-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Nov 2012Psychological treatments are designed to treat pain, distress and disability, and are in common practice. This review updates and extends the 2009 version of this... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Psychological treatments are designed to treat pain, distress and disability, and are in common practice. This review updates and extends the 2009 version of this systematic review.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the effectiveness of psychological therapies for chronic pain (excluding headache) in adults, compared with treatment as usual, waiting list control, or placebo control, for pain, disability, mood and catastrophic thinking.
SEARCH METHODS
We identified randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of psychological therapy by searching CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE and Psychlit from the beginning of each abstracting service until September 2011. We identified additional studies from the reference lists of retrieved papers and from discussion with investigators.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Full publications of RCTs of psychological treatments compared with an active treatment, waiting list or treatment as usual. We excluded studies if the pain was primarily headache, or was associated with a malignant disease. We also excluded studies if the number of patients in any treatment arm was less than 20.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Forty-two studies met our criteria and 35 (4788 participants) provided data. Two authors rated all studies. We coded risk of bias as well as both the quality of the treatments and the methods using a scale designed for the purpose. We compared two main classes of treatment (cognitive behavioural therapy(CBT) and behaviour therapy) with two control conditions (treatment as usual; active control) at two assessment points (immediately following treatment and six months or more following treatment), giving eight comparisons. For each comparison, we assessed treatment effectiveness on four outcomes: pain, disability, mood and catastrophic thinking, giving a total of 32 possible analyses, of which there were data for 25.
MAIN RESULTS
Overall there is an absence of evidence for behaviour therapy, except a small improvement in mood immediately following treatment when compared with an active control. CBT has small positive effects on disability and catastrophising, but not on pain or mood, when compared with active controls. CBT has small to moderate effects on pain, disability, mood and catastrophising immediately post-treatment when compared with treatment as usual/waiting list, but all except a small effect on mood had disappeared at follow-up. At present there are insufficient data on the quality or content of treatment to investigate their influence on outcome. The quality of the trial design has improved over time but the quality of treatments has not.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Benefits of CBT emerged almost entirely from comparisons with treatment as usual/waiting list, not with active controls. CBT but not behaviour therapy has weak effects in improving pain, but only immediately post-treatment and when compared with treatment as usual/waiting list. CBT but not behaviour therapy has small effects on disability associated with chronic pain, with some maintenance at six months. CBT is effective in altering mood and catastrophising outcomes, when compared with treatment as usual/waiting list, with some evidence that this is maintained at six months. Behaviour therