-
Neurology Jan 2022To determine thresholds of serum neuron-specific enolase (NSE) for prediction of poor outcome after cardiac arrest with >95% specificity using a unique method of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES
To determine thresholds of serum neuron-specific enolase (NSE) for prediction of poor outcome after cardiac arrest with >95% specificity using a unique method of multiple thresholds meta-analysis.
METHODS
Data from a systematic review by the European Resuscitation Council (ERC 2014) were updated with literature searches from PubMed, Cochrane, and Scopus until August 2020. Search terms included the MeSH terms "heart arrest" and "biomarkers" and the text words "cardiac arrest," "neuron specific enolase," "coma" and "prognosis." Cohort studies with comatose cardiac arrest survivors aged >16 years undergoing targeted temperature management (TTM) and NSE levels within 96 hours of resuscitation were included. Poor outcome was defined as cerebral performance category 3-5 at hospital discharge or later. Studies without extractable contingency tables were excluded. A multiple thresholds meta-analysis model was used to generate summary receiver operating characteristic curves for various time points. NSE thresholds (and 95% prediction intervals) for >95% specificity were calculated. Evidence appraisal was performed using a method adapted from the American Academy of Neurology grading criteria.
RESULTS
Data from 11 studies (n = 1,982) at 0-24 hours, 21 studies (n = 2,815) at 24-48 hours, and 13 studies (n = 2,557) at 48-72 hours was analyzed. Areas under the curve for prediction of poor outcomes were significantly larger at 24-48 hours and 48-72 hours compared to 0-24 hours (0.82 and 0.83 vs 0.64). Quality of evidence was very low for most studies because of the risk of incorporation bias-knowledge of NSE levels potentially influenced life support withdrawal decisions. To minimize falsely pessimistic predictions, NSE thresholds at the upper 95% limit of prediction intervals are reported. For prediction of poor outcome with specificity >95%, upper limits of the prediction interval for NSE were 70.4 ng/mL at 24-48 hours and 58.6 ng/mL at 48-72 hours. Sensitivity analyses excluding studies with inconsistent TTM use or different outcome criteria did not substantially alter the results.
CONCLUSIONS
NSE thresholds for highly specific prediction of poor outcome are much higher than generally used. Future studies must minimize bias by masking treatment teams to the results of potential predictors and by prespecifying criteria for withdrawal of life support.
Topics: Adolescent; Biomarkers; Coma; Heart Arrest; Humans; Hypothermia, Induced; Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest; Phosphopyruvate Hydratase; Prognosis
PubMed: 34663643
DOI: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000012967 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Aug 2021Pressure ulcers (also known as pressure injuries, pressure sores and bed sores) are localised injuries to the skin or underlying soft tissue, or both, caused by... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Pressure ulcers (also known as pressure injuries, pressure sores and bed sores) are localised injuries to the skin or underlying soft tissue, or both, caused by unrelieved pressure, shear or friction. Specific kinds of beds, overlays and mattresses are widely used with the aim of preventing and treating pressure ulcers.
OBJECTIVES
To summarise evidence from Cochrane Reviews that assess the effects of beds, overlays and mattresses on reducing the incidence of pressure ulcers and on increasing pressure ulcer healing in any setting and population. To assess the relative effects of different types of beds, overlays and mattresses for reducing the incidence of pressure ulcers and increasing pressure ulcer healing in any setting and population. To cumulatively rank the different treatment options of beds, overlays and mattresses in order of their effectiveness in pressure ulcer prevention and treatment.
