-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2024Constipation that is prolonged and does not resolve with conventional therapeutic measures is called intractable constipation. The treatment of intractable constipation... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Constipation that is prolonged and does not resolve with conventional therapeutic measures is called intractable constipation. The treatment of intractable constipation is challenging, involving pharmacological or non-pharmacological therapies, as well as surgical approaches. Unresolved constipation can negatively impact quality of life, with additional implications for health systems. Consequently, there is an urgent need to identify treatments that are efficacious and safe.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the efficacy and safety of treatments used for intractable constipation in children.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and two trials registers up to 23 June 2023. We also searched reference lists of included studies for relevant studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any pharmacological, non-pharmacological, or surgical treatment to placebo or another active comparator, in participants aged between 0 and 18 years with functional constipation who had not responded to conventional medical therapy.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were symptom resolution, frequency of defecation, treatment success, and adverse events; secondary outcomes were stool consistency, painful defecation, quality of life, faecal incontinence frequency, abdominal pain, hospital admission for disimpaction, and school absence. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for each primary outcome.
MAIN RESULTS
This review included 10 RCTs with 1278 children who had intractable constipation. We assessed one study as at low risk of bias across all domains. There were serious concerns about risk of bias in six studies. One study compared the injection of 160 units botulinum toxin A (n = 44) to unspecified oral stool softeners (n = 44). We are very uncertain whether botulinum toxin A injection improves treatment success (risk ratio (RR) 37.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 5.31 to 257.94; very low certainty evidence, downgraded due to serious concerns with risk of bias and imprecision). Frequency of defecation was reported only for the botulinum toxin A injection group (mean interval of 2.6 days). The study reported no data for the other primary outcomes. One study compared erythromycin estolate (n = 6) to placebo (n = 8). The only primary outcome reported was adverse events, which were 0 in both groups. The evidence is of very low certainty due to concerns with risk of bias and serious imprecision. One study compared 12 or 24 μg oral lubiprostone (n = 404) twice a day to placebo (n = 202) over 12 weeks. There may be little to no difference in treatment success (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.92; low certainty evidence). We also found that lubiprostone probably results in little to no difference in adverse events (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.21; moderate certainty evidence). The study reported no data for the other primary outcomes. One study compared three-weekly rectal sodium dioctyl sulfosuccinate and sorbitol enemas (n = 51) to 0.5 g/kg/day polyethylene glycol laxatives (n = 51) over a 52-week period. We are very uncertain whether rectal sodium dioctyl sulfosuccinate and sorbitol enemas improve treatment success (RR 1.33, 95% CI 0.83 to 2.14; very low certainty evidence, downgraded due to serious concerns with risk of bias and imprecision). Results of defecation frequency per week was reported only as modelled means using a linear mixed model. The study reported no data for the other primary outcomes. One study compared biofeedback therapy (n = 12) to no intervention (n = 12). We are very uncertain whether biofeedback therapy improves symptom resolution (RR 2.50, 95% CI 1.08 to 5.79; very low certainty evidence, downgraded due to serious concerns with risk of bias and imprecision). The study reported no data for the other primary outcomes. One study compared 20 minutes of intrarectal electromotive botulinum toxin A using 2800 Hz frequency and botulinum toxin A dose 10 international units/kg (n = 30) to 10 international units/kg botulinum toxin A injection (n = 30). We are very uncertain whether intrarectal electromotive botulinum toxin A improves symptom resolution (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.22; very low certainty evidence) or if it increases the frequency of defecation (mean difference (MD) 0.00, 95% CI -1.87 to 1.87; very low certainty evidence). We are also very uncertain whether intrarectal electromotive botulinum toxin A has an improved safety profile (RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.01 to 4.00; very low certainty evidence). The evidence for these results is of very low certainty due to serious concerns with risk of bias and imprecision. The study did not report data on treatment success. One study compared the injection of 60 units botulinum toxin A (n = 21) to myectomy of the internal anal sphincter (n = 21). We are very uncertain whether botulinum toxin A injection improves treatment success (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.34; very low certainty evidence). No adverse events were recorded. The study reported no data for the other primary outcomes. One study compared 0.04 mg/kg oral prucalopride (n = 107) once daily to placebo (n = 108) over eight weeks. Oral prucalopride probably results in little or no difference in defecation frequency (MD 0.50, 95% CI -0.06 to 1.06; moderate certainty evidence); treatment success (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.72; moderate certainty evidence); and adverse events (RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.39; moderate certainty evidence). The study did not report data on symptom resolution. One study compared transcutaneous electrical stimulation to sham stimulation, and another study compared dietitian-prescribed Mediterranean diet with written instructions versus written instructions. These studies did not report any of our predefined primary outcomes.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We identified low to moderate certainty evidence that oral lubiprostone may result in little to no difference in treatment success and adverse events compared to placebo. Based on moderate certainty evidence, there is probably little or no difference between oral prucalopride and placebo in defecation frequency, treatment success, or adverse events. For all other comparisons, the certainty of the evidence for our predefined primary outcomes is very low due to serious concerns with study limitations and imprecision. Consequently, no robust conclusions could be drawn.
