-
Frontiers in Surgery 2024Advancements in surgical techniques have improved outcomes in patients undergoing pancreatic surgery. To date there have been no meta-analyses comparing robotic and...
BACKGROUND
Advancements in surgical techniques have improved outcomes in patients undergoing pancreatic surgery. To date there have been no meta-analyses comparing robotic and laparoscopic approaches for distal pancreatectomies (DP) in patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PDAC). This systematic review and network meta-analysis aims to explore the oncological outcomes of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP), robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP) and open distal pancreatectomy (ODP).
METHODS
A systematic search was conducted for studies reporting laparoscopic, robotic or open surgery for DP. Frequentist network meta-analysis of oncological outcomes (overall survival, resection margins, tumor recurrence, examined lymph nodes, administration of adjuvant therapy) were performed.
RESULTS
Fifteen studies totalling 9,301 patients were included in the network meta-analysis. 1,946, 605 and 6,750 patients underwent LDP, RDP and ODP respectively. LDP (HR: 0.761, 95% CI: 0.642-0.901, = 0.002) and RDP (HR: 0.757, 95% CI: 0.617-0.928, = 0.008) were associated with overall survival (OS) benefit when compared to ODP. LDP (HR: 1.00, 95% CI: 0.793-1.27, = 0.968) was not associated with OS benefit when compared to RDP. There were no significant differences between LDP, RDP and ODP for resection margins, tumor recurrence, examined lymph nodes and administration of adjuvant therapy.
CONCLUSION
This study highlights the longer OS in both LDP and RDP when compared to ODP for patients with PDAC.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/, PROSPERO (CRD42022336417).
PubMed: 38933652
DOI: 10.3389/fsurg.2024.1369169 -
BMJ Open Sport & Exercise Medicine 2024The purpose of this study was to review the current literature regarding the non-operative treatment of isolated medial collateral ligament (MCL) injuries.
OBJECTIVE
The purpose of this study was to review the current literature regarding the non-operative treatment of isolated medial collateral ligament (MCL) injuries.
DESIGN
Systematic review, registered in the Open Science Framework (https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/E9CP4).
DATA SOURCES
The Embase, MEDLINE and PEDro databases were searched; last search was performed on December 2023.
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA
Peer-reviewed original reports from studies that included information about individuals who sustained an isolated MCL injury with non-surgical treatment as an intervention, or reports comparing surgical with non-surgical treatment were eligible for inclusion. Included reports were synthesised qualitatively. Risk of bias was assessed with the Risk of Bias Assessment tool for Non-randomized Studies. Certainty of evidence was determined using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment Development and Evaluation.
RESULTS
A total of 26 reports (1912 patients) were included, of which 18 were published before the year 2000 and 8 after. No differences in non-operative treatment were reported between grade I and II injuries, where immediate weight bearing and ambulation were tolerated, and rehabilitation comprised different types of strengthening exercises with poorly reported details. Some reports used immobilisation with a brace as a treatment method, while others did not use any equipment. The use of a brace and duration of use was inconsistently reported.
CONCLUSION
There is substantial heterogeneity and lack of detail regarding the non-operative treatment of isolated MCL injuries. This should prompt researchers and clinicians to produce high-quality evidence studies on the promising non-operative treatment of isolated MCL injuries to aid in decision-making and guide rehabilitation after MCL injury.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE
Level I, systematic review.