METHODS
In July 2020, we searched the Cochrane Library. Cochrane Reviews reporting the effectiveness of beds, mattresses or overlays for preventing or treating pressure ulcers were eligible for inclusion in this overview. Two review authors independently screened search results and undertook data extraction and risk of bias assessment using the ROBIS tool. We summarised the reported evidence in an overview of reviews. Where possible, we included the randomised controlled trials from each included review in network meta-analyses. We assessed the relative effectiveness of beds, overlays and mattresses for preventing or treating pressure ulcers and their probabilities of being, comparably, the most effective treatment. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS
We include six Cochrane Reviews in this overview of reviews, all at low or unclear risk of bias. Pressure ulcer prevention: four reviews (of 68 studies with 18,174 participants) report direct evidence for 27 pairwise comparisons between 12 types of support surface on the following outcomes: pressure ulcer incidence, time to pressure ulcer incidence, patient comfort response, adverse event rates, health-related quality of life, and cost-effectiveness. Here we focus on outcomes with some evidence at a minimum of low certainty. (1) Pressure ulcer incidence: our overview includes direct evidence for 27 comparisons that mostly (19/27) have very low-certainty evidence concerning reduction of pressure ulcer risk. We included 40 studies (12,517 participants; 1298 participants with new ulcers) in a network meta-analysis involving 13 types of intervention. Data informing the network are sparse and this, together with the high risk of bias in most studies informing the network, means most network contrasts (64/78) yield evidence of very low certainty. There is low-certainty evidence that, compared with foam surfaces (reference treatment), reactive air surfaces (e.g. static air overlays) (risk ratio (RR) 0.46, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.29 to 0.75), alternating pressure (active) air surfaces (e.g. alternating pressure air mattresses, large-celled ripple mattresses) (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.93), and reactive gel surfaces (e.g. gel pads used on operating tables) (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.22 to 1.01) may reduce pressure ulcer incidence. The ranking of treatments in terms of effectiveness is also of very low certainty for all interventions. It is unclear which treatment is best for preventing ulceration. (2) Time to pressure ulcer incidence: four reviews had direct evidence on this outcome for seven comparisons. We included 10 studies (7211 participants; 699 participants with new ulcers) evaluating six interventions in a network meta-analysis. Again, data from most network contrasts (13/15) are of very low certainty. There is low-certainty evidence that, compared with foam surfaces (reference treatment), reactive air surfaces may reduce the hazard of developing new pressure ulcers (hazard ratio (HR) 0.20, 95% CI 0.04 to 1.05). The ranking of all support surfaces for preventing pressure ulcers in terms of time to healing is uncertain. (3) Cost-effectiveness: this overview includes direct evidence for three comparisons. For preventing pressure ulcers, alternating pressure air surfaces are probably more cost-effective than foam surfaces (moderate-certainty evidence). Pressure ulcer treatment: two reviews (of 12 studies with 972 participants) report direct evidence for five comparisons on: complete pressure ulcer healing, time to complete pressure ulcer healing, patient comfort response, adverse event rates, and cost-effectiveness. Here we focus on outcomes with some evidence at a minimum of low certainty. (1) Complete pressure ulcer healing: our overview includes direct evidence for five comparisons. There is uncertainty about the relative effects of beds, overlays and mattresses on ulcer healing. The corresponding network meta-analysis (with four studies, 397 participants) had only three direct contrasts and a total of six network contrasts. Again, most network contrasts (5/6) have very low-certainty evidence. There was low-certainty evidence that more people with pressure ulcers may heal completely using reactive air surfaces than using foam surfaces (RR 1.32, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.80). We are uncertain which surfaces have the highest probability of being the most effective (all very low-certainty evidence). (2) Time to complete pressure ulcer healing: this overview includes direct evidence for one comparison: people using reactive air surfaces may be more likely to have healed pressure ulcers compared with those using foam surfaces in long-term care settings (HR 2.66, 95% CI 1.34 to 5.17; low-certainty evidence). (3) Cost-effectiveness: this overview includes direct evidence for one comparison: compared with foam surfaces, reactive air surfaces may cost an extra 26 US dollars for every ulcer-free day in the first year of use in long-term care settings (low-certainty evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Compared with foam surfaces, reactive air surfaces may reduce pressure ulcer risk and may increase complete ulcer healing. Compared with foam surfaces, alternating pressure air surfaces may reduce pressure ulcer risk and are probably more cost-effective in preventing pressure ulcers. Compared with foam surfaces, reactive gel surfaces may reduce pressure ulcer risk, particularly for people in operating rooms and long-term care settings. There are uncertainties for the relative effectiveness of other support surfaces for preventing and treating pressure ulcers, and their efficacy ranking. More high-quality research is required; for example, for the comparison of reactive air surfaces with alternating pressure air surfaces. Future studies should consider time-to-event outcomes and be designed to minimise any risk of bias.