Topics: Humans; Constipation; Child; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Child, Preschool; Adolescent; Defecation; Botulinum Toxins, Type A; Quality of Life; Laxatives; Infant; Bias; Lubiprostone
PubMed: 38895907
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD014580.pub2 -
F1000Research 2024Interstitial Lung Disease (ILD) is a severe and rapidly progressing disease with a high fatality rate. Patient education (PE) has been demonstrated to promote long-term... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVES
Interstitial Lung Disease (ILD) is a severe and rapidly progressing disease with a high fatality rate. Patient education (PE) has been demonstrated to promote long-term adherence to exercise and lifestyle improvements by assisting patients in developing self-management techniques. Our scoping review's goal was to chart out the prevailing level of research about the content, processes, and effectiveness of PE for patients with ILD.
METHODS
The relevant databases were searched using the rules provided by Arksey and O'Malley in 2005 and the Joanna Briggs Institute reviewers' manual 2015: an approach for JBI scoping reviews. Individuals with ILD, published in English between the years of inception and 2020, and describing PE administered by various healthcare practitioners were among the 355 studies found and reviewed. Thirteen studies met these criteria.
RESULTS
PE delivery process, delivery techniques, quality of life assessments, common PE themes, and healthcare professional participation were all recognized and cataloged.
CONCLUSION
Despite the fact that healthcare professionals (physicians, nurses, and physiotherapists) provide PE to patients with ILD regularly, the PE provided varies greatly (contents of PE, process of delivery and delivery techniques). During the scoping review, a significant variation in the themes was addressed. They could not provide any evidence-based specific recommendations for all healthcare practitioners due to the studies' heterogeneity and lack of effectiveness measures.
Topics: Lung Diseases, Interstitial; Humans; Patient Education as Topic; Quality of Life
PubMed: 38895701
DOI: 10.12688/f1000research.147340.1 -
Cancers May 2024For biliary tract cancer (BTC), the addition of immunotherapy (durvalumab or pembrolizumab) to gemcitabine and cisplatin (GemCis) significantly improved overall survival... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
For biliary tract cancer (BTC), the addition of immunotherapy (durvalumab or pembrolizumab) to gemcitabine and cisplatin (GemCis) significantly improved overall survival (OS) in phase 3 clinical trials (RCTs). However, the interpretation and magnitude of the treatment effect is challenging because OS Kaplan-Meier curves violate the proportional hazards (PH) assumption. Analysis using restricted mean survival time (RMST) allows quantification of the benefits in the absence of PH. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to assess the benefit of immunotherapy-based regimens for OS at 24 months using RMST analysis.
METHODS
A systematic review was conducted using studies published up to 8 November 2023. Only phase 3 RCTs evaluating the use of anti-PD-1/PD-L1 combined with GemCis and reporting OS were included. KM curves for OS were digitized, and the data were reconstructed. A meta-analysis for OS by RMST at 24 months was performed.
