the findings indicate that playing golf or caddying does not influence body mass index (BMI); however, playing golf can positively change other body composition markers such as lean and fat mass.
CONCLUSION
This review demonstrated that golf participation may be an effective method for improving musculoskeletal and cardiovascular health, although mixed findings were observed. Moreover, limited longitudinal evidence suggests that playing golf can positively impact metabolic health and the influence on body composition may be parameter dependent. Additionally, the initial evidence suggests that caddying may improve musculoskeletal health. However, the studies included were limited by their methodological inconsistencies such as: study design, participant demographics and intervention prescription.
PROSPERO REGISTRATION
CRD42021267664.
Topics: Humans; Golf; Cross-Sectional Studies; Body Composition; Body Mass Index; Cholesterol
PubMed: 35932428
DOI: 10.1007/s40279-022-01732-w -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Aug 2020The widespread use of mobile technologies can potentially expand the use of telemedicine approaches to facilitate communication between healthcare providers, this might... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
The widespread use of mobile technologies can potentially expand the use of telemedicine approaches to facilitate communication between healthcare providers, this might increase access to specialist advice and improve patient health outcomes.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of mobile technologies versus usual care for supporting communication and consultations between healthcare providers on healthcare providers' performance, acceptability and satisfaction, healthcare use, patient health outcomes, acceptability and satisfaction, costs, and technical difficulties.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and three other databases from 1 January 2000 to 22 July 2019. We searched clinical trials registries, checked references of relevant systematic reviews and included studies, and contacted topic experts.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised trials comparing mobile technologies to support healthcare provider to healthcare provider communication and consultations compared with usual care.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We followed standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane and EPOC. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the evidence.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 19 trials (5766 participants when reported), most were conducted in high-income countries. The most frequently used mobile technology was a mobile phone, often accompanied by training if it was used to transfer digital images. Trials recruited participants with different conditions, and interventions varied in delivery, components, and frequency of contact. We judged most trials to have high risk of performance bias, and approximately half had a high risk of detection, attrition, and reporting biases. Two studies reported data on technical problems, reporting few difficulties. Mobile technologies used by primary care providers to consult with hospital specialists We assessed the certainty of evidence for this group of trials as moderate to low. Mobile technologies: - probably make little or no difference to primary care providers following guidelines for people with chronic kidney disease (CKD; 1 trial, 47 general practices, 3004 participants); - probably reduce the time between presentation and management of individuals with skin conditions, people with symptoms requiring an ultrasound, or being referred for an appointment with a specialist after attending primary care (4 trials, 656 participants); - may reduce referrals and clinic visits among people with some skin conditions, and increase the likelihood of receiving retinopathy screening among people with diabetes, or an ultrasound in those referred with symptoms (9 trials, 4810 participants when reported); - probably make little or no difference to patient-reported quality of life and health-related quality of life (2 trials, 622 participants) or to clinician-assessed clinical recovery (2 trials, 769 participants) among individuals with skin conditions; - may make little or no difference to healthcare provider (2 trials, 378 participants) or participant acceptability and satisfaction (4 trials, 972 participants) when primary care providers consult with dermatologists; - may make little or no difference for total or expected costs per participant for adults with some skin conditions or CKD (6 trials, 5423 participants). Mobile technologies used by emergency physicians to consult with hospital specialists about people attending the emergency department We assessed the certainty of evidence for this group of trials as moderate. Mobile technologies: - probably slightly reduce the consultation time between emergency physicians and hospital specialists (median difference -12 minutes, 95% CI -19 to -7; 1 trial, 345 participants); - probably reduce participants' length of stay in the emergency department by a few minutes (median difference -30 minutes, 95% CI -37 to -25; 1 trial, 345 participants). We did not identify trials that reported on providers' adherence, participants' health status and well-being, healthcare provider and participant acceptability and satisfaction, or costs. Mobile technologies used by community health workers or home-care workers to consult with clinic staff We assessed the certainty of evidence for this group of trials as moderate to low. Mobile technologies: - probably make little or no difference in the number of outpatient clinic and community nurse consultations for participants with diabetes or older individuals treated with home enteral nutrition (2 trials, 370 participants) or hospitalisation of older individuals treated with home enteral nutrition (1 trial, 188 participants); - may lead to little or no difference in mortality among people living with HIV (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.22) or diabetes (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.28 to 3.12) (2 trials, 1152 participants); - may make little or no difference to participants' disease activity or health-related quality of life in participants with rheumatoid arthritis (1 trial, 85 participants); - probably make little or no difference for participant acceptability and satisfaction for participants with diabetes and participants with rheumatoid arthritis (2 trials, 178 participants). We did not identify any trials that reported on providers' adherence, time between presentation and management, healthcare provider acceptability and satisfaction, or costs.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Our confidence in the effect estimates is limited. Interventions including a mobile technology component to support healthcare provider to healthcare provider communication and management of care may reduce the time between presentation and management of the health condition when primary care providers or emergency physicians use them to consult with specialists, and may increase the likelihood of receiving a clinical examination among participants with diabetes and those who required an ultrasound. They may decrease the number of people attending primary care who are referred to secondary or tertiary care in some conditions, such as some skin conditions and CKD. There was little evidence of effects on participants' health status and well-being, satisfaction, or costs.
Topics: Adult; Bias; Cell Phone; Community Health Workers; Computer Security; Dermatologists; Diabetic Retinopathy; Emergency Service, Hospital; Guideline Adherence; Health Care Costs; Health Personnel; Health Status; Humans; Patient Satisfaction; Personal Satisfaction; Primary Health Care; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Referral and Consultation; Renal Insufficiency, Chronic; Skin Diseases; Telemedicine; Time Factors; Time-to-Treatment; Ultrasonography
PubMed: 32813281
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012927.pub2