Topics: Bedding and Linens; Beds; Humans; Incidence; Network Meta-Analysis; Pressure Ulcer; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 34398473
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013761.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2021Dementia is a progressive global cognitive impairment syndrome. In 2010, more than 35 million people worldwide were estimated to be living with dementia. Some people... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Dementia is a progressive global cognitive impairment syndrome. In 2010, more than 35 million people worldwide were estimated to be living with dementia. Some people with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) will progress to dementia but others remain stable or recover full function. There is great interest in finding good predictors of dementia in people with MCI. The Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) is the best-known and the most often used short screening tool for providing an overall measure of cognitive impairment in clinical, research and community settings.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the accuracy of the Mini Mental State Examination for the early detection of dementia in people with mild cognitive impairment SEARCH METHODS: We searched ALOIS (Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Specialized Register of diagnostic and intervention studies (inception to May 2014); MEDLINE (OvidSP) (1946 to May 2014); EMBASE (OvidSP) (1980 to May 2014); BIOSIS (Web of Science) (inception to May 2014); Web of Science Core Collection, including the Conference Proceedings Citation Index (ISI Web of Science) (inception to May 2014); PsycINFO (OvidSP) (inception to May 2014), and LILACS (BIREME) (1982 to May 2014). We also searched specialized sources of diagnostic test accuracy studies and reviews, most recently in May 2014: MEDION (Universities of Maastricht and Leuven, www.mediondatabase.nl), DARE (Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, via the Cochrane Library), HTA Database (Health Technology Assessment Database, via the Cochrane Library), and ARIF (University of Birmingham, UK, www.arif.bham.ac.uk). No language or date restrictions were applied to the electronic searches and methodological filters were not used as a method to restrict the search overall so as to maximize sensitivity. We also checked reference lists of relevant studies and reviews, tracked citations in Scopus and Science Citation Index, used searches of known relevant studies in PubMed to track related articles, and contacted research groups conducting work on MMSE for dementia diagnosis to try to locate possibly relevant but unpublished data.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We considered longitudinal studies in which results of the MMSE administered to MCI participants at baseline were obtained and the reference standard was obtained by follow-up over time. We included participants recruited and clinically classified as individuals with MCI under Petersen and revised Petersen criteria, Matthews criteria, or a Clinical Dementia Rating = 0.5. We used acceptable and commonly used reference standards for dementia in general, Alzheimer's dementia, Lewy body dementia, vascular dementia and frontotemporal dementia.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We screened all titles generated by the electronic database searches. Two review authors independently assessed the abstracts of all potentially relevant studies. We assessed the identified full papers for eligibility and extracted data to create two by two tables for dementia in general and other dementias. Two authors independently performed quality assessment using the QUADAS-2 tool. Due to high heterogeneity and scarcity of data, we derived estimates of sensitivity at fixed values of specificity from the model we fitted to produce the summary receiver operating characteristic curve.
MAIN RESULTS
In this review, we included 11 heterogeneous studies with a total number of 1569 MCI patients followed for conversion to dementia. Four studies assessed the role of baseline scores of the MMSE in conversion from MCI to all-cause dementia and eight studies assessed this test in conversion from MCI to Alzheimer´s disease dementia. Only one study provided information about the MMSE and conversion from MCI to vascular dementia. For conversion from MCI to dementia in general, the accuracy of baseline MMSE scores ranged from sensitivities of 23% to 76% and specificities from 40% to 94%. In relationship to conversion from MCI to Alzheimer's disease dementia, the accuracy of baseline MMSE scores ranged from sensitivities of 27% to 89% and specificities from 32% to 90%. Only one study provided information about conversion from MCI to vascular dementia, presenting a sensitivity of 36% and a specificity of 80% with an incidence of vascular dementia of 6.2%. Although we had planned to explore possible sources of heterogeneity, this was not undertaken due to the scarcity of studies included in our analysis.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Our review did not find evidence supporting a substantial role of MMSE as a stand-alone single-administration test in the identification of MCI patients who could develop dementia. Clinicians could prefer to request additional and extensive tests to be sure about the management of these patients. An important aspect to assess in future updates is if conversion to dementia from MCI stages could be predicted better by MMSE changes over time instead of single measurements. It is also important to assess if a set of tests, rather than an isolated one, may be more successful in predicting conversion from MCI to dementia.
Topics: Alzheimer Disease; Cognitive Dysfunction; Dementia; Dementia, Vascular; Disease Progression; Early Diagnosis; Frontotemporal Dementia; Humans; Lewy Body Disease; Mental Status and Dementia Tests; Neuropsychological Tests; Sensitivity and Specificity
PubMed: 34313331
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010783.pub3 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2021Pressure ulcers (also known as injuries, pressure sores, decubitus ulcers and bed sores) are localised injuries to the skin or underlying soft tissue, or both, caused by... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Pressure ulcers (also known as injuries, pressure sores, decubitus ulcers and bed sores) are localised injuries to the skin or underlying soft tissue, or both, caused by unrelieved pressure, shear or friction. Reactive surfaces that are not made of foam or air cells can be used for preventing pressure ulcers.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of non-foam and non-air-filled reactive beds, mattresses or overlays compared with any other support surface on the incidence of pressure ulcers in any population in any setting.