RESULTS
A total of 1754 participants from the TOPAZ-1 and KEYNOTE-966 trials were included. In TOPAZ-1, RMSTs at 24 months were 13.52 (7.92) and 12.21 (7.22) months with GemCis plus durvalumab and GemCis alone, respectively. In KEYNOTE-966, RMSTs at 24 months were 13.60 (7.76) and 12.45 (7.73) months with GemCis plus pembrolizumab and GemCis alone, respectively. Immunotherapy-based regimens showed a mean OS difference at 24 months by an RMST of 1.21 months [(95% CI: 0.49-1.93), < 0.001, I = 0%].
CONCLUSIONS
Immunotherapy-based regimens improve OS in advanced BTC. Given this magnitude of benefit, it is essential to weigh up individual patient factors, preferences, and potential risks. RMST analysis provides valuable information to patients and physicians, facilitating decision-making in a value-based medical environment.
PubMed: 38893196
DOI: 10.3390/cancers16112077 -
Cancers May 2024The increased demand for genetic testing and counseling necessitates healthcare professionals (HCPs) to improve their genetic competency through training programs. This... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
The increased demand for genetic testing and counseling necessitates healthcare professionals (HCPs) to improve their genetic competency through training programs. This systematic review identified HCPs' learning needs and their perspectives on essential information for families with hereditary cancer.
METHODS
This review covered studies published from 2013 to 2024 across five databases. Data were analyzed using a content analysis.
RESULTS
Thirteen studies involving 332 HCPs were analyzed. Most studies focused on the learning needs of physicians caring for families affected by Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer in North America and Europe. HCPs required training emphasizing practical counseling skills over the basics of genetics. Learning needs varied by profession: physicians needed training in assessing cancer risk and supporting decision-making in risk management; nurses required information on resources and the genetic care system; genetic counselors sought guidance on family communication and planning. Essential information identified for families included risk-reducing strategies, personalized cancer risk assessment, family implications, psychological issues, (cascade) genetic testing, and social concerns.
CONCLUSIONS
The findings have implications for the development of training programs for HCPs, emphasizing the need for tailored training based on professions. Future research should explore the needs of HCPs caring for families with diverse hereditary cancers and cultural backgrounds.
PubMed: 38893084
DOI: 10.3390/cancers16111963 -
Journal of Clinical Medicine May 2024Large language models (LLMs) represent a recent advancement in artificial intelligence with medical applications across various healthcare domains. The objective of... (Review)
Review
Large language models (LLMs) represent a recent advancement in artificial intelligence with medical applications across various healthcare domains. The objective of this review is to highlight how LLMs can be utilized by clinicians and surgeons in their everyday practice. A systematic review was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Six databases were searched to identify relevant articles. Eligibility criteria emphasized articles focused primarily on clinical and surgical applications of LLMs. The literature search yielded 333 results, with 34 meeting eligibility criteria. All articles were from 2023. There were 14 original research articles, four letters, one interview, and 15 review articles. These articles covered a wide variety of medical specialties, including various surgical subspecialties. : LLMs have the potential to enhance healthcare delivery. In clinical settings, LLMs can assist in diagnosis, treatment guidance, patient triage, physician knowledge augmentation, and administrative tasks. In surgical settings, LLMs can assist surgeons with documentation, surgical planning, and intraoperative guidance. However, addressing their limitations and concerns, particularly those related to accuracy and biases, is crucial. LLMs should be viewed as tools to complement, not replace, the expertise of healthcare professionals.
PubMed: 38892752
DOI: 10.3390/jcm13113041 -
Pain Jun 2024Many patients experience acute pain, which has been associated with numerous negative consequences. Pain education has been proposed as a strategy to improve acute pain...