PubMed: 38933372
DOI: 10.1136/bmjsem-2023-001750 -
Fundamental Research May 2024The sudden onset of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in January 2020 has affected essential global health services. Cancer-screening services that can reduce... (Review)
Review
The sudden onset of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in January 2020 has affected essential global health services. Cancer-screening services that can reduce cancer mortality are strongly affected. However, the specific role of COVID-19 in cancer screening is not fully understood. This study aimed to assess the efficiency of global cancer screening programs before and during the COVID-19 pandemic and to promote potential cancer-screening strategies for the next pandemic. Electronic searches in PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science, and manual searches were performed between January 1, 2020 and March 1, 2023. Cohort studies that reported the number of participants who underwent cancer screening before and during the COVID-19 pandemic were included. The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Differences in cancer-screening rates were estimated using the incidence rate ratio (IRR). Fifty-five cohort studies were included in this meta-analysis. The screening rates of colorectal cancer using invasive screening methods (Pooled IRR = 0.52, 95% CI: 0.42 to 0.65, < 0.01), cervical cancer (Pooled IRR = 0.56, 95% CI: 0.47 to 0.67, < 0.01), breast cancer (Pooled IRR = 0.57, 95% CI: 0.49 to 0.66, < 0.01) and prostate cancer (Pooled IRR = 0.71, 95% CI: 0.56 to 0.90, < 0.01) during the COVID-19 pandemic were significantly lower than those before the COVID-19 pandemic. The screening rates of lung cancer (Pooled IRR = 0.77, 95% CI: 0.58 to 1.03, = 0.08) and colorectal cancer using noninvasive screening methods (Pooled IRR = 0.74, 95% CI: 0.50 to 1.09, = 0.13) were reduced with no statistical differences. The subgroup analyses revealed that the reduction in cancer-screening rates varied across economies. Our results suggest that the COVID-19 pandemic has had a noteworthy impact on colorectal, cervical, breast, and prostate cancer screening. Developing innovative cancer-screening technologies is important to promote the efficiency of cancer-screening services in the post-COVID-19 era and prepare for the next pandemic.
PubMed: 38933198
DOI: 10.1016/j.fmre.2023.12.016 -
Frontiers in Public Health 2024Uncertainty and inconsistency in terminology regarding the risk factors (RFs) for in-hospital falls are present in the literature. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Uncertainty and inconsistency in terminology regarding the risk factors (RFs) for in-hospital falls are present in the literature.
OBJECTIVE
(1) To perform a literature review to identify the fall RFs among hospitalized adults; (2) to link the found RFs to the corresponding categories of international health classifications to reduce the heterogeneity of their definitions; (3) to perform a meta-analysis on the risk categories to identify the significant RFs; (4) to refine the final list of significant categories to avoid redundancies.
METHODS
Four databases were investigated. We included observational studies assessing patients who had experienced in-hospital falls. Two independent reviewers performed the inclusion and extrapolation process and evaluated the methodological quality of the included studies. RFs were grouped into categories according to three health classifications (ICF, ICD-10, and ATC). Meta-analyses were performed to obtain an overall pooled odds ratio for each RF. Finally, protective RFs or redundant RFs across different classifications were excluded.
RESULTS
Thirty-six articles were included in the meta-analysis. One thousand one hundred and eleven RFs were identified; 616 were linked to ICF classification, 450 to ICD-10, and 260 to ATC. The meta-analyses and subsequent refinement of the categories yielded 53 significant RFs. Overall, the initial number of RFs was reduced by about 21 times.
CONCLUSION
We identified 53 significant RF categories for in-hospital falls. These results provide proof of concept of the feasibility and validity of the proposed methodology. The list of significant RFs can be used as a template to build more accurate measurement instruments to predict in-hospital falls.
Topics: Accidental Falls; Humans; Risk Factors; Proof of Concept Study; Hospitalization
PubMed: 38932769
DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2024.1390185 -
Vaccines Jun 2024A systematic review with a meta-analysis was performed to gather available evidence on the effectiveness of monoclonal antibody nirsevimab in the prevention of lower... (Review)
Review
A systematic review with a meta-analysis was performed to gather available evidence on the effectiveness of monoclonal antibody nirsevimab in the prevention of lower respiratory tract diseases (LRTDs) due to respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) in children and newborns (CRD42024540669). Studies reporting on real-world experience and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were searched for in three databases (PubMed, Embase, and Scopus) until 1 May 2024. Our analysis included five RCTs, seven real-world reports, and one official report from the health authorities. Due to the cross-reporting of RCTs and the inclusion of multiple series in a single study, the meta-analysis was performed on 45,238 infants from 19 series. The meta-analysis documented a pooled immunization efficacy of 88.40% (95% confidence interval (95% CI) from 84.70 to 91.21) on the occurrence of hospital admission due to RSV, with moderate heterogeneity (I 24.3%, 95% CI 0.0 to 56.6). Immunization efficacy decreased with the overall length of the observation time (Spearman's r = -0.546, = 0.016), and the risk of breakthrough infections was substantially greater in studies with observation times ≥150 days compared to studies lasting <150 days (risk ratio 2.170, 95% CI 1.860 to 2.532). However, the effect of observation time in meta-regression analysis was conflicting ( = 0.001, 95% CI -0.001 to 0.002; = 0.092). In conclusion, the delivery of nirsevimab was quite effective in preventing hospital admissions due to LRTDs. However, further analyses of the whole RSV season are required before tailoring specific public health interventions.