SEARCH METHODS
In November 2019, we searched the Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); Ovid MEDLINE (including In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations); Ovid Embase and EBSCO CINAHL Plus. We also searched clinical trials registries for ongoing and unpublished studies, and scanned reference lists of relevant included studies as well as reviews, meta-analyses and health technology reports to identify additional studies. There were no restrictions with respect to language, date of publication or study setting.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials that allocated participants of any age to non-foam or non-air-filled reactive beds, overlays or mattresses. Comparators were any beds, overlays or mattresses used.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
At least two review authors independently assessed studies using predetermined inclusion criteria. We carried out data extraction, 'Risk of bias' assessment using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool, and the certainty of the evidence assessment according to Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations methodology. If a non-foam or non-air-filled surface was compared with surfaces that were not clearly specified, then the included study was recorded and described but not considered further in any data analyses.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 20 studies (4653 participants) in this review. Most studies were small (median study sample size: 198 participants). The average participant age ranged from 37.2 to 85.4 years (median: 72.5 years). Participants were recruited from a wide range of care settings but were mainly from acute care settings. Almost all studies were conducted in Europe and America. Of the 20 studies, 11 (2826 participants) included surfaces that were not well described and therefore could not be fully classified. We synthesised data for the following 12 comparisons: (1) reactive water surfaces versus alternating pressure (active) air surfaces (three studies with 414 participants), (2) reactive water surfaces versus foam surfaces (one study with 117 participants), (3) reactive water surfaces versus reactive air surfaces (one study with 37 participants), (4) reactive water surfaces versus reactive fibre surfaces (one study with 87 participants), (5) reactive fibre surfaces versus alternating pressure (active) air surfaces (four studies with 384 participants), (6) reactive fibre surfaces versus foam surfaces (two studies with 228 participants), (7) reactive gel surfaces on operating tables followed by foam surfaces on ward beds versus alternating pressure (active) air surfaces on operating tables and subsequently on ward beds (two studies with 415 participants), (8) reactive gel surfaces versus reactive air surfaces (one study with 74 participants), (9) reactive gel surfaces versus foam surfaces (one study with 135 participants), (10) reactive gel surfaces versus reactive gel surfaces (one study with 113 participants), (11) reactive foam and gel surfaces versus reactive gel surfaces (one study with 166 participants) and (12) reactive foam and gel surfaces versus foam surfaces (one study with 91 participants). Of the 20 studies, 16 (80%) presented findings which were considered to be at high overall risk of bias.
PRIMARY OUTCOME
Pressure ulcer incidence We did not find analysable data for two comparisons: reactive water surfaces versus foam surfaces, and reactive water surfaces versus reactive fibre surfaces. Reactive gel surfaces used on operating tables followed by foam surfaces applied on hospital beds (14/205 (6.8%)) may increase the proportion of people developing a new pressure ulcer compared with alternating pressure (active) air surfaces applied on both operating tables and hospital beds (3/210 (1.4%) (risk ratio 4.53, 95% confidence interval 1.31 to 15.65; 2 studies, 415 participants; I = 0%; low-certainty evidence). For all other comparisons, it is uncertain whether there is a difference in the proportion of participants developing new pressure ulcers as all data were of very low certainty. Included studies did not report time to pressure ulcer incidence for any comparison in this review. Secondary outcomes Support-surface-associated patient comfort: the included studies provide data on this outcome for one comparison. It is uncertain if there is a difference in patient comfort between alternating pressure (active) air surfaces and reactive fibre surfaces (one study with 187 participants; very low-certainty evidence). All reported adverse events: there is evidence on this outcome for one comparison. It is uncertain if there is a difference in adverse events between reactive gel surfaces followed by foam surfaces and alternating pressure (active) air surfaces applied on both operating tables and hospital beds (one study with 198 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We did not find any health-related quality of life or cost-effectiveness evidence for any comparison in this review.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Current evidence is generally uncertain about the differences between non-foam and non-air-filled reactive surfaces and other surfaces in terms of pressure ulcer incidence, patient comfort, adverse effects, health-related quality of life and cost-effectiveness. Reactive gel surfaces used on operating tables followed by foam surfaces applied on hospital beds may increase the risk of having new pressure ulcers compared with alternating pressure (active) air surfaces applied on both operating tables and hospital beds. Future research in this area should consider evaluation of the most important support surfaces from the perspective of decision-makers. Time-to-event outcomes, careful assessment of adverse events and trial-level cost-effectiveness evaluation should be considered in future studies. Trials should be designed to minimise the risk of detection bias; for example, by using digital photography and adjudicators of the photographs being blinded to group allocation. Further review using network meta-analysis will add to the findings reported here.