Many patients experience acute pain, which has been associated with numerous negative consequences. Pain education has been proposed as a strategy to improve acute pain management. However, studies report limited effects with educational interventions for acute pain in adults, which can be explained by the underuse of the person-centered approach. Thus, we aimed to systematically review and synthetize current evidence from quantitative, qualitative and mixed-methods studies describing patients' needs and preferences for acute pain education in adults. We searched original studies and gray literature in 7 databases, from January 1990 to October 2023. Methodological quality was assessed with the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. A total of 32 studies were included (n = 1847 patients), two-thirds of which were qualitative studies of high methodological quality. Most of the studies were conducted over the last 15 years in patients with postsurgical and posttraumatic pain, identified as White, with a low level of education. Patients expressed the greatest need for education when it came to what to expect in pain intensity and duration, as well how to take the medication and its associated adverse effects. The most frequently reported educational preferences were for in-person education while involving caregivers and to obtain information first from physicians, then by other professionals. This review has highlighted the needs and preferences to be considered in pain education interventions, which should be embedded in an approach cultivating communication and partnership with patients and their caregivers. The results still need to be confirmed with different patient populations.
PubMed: 38888742
DOI: 10.1097/j.pain.0000000000003288 -
Sleep & Breathing = Schlaf & Atmung Jun 2024The goal of this review is to provide sleep physicians, dentists, and researchers with an evidence-based overview of the literature on smart mandibular advancement... (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
The goal of this review is to provide sleep physicians, dentists, and researchers with an evidence-based overview of the literature on smart mandibular advancement devices (MADs) for the treatment of obstructive sleep apnea.
METHODS
A systematic literature search was conducted by two blinded reviewers and an information specialist. A smart MAD was defined as any MAD with additional functionality besides mandibular protrusion. The bibliographic databases Medline, Embase, and Scopus were used to identify relevant publications. Studies were included if they described any stage of development of smart MADs. A total of 3162 titles and abstracts were screened for their relevance. In total, 58 articles were selected for full-text screening, 26 of which were included in this review.
RESULTS
The overall quality of the available literature was low. Most of the studies were observational, clinical or applied-research articles. The authors classified MADs into two main groups: passive and active. Passive MADs measured patient data, most commonly patient compliance. Active MADs adjusted protrusion of the mandible in response to patient data and were found in various phases of technological readiness (in development, demonstration, or deployment).
CONCLUSION
Innovations in smart mandibular advancement devices most frequently track patient compliance. Devices measuring other health parameters and active, feedback-controlled, devices are increasingly reported on. However, studies demonstrating their added benefit over traditional methods remain sparse. With further study, smart mandibular advancement devices have the potential to improve the efficiency of obstructive sleep apnea treatment and provide new treatment possibilities.
PubMed: 38886278
DOI: 10.1007/s11325-024-03068-3 -
European Journal of Nuclear Medicine... Jun 2024Prostate-Specific Membrane Antigen (PSMA)-targeted Positron Emission Tomography (PET) has revolutionised prostate cancer (PCa) diagnosis and treatment, offering superior... (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
Prostate-Specific Membrane Antigen (PSMA)-targeted Positron Emission Tomography (PET) has revolutionised prostate cancer (PCa) diagnosis and treatment, offering superior diagnostic accuracy over traditional methods and enabling theragnostic applications. However, a significant diagnostic challenge has emerged with identifying unspecific bone uptakes (UBUs), which could lead to over-staging and inappropriate treatment decisions if misinterpreted. This systematic review explores the phenomenon of UBUs in PCa patients undergoing PSMA-PET imaging.
METHODS
Studies assessing the prevalence, topographical distribution, and potential clinical implications of UBUs were selected according to the Preferred Reporting Items for a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) method and evaluated with the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) tool.
RESULTS
The percentage of PCa patients with UBUs on PSMA-PET scans ranged from 0 to 71.7%, depending on the radiopharmaceutical used, with [F]PSMA-1007 showing the highest incidence. The ribs are the primary site of UBUs across all PSMA-targeted radiopharmaceuticals. The spine is the second most frequent UBU site for [Ga]Ga-PSMA-11, [F]DCFPyL, [F]rhPSMA-7, while the pelvic girdle represents the second most frequent site for [F]PSMA-1007. The average maximum Standardized Uptake Value (SUV) of UBUs varied from 3.4 to 7.7 and was generally lower than that of bone metastases.