PubMed: 38932369
DOI: 10.3390/vaccines12060640 -
Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) Jun 2024Beach variants of popular sports like soccer and handball have grown in participation over the last decade. However, the characterization of the workload demands in... (Review)
Review
Beach variants of popular sports like soccer and handball have grown in participation over the last decade. However, the characterization of the workload demands in beach sports remains limited compared to their indoor equivalents. This systematic review aimed to: (1) characterize internal and external loads during beach invasion sports match-play; (2) identify technologies and metrics used for monitoring; (3) compare the demands of indoor sports; and (4) explore differences by competition level, age, sex, and beach sport. Fifteen studies ultimately met the inclusion criteria. The locomotive volumes averaged 929 ± 269 m (average) and 16.5 ± 3.3 km/h (peak) alongside 368 ± 103 accelerations and 8 ± 4 jumps per session. The impacts approached 700 per session. The heart rates reached 166-192 beats per minute (maximal) eliciting 60-95% intensity. The player load was 12.5 ± 2.9 to 125 ± 30 units. Males showed 10-15% higher external but equivalent internal loads versus females. Earlier studies relied solely on a time-motion analysis, while recent works integrate electronic performance and tracking systems, enabling a more holistic quantification. However, substantial metric intensity zone variability persists. Beach sports entail intermittent high-intensity activity with a lower-intensity recovery. Unstable surface likely explains the heightened internal strain despite moderately lower running volumes than indoor sports. The continued integration of technology together with the standardization of workload intensity zones is needed to inform a beach-specific training prescription.
Topics: Humans; Male; Female; Sports; Heart Rate; Athletic Performance; Bathing Beaches
PubMed: 38931522
DOI: 10.3390/s24123738 -
Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) Jun 2024Measuring pilot mental workload (MWL) is crucial for enhancing aviation safety. However, MWL is a multi-dimensional construct that could be affected by multiple factors.... (Review)
Review
Measuring pilot mental workload (MWL) is crucial for enhancing aviation safety. However, MWL is a multi-dimensional construct that could be affected by multiple factors. Particularly, in the context of a more automated cockpit setting, the traditional methods of assessing pilot MWL may face challenges. Heart rate variability (HRV) has emerged as a potential tool for detecting pilot MWL during real-flight operations. This review aims to investigate the relationship between HRV and pilot MWL and to assess the performance of machine-learning-based MWL detection systems using HRV parameters. A total of 29 relevant papers were extracted from three databases for review based on rigorous eligibility criteria. We observed significant variability across the reviewed studies, including study designs and measurement methods, as well as machine-learning techniques. Inconsistent results were observed regarding the differences in HRV measures between pilots under varying levels of MWL. Furthermore, for studies that developed HRV-based MWL detection systems, we examined the diverse model settings and discovered that several advanced techniques could be used to address specific challenges. This review serves as a practical guide for researchers and practitioners who are interested in employing HRV indicators for evaluating MWL and wish to incorporate cutting-edge techniques into their MWL measurement approaches.
Topics: Humans; Heart Rate; Workload; Machine Learning; Pilots; Aviation
PubMed: 38931507
DOI: 10.3390/s24123723 -
Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) Jun 2024Complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) is a disabling condition that usually affects the extremities after trauma or surgery. At present, there is no FDA-approved... (Review)
Review
Complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) is a disabling condition that usually affects the extremities after trauma or surgery. At present, there is no FDA-approved pharmacological treatment for patients with CRPS. We performed this systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of pharmacological therapies and determine the best strategy for CRPS. We searched the databases, including PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, Web of Science, Scopus, and ClinicalTrials.gov, for published eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing pharmacological treatment with placebo in CRPS patients. Target patients were diagnosed with CRPS according to Budapest Criteria in 2012 or the 1994 consensus-based IASP CRPS criteria. Finally, 23 RCTs comprising 1029 patients were included. We used the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to rate certainty (confidence in evidence and quality of evidence). Direct meta-analysis showed that using bisphosphonates (BPs) (mean difference [MD] -2.21, 95% CI -4.36--0.06, = 0.04, moderate certainty) or ketamine (mean difference [MD] -0.78, 95% CI -1.51--0.05, = 0.04, low certainty) could provide long-term (beyond one month) pain relief. However, there was no statistically significant difference in the efficacy of short-term pain relief. Ketamine (rank = 0.55) and BPs (rank = 0.61) appeared to be the best strategies for CRPS pain relief. Additionally, BPs (risk ratio [RR] = 1.86, 95% CI 1.34-2.57, 0.01, moderate certainty) and ketamine (risk ratio [RR] = 3.45, 95% CI 1.79-6.65, 0.01, moderate certainty) caused more adverse events, which were mild, and no special intervention was required. In summary, among pharmacological interventions, ketamine and bisphosphonate injection seemed to be the best treatment for CRPS without severe adverse events.