Topics: Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Bedding and Linens; Beds; Bias; Elasticity; Humans; Incidence; Middle Aged; Pressure Ulcer; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Viscoelastic Substances; Water
PubMed: 34097764
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013623.pub2 -
Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) May 2021The objective of this review was to compile validated functional shoulder assessment tools and analyse the methodological quality of their validations. Secondarily, we... (Review)
Review
The objective of this review was to compile validated functional shoulder assessment tools and analyse the methodological quality of their validations. Secondarily, we aimed to provide a comparison of the tools, including parameter descriptions, indications/applications, languages and operating instructions, to choose the most suitable for future clinical and research approaches. A systematic review (PRISMA) was conducted using: PubMed, WoS Scopus, CINHAL, Dialnet and reference lists until 2020. The main criteria for inclusion were that papers were original studies of validated tools or validation studies. Pre-established tables showed tools, validations, items/components, etc. The QUADAS-2 and COSMIN-RB were used to assess the methodological quality of validations. Ultimately, 85 studies were selected, 32 tools and 111 validations. Risk of bias scored lower than applicability, and patient selection got the best scores (QUADAS-2). Internal consistency had the highest quality and PROMs development the lowest (COSMIN-RB). Responsiveness was the most analysed metric property. Modified UCLA and SST obtained the highest quality in shoulder instability surgery, and SPADI in pain. The most approached topic was activities of daily living (81%). We compiled 32 validated functional shoulder assessment tools, and conducted an analysis of the methodological quality of 111 validations associated with them. Modified UCLA and SST showed the highest methodological quality in instability surgery and SPADI in pain.
PubMed: 34066777
DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics11050845 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2021Pressure ulcers (also known as pressure injuries, pressure sores, decubitus ulcers and bed sores) are localised injuries to the skin or underlying soft tissue, or both,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Pressure ulcers (also known as pressure injuries, pressure sores, decubitus ulcers and bed sores) are localised injuries to the skin or underlying soft tissue, or both, caused by unrelieved pressure, shear or friction. Alternating pressure (active) air surfaces are widely used with the aim of preventing pressure ulcers.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of alternating pressure (active) air surfaces (beds, mattresses or overlays) compared with any support surface on the incidence of pressure ulcers in any population in any setting.
SEARCH METHODS
In November 2019, we searched the Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); Ovid MEDLINE (including In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations); Ovid Embase and EBSCO CINAHL Plus. We also searched clinical trials registries for ongoing and unpublished studies, and scanned reference lists of relevant included studies as well as reviews, meta-analyses and health technology reports to identify additional studies. There were no restrictions with respect to language, date of publication or study setting.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials that allocated participants of any age to alternating pressure (active) air beds, overlays or mattresses. Comparators were any beds, overlays or mattresses.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
At least two review authors independently assessed studies using predetermined inclusion criteria. We carried out data extraction, 'Risk of bias' assessment using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool, and the certainty of the evidence assessment according to Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations methodology.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 32 studies (9058 participants) in the review. Most studies were small (median study sample size: 83 participants). The average age of participants ranged from 37.2 to 87.0 years (median: 69.1 years). Participants were largely from acute care settings (including accident and emergency departments). We synthesised data for six comparisons in the review: alternating pressure (active) air surfaces versus: foam surfaces, reactive air surfaces, reactive water surfaces, reactive fibre surfaces, reactive gel surfaces used in the operating room followed by foam surfaces used on the ward bed, and another type of alternating pressure air surface. Of the 32 included studies, 25 (78.1%) presented findings which were considered at high overall risk of bias.