CONCLUSIONS
Our findings underscore the need for heightened awareness and precise interpretation of UBUs to avoid potential over-staging and subsequent inappropriate treatment decisions. Considering the radiopharmaceutical used, PET-derived semiquantitative parameters, the topographical distribution of UBUs, and accurately evaluating the pre-test probability based on clinical and laboratory parameters may aid nuclear medicine physicians in interpreting PSMA-PET findings.
PubMed: 38884773
DOI: 10.1007/s00259-024-06797-5 -
Zdravstveno Varstvo Sep 2024Beekeepers represent a high-allergic risk population group due to their unavoidable seasonal or persistent exposure to the elicitors of venom allergy, bees in... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Beekeepers represent a high-allergic risk population group due to their unavoidable seasonal or persistent exposure to the elicitors of venom allergy, bees in particular. A systematic literature review and meta-analysis aimed to estimate the prevalence of self-reported systemic allergic reaction to venom among beekeepers worldwide.
METHODS
We rigorously reviewed and conducted meta-analysis on observational studies retrieved from seven electronic databases (MEDLINE via PubMed, Web of Science Core Collection, Scopus, Academic Search Complete, ScienceDirect, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Zoological Record), spanning data from inception to August 1, 2023. The Joanna Briggs Institute Prevalence Critical Appraisal Tool was employed to assess the risk of bias. A meta-analysis was conducted to synthesize evidence.
RESULTS
Out of 468 studies, eight original articles met the inclusion criteria. The estimated overall lifetime and one-year prevalence of self-reported systemic allergic reaction to bee venom were 23.7% (95% CI: 7.7-53.4) and 7.3% (95% CI: 5.8-9.2), respectively. The estimated lifetime prevalence of self-reported systemic allergic reaction to bee venom for grades III-IV (severe systemic allergic reaction) was 6.0% (95% CI: 3.0-11.7). In general, substantial heterogeneity and a high risk of bias were observed across the majority of studies. The impact of geographical location and climate differences on the estimated lifetime prevalence is suggestive for severe systemic allergic reaction.
CONCLUSIONS
Future observational cross-sectional studies should employ rigorous study designs, using validated questionnaires, and thoroughly report the observed health outcomes, verified by physicians.
PubMed: 38881633
DOI: 10.2478/sjph-2024-0020 -
The Journal of the Association of... May 2024This systematic review and meta-analysis was undertaken to identify the risk factors of long coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) to provide insight for selecting cases... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
AIM
This systematic review and meta-analysis was undertaken to identify the risk factors of long coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) to provide insight for selecting cases for more aggressive monitoring and treatment after COVID-19 infection and reduce morbidity due to long COVID-19.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
All relevant studies published till July 2022 were searched for in PubMed, Trip database, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; The Cochrane Library). Reference lists of the studies selected for appraisal were also considered. The National Institute of Health Clinical Database and Google Scholar were searched for unpublished studies. All cohort studies which studied risk factors for long COVID-19 in adults (>18 years age-group) were included. Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) guidelines were used for data extraction and bias assessment were. The outcomes were risk factors identified as being related with persistent symptoms 3 months after recovery from COVID-19. Random-effects model (RevMan 5.3) was used to pool the data.
RESULTS
Total nine studies were included with overall quality scores ranging from 16 to 19 out of the maximum 22. Pooled results demonstrated statistically significant association of long COVID-19 with female gender [odds ratio (OR) -1.67; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.33-2.09], need of hospitalization (OR -1.80; 95% CI 1.22-2.64), and hospital stay (OR 2.41; 95% CI 0.75-4.07).
CONCLUSION
Female gender, need for hospitalization and duration of hospitalization during acute COVID-19 infection are the risk factors for later development of long COVID-19. There should be specific guidelines for monitoring and treatment of this population after acute COVID-19 infection.
Topics: Humans; COVID-19; Risk Factors; Post-Acute COVID-19 Syndrome; SARS-CoV-2; Sex Factors
PubMed: 38881113
DOI: 10.59556/japi.72.0528