PubMed: 38931478
DOI: 10.3390/ph17060811 -
Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) May 2024The role of fibroblast activation protein inhibitor (FAPI) positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) is emerging for the assessment of non-oncological... (Review)
Review
The role of fibroblast activation protein inhibitor (FAPI) positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) is emerging for the assessment of non-oncological diseases, such as inflammatory and infectious diseases, even if the evidence in the literature is still in its initial phases. We conducted a systematic search of Scopus, PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane library databases for studies published before 31 December 2023 reporting infectious and inflammatory disease imaging with FAPI PET/CT. We included twenty-one studies for a total of 1046 patients. The most frequent disease studied was lung interstitial disease, investigated in six studies for a total of 200 patients, followed by bone and joint diseases in two studies and 185 patients, IgG4-related disease in 53 patients, and Crohn's disease in 30 patients. Despite the heterogeneity of studies in terms of study design and technical features, FAPI PET/CT showed a high detection rate and diagnostic role. Moreover, when compared with 2-[F]FDG PET/CT ( = 7 studies), FAPI PET/CT seems to have better diagnostic performances. The presence of chronic inflammation and tissue remodeling, typical of immune-mediated inflammatory conditions, may be the underlying mechanism of FAPI uptake.
PubMed: 38931383
DOI: 10.3390/ph17060716 -
Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) May 2024Novel potassium-competitive acid blockers (P-CABs) have emerged as effective acid-suppressive drugs in recent years, replacing proton pump inhibitors (PPIs). We aim to... (Review)
Review
Comparative Efficacy and Safety of Potassium-Competitive Acid Blockers vs. Proton Pump Inhibitors for Peptic Ulcer with or without Infection: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.
Novel potassium-competitive acid blockers (P-CABs) have emerged as effective acid-suppressive drugs in recent years, replacing proton pump inhibitors (PPIs). We aim to compare the efficacy and safety of P-CABs versus PPIs in the treatment of peptic ulcers with or without () infection. We searched in PubMed, Embase, WOS, Cochrane Library, ClinicalTrials.gov, CNKI, and Wanfang databases (all years up to January 2024). Efficacy and safety outcomes were evaluated using odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). The Surface Under the Cumulative Ranking (SUCRA) probabilities were used to rank each intervention. Among 14,056 studies screened, 56 studies involving 9792 participants were analyzed. Vonoprazan demonstrated the best efficacy in ulcer healing rate and eradication rate (SUCRA = 86.4% and 90.7%, respectively). Keverprazan ranked second in ulcer healing rates (SUCRA = 76.0%) and was more effective in pain remission rates (SUCRA = 91.7%). The risk of adverse events was low for keverprazan (SUCRA = 11.8%) and tegoprazan (SUCRA = 12.9%), and moderate risk for vonoprazan (SUCRA = 44.3%) was demonstrated. Compared to lansoprazole, vonoprazan exhibited a higher risk of drug-related adverse events (OR: 2.15; 95% CI: 1.60-2.89) and serious adverse events (OR: 2.22; 95% CI: 1.11-4.42). Subgroup analysis on patients with -positive peptic ulcers showed that vonoprazan was at the top of the SUCRA rankings, followed by keverprazan. Vonoprazan showed superior performance in peptic ulcers, especially for patients with -positive peptic ulcers. However, the risk of adverse events associated with vonoprazan should be noted. Keverprazan has also shown good therapeutic outcomes and has performed better in terms of safety.
PubMed: 38931366
DOI: 10.3390/ph17060698