PRIMARY OUTCOME
pressure ulcer incidence Alternating pressure (active) air surfaces may reduce the proportion of participants developing a new pressure ulcer compared with foam surfaces (risk ratio (RR) 0.63, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.34 to 1.17; I = 63%; 4 studies, 2247 participants; low-certainty evidence). Alternating pressure (active) air surfaces applied on both operating tables and hospital beds may reduce the proportion of people developing a new pressure ulcer compared with reactive gel surfaces used on operating tables followed by foam surfaces applied on hospital beds (RR 0.22, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.76; I = 0%; 2 studies, 415 participants; low-certainty evidence). It is uncertain whether there is a difference in the proportion of people developing new pressure ulcers between alternating pressure (active) air surfaces and the following surfaces, as all these comparisons have very low-certainty evidence: (1) reactive water surfaces; (2) reactive fibre surfaces; and (3) reactive air surfaces. The comparisons between different types of alternating pressure air surfaces are presented narratively. Overall, all comparisons suggest little to no difference between these surfaces in pressure ulcer incidence (7 studies, 2833 participants; low-certainty evidence). Included studies have data on time to pressure ulcer incidence for three comparisons. When time to pressure ulcer development is considered using a hazard ratio (HR), it is uncertain whether there is a difference in the risk of developing new pressure ulcers, over 90 days' follow-up, between alternating pressure (active) air surfaces and foam surfaces (HR 0.41, 95% CI 0.10 to 1.64; I = 86%; 2 studies, 2105 participants; very low-certainty evidence). For the comparison with reactive air surfaces, there is low-certainty evidence that people treated with alternating pressure (active) air surfaces may have a higher risk of developing an incident pressure ulcer than those treated with reactive air surfaces over 14 days' follow-up (HR 2.25, 95% CI 1.05 to 4.83; 1 study, 308 participants). Neither of the two studies with time to ulcer incidence data suggested a difference in the risk of developing an incident pressure ulcer over 60 days' follow-up between different types of alternating pressure air surfaces. Secondary outcomes The included studies have data on (1) support-surface-associated patient comfort for comparisons involving foam surfaces, reactive air surfaces, reactive fibre surfaces and alternating pressure (active) air surfaces; (2) adverse events for comparisons involving foam surfaces, reactive gel surfaces and alternating pressure (active) air surfaces; and (3) health-related quality of life outcomes for the comparison involving foam surfaces. However, all these outcomes and comparisons have low or very low-certainty evidence and it is uncertain whether there are any differences in these outcomes. Included studies have data on cost effectiveness for two comparisons. Moderate-certainty evidence suggests that alternating pressure (active) air surfaces are probably more cost-effective than foam surfaces (1 study, 2029 participants) and that alternating pressure (active) air mattresses are probably more cost-effective than overlay versions of this technology for people in acute care settings (1 study, 1971 participants).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Current evidence is uncertain about the difference in pressure ulcer incidence between using alternating pressure (active) air surfaces and other surfaces (reactive water surfaces, reactive fibre surfaces and reactive air surfaces). Alternating pressure (active) air surfaces may reduce pressure ulcer risk compared with foam surfaces and reactive gel surfaces used on operating tables followed by foam surfaces applied on hospital beds. People using alternating pressure (active) air surfaces may be more likely to develop new pressure ulcers over 14 days' follow-up than those treated with reactive air surfaces in the nursing home setting; but as the result is sensitive to the choice of outcome measure it should be interpreted cautiously. Alternating pressure (active) air surfaces are probably more cost-effective than reactive foam surfaces in preventing new pressure ulcers. Future studies should include time-to-event outcomes and assessment of adverse events and trial-level cost-effectiveness. Further review using network meta-analysis will add to the findings reported here.
Topics: Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Air; Bedding and Linens; Beds; Bias; Elasticity; Humans; Incidence; Middle Aged; Pressure; Pressure Ulcer; Publication Bias; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Time Factors
PubMed: 33969911
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013620.pub2 -
Journal of Clinical Anesthesia Sep 2021Moderate to severe postoperative pain occurs in up to 60% of women following breast operations. Our aim was to perform a network meta-analysis and systematic review to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
STUDY OBJECTIVE
Moderate to severe postoperative pain occurs in up to 60% of women following breast operations. Our aim was to perform a network meta-analysis and systematic review to compare the efficacy and side effects of different analgesic strategies in breast surgery.
DESIGN
Systematic review and network meta-analysis.
SETTING
Operating room, postoperative recovery room and ward.
PATIENTS
Patients scheduled for breast surgery under general anesthesia.
INTERVENTIONS
Following an extensive search of electronic databases, those who received any of the following interventions, control, local anesthetic (LA) infiltration, erector spinae plane (ESP) block, pectoralis nerve (PECS) block, paravertebral block (PVB) or serratus plane block (SPB), were included. Exclusion criteria were met if the regional anesthesia modality was not ultrasound-guided. Network plots were constructed and network league tables were produced.
MEASUREMENTS
Co-primary outcomes were the pain at rest at 0-2 h and 8-12 h. Secondary outcomes were those related to analgesia, side effects and functional status.
MAIN RESULTS
In all, 66 trials met our inclusion criteria. No differences were demonstrated between control and LA infiltration in regard to the co-primary outcomes, pain at rest at 0-2 and 8-12 h. The quality of evidence was moderate in view of the serious imprecision. With respect to pain at rest at 8-12 h, ESP block, PECS block and PVB were found to be superior to control or LA infiltration. No differences were revealed between control and LA infiltration for outcomes related to analgesia and side effects, and few differences were shown between the various regional anesthesia techniques.
CONCLUSIONS
In breast surgery, regional anesthesia modalities were preferable from an analgesic perspective to control or LA infiltration, with a clinically significant decrease in pain score and cumulative opioid consumption, and limited differences were present between regional anesthetic techniques themselves.
Topics: Anesthesia, Conduction; Breast Neoplasms; Female; Humans; Nerve Block; Network Meta-Analysis; Pain, Postoperative
PubMed: 33873002
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinane.2021.110274 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2021Retained placenta is a common complication of pregnancy affecting 1% to 6% of all births. If a retained placenta is left untreated, spontaneous delivery of the placenta... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Retained placenta is a common complication of pregnancy affecting 1% to 6% of all births. If a retained placenta is left untreated, spontaneous delivery of the placenta may occur, but there is a high risk of bleeding and infection. Manual removal of the placenta (MROP) in an operating theatre under anaesthetic is the usual treatment, but is invasive and may have complications. An effective non-surgical alternative for retained placenta would potentially reduce the physical and psychological trauma of the procedure, and costs. It could also be lifesaving by providing a therapy for settings without easy access to modern operating theatres or anaesthetics. Injection of uterotonics into the uterus via the umbilical vein and placenta is an attractive low-cost option for this. This is an update of a review last published in 2011.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the use of umbilical vein injection (UVI) of saline solution with or without uterotonics compared to either expectant management or with an alternative solution or other uterotonic agent for retained placenta.
SEARCH METHODS
For this update, we searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (14 June 2020), and reference lists of retrieved studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing UVI of saline or other fluids (with or without uterotonics), either with expectant management or with an alternative solution or other uterotonic agent, in the management of retained placenta. We considered quasi-randomised, cluster-randomised, and trials reported only in abstract form.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data, and checked them for accuracy. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. We calculated pooled risk ratios (RRs) and mean differences (MDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and presented results using 'Summary of findings' tables.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 24 trials (n = 2348). All included trials were RCTs, one was quasi-randomised, and none were cluster-randomised. Risk of bias was variable across the included studies. We assessed certainty of evidence for four comparisons: saline versus expectant management, oxytocin versus expectant management, oxytocin versus saline, and oxytocin versus plasma expander. Evidence was moderate to very-low certainty and downgraded for risk of bias of included studies, imprecision, and inconsistency of effect estimates. Saline solution versus expectant management There is probably little or no difference in the incidence of MROP between saline and expectant management (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.10; 5 studies, n = 445; moderate-certainty evidence). Evidence for the following remaining primary outcomes was very-low certainty: severe postpartum haemorrhage 1000 mL or greater, blood transfusion, and infection. There were no events reported for maternal mortality or postpartum anaemia (24 to 48 hours postnatal). No studies reported addition of therapeutic uterotonics. Oxytocin solution versus expectant management UVI of oxytocin solution might slightly reduce in the need for manual removal compared with expectant management (mean RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.95; 7 studies, n = 546; low-certainty evidence). There may be little to no difference between the incidence of blood transfusion between groups (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.38; 4 studies, n = 339; low-certainty evidence). There were no maternal deaths reported (2 studies, n = 93). Evidence for severe postpartum haemorrhage of 1000 mL or greater, additional uterotonics, and infection was very-low certainty. There were no events for postpartum anaemia (24 to 48 hours postnatal). Oxytocin solution versus saline solution UVI of oxytocin solution may reduce the use of MROP compared with saline solution, but there was high heterogeneity (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.69 to 0.97; 14 studies, n = 1370; I² = 54%; low-certainty evidence). There were no differences between subgroups according to risk of bias or oxytocin dose for the outcome MROP. There may be little to no difference between groups in severe postpartum haemorrhage of 1000 mL or greater, blood transfusion, use of additional therapeutic uterotonics, and antibiotic use. There were no events for postpartum anaemia (24 to 48 hours postnatal) (very low-certainty evidence) and there was only one event for maternal mortality (low-certainty evidence). Oxytocin solution versus plasma expander One small study reported UVI of oxytocin compared with plasma expander (n = 109). The evidence was very unclear about any effect on MROP or blood transfusion between the two groups (very low-certainty evidence). No other primary outcomes were reported. For other comparisons there were little to no differences for most outcomes examined. However, there was some evidence to suggest that there may be a reduction in MROP with prostaglandins in comparison to oxytocin (4 studies, n = 173) and ergometrine (1 study, n = 52), although further large-scale studies are needed to confirm these findings.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
UVI of oxytocin solution is an inexpensive and simple intervention that can be performed when placental delivery is delayed. This review identified low-certainty evidence that oxytocin solution may slightly reduce the need for manual removal. However, there are little or no differences for other outcomes. Small studies examining injection of prostaglandin (such as dissolved misoprostol) into the umbilical vein show promise and deserve to be studied further.
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Bias; Blood Transfusion; Female; Humans; Injections, Intravenous; Oxytocics; Oxytocin; Placenta, Retained; Plasma Substitutes; Pregnancy; Prostaglandins; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Sodium Chloride; Umbilical Veins
PubMed: 33705565
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001337.pub3 -
JAMA Network Open Mar 2021Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is a highly prevalent global health concern and is associated with many adverse outcomes for patients. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
IMPORTANCE
Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is a highly prevalent global health concern and is associated with many adverse outcomes for patients.
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the utility of the STOP-Bang (snoring, tiredness, observed apnea, blood pressure, body mass index, age, neck size, gender) questionnaire in the sleep clinic setting to screen for and stratify the risk of OSA among populations from different geographical regions.
DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SELECTION
MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-process, Embase, EmCare Nursing, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, PsycINFO, Journals@Ovid, Web of Science, Scopus, and CINAHL electronic databases were systematically searched from January 2008 to March 2020. This was done to identify studies that used the STOP-Bang questionnaire and polysomnography testing in adults referred to sleep clinics.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Clinical and demographic data were extracted from each article independently by 2 reviewers. The combined test characteristics were calculated using 2 × 2 contingency tables. Random-effects meta-analyses and metaregression with sensitivity analyses were performed. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guideline was followed.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
The combined test characteristics and area under summary receiver operating characteristic curves (AUCs) were used to compare STOP-Bang questionnaire accuracy with polysomnography testing.
RESULTS
A total of 47 studies with 26 547 participants (mean [SD] age, 50 [5] years; mean [SD] body mass index, 32 [3]; 16 780 [65%] men) met the criteria for the systematic review. Studies were organized in different geographic regional groups: North America, South America, Europe, Middle East, East Asia, and South or Southeast Asia. The prevalence rates for all OSA, moderate to severe OSA, and severe OSA were 80% (95% CI, 80%-81%), 58% (95% CI, 58%-59%), and 39% (95% CI, 38%-39%), respectively. A STOP-Bang score of at least 3 had excellent sensitivity (>90%) and high discriminative power to exclude moderate to severe and severe OSA, with negative predictive values of 77% (95% CI, 75%-78%) and 91% (95% CI, 90%-92%), respectively. The diagnostic accuracy of a STOP-Bang score of at least 3 to detect moderate to severe OSA was high (>0.80) in all regions except East Asia (0.52; 95% CI, 0.48-0.56).
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
The results of this meta-analysis suggest that the STOP-Bang questionnaire can be used as a screening tool to assist in triaging patients with suspected OSA referred to sleep clinics in different global regions.
Topics: Americas; Asia; Europe; Humans; Sleep Apnea, Obstructive; Surveys and Questionnaires; Symptom Assessment
PubMed: 33683333
DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.1009 -
Surgical Endoscopy Apr 2021In the past decade, deep learning has revolutionized medical image processing. This technique may advance laparoscopic surgery. Study objective was to evaluate whether... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
In the past decade, deep learning has revolutionized medical image processing. This technique may advance laparoscopic surgery. Study objective was to evaluate whether deep learning networks accurately analyze videos of laparoscopic procedures.
METHODS
Medline, Embase, IEEE Xplore, and the Web of science databases were searched from January 2012 to May 5, 2020. Selected studies tested a deep learning model, specifically convolutional neural networks, for video analysis of laparoscopic surgery. Study characteristics including the dataset source, type of operation, number of videos, and prediction application were compared. A random effects model was used for estimating pooled sensitivity and specificity of the computer algorithms. Summary receiver operating characteristic curves were calculated by the bivariate model of Reitsma.
RESULTS
Thirty-two out of 508 studies identified met inclusion criteria. Applications included instrument recognition and detection (45%), phase recognition (20%), anatomy recognition and detection (15%), action recognition (13%), surgery time prediction (5%), and gauze recognition (3%). The most common tested procedures were cholecystectomy (51%) and gynecological-mainly hysterectomy and myomectomy (26%). A total of 3004 videos were analyzed. Publications in clinical journals increased in 2020 compared to bio-computational ones. Four studies provided enough data to construct 8 contingency tables, enabling calculation of test accuracy with a pooled sensitivity of 0.93 (95% CI 0.85-0.97) and specificity of 0.96 (95% CI 0.84-0.99). Yet, the majority of papers had a high risk of bias.
CONCLUSIONS
Deep learning research holds potential in laparoscopic surgery, but is limited in methodologies. Clinicians may advance AI in surgery, specifically by offering standardized visual databases and reporting.
Topics: Deep Learning; Diagnostic Tests, Routine; Female; Humans; Laparoscopy; Male
PubMed: 33398560
DOI: 10.1007/s00464-020-08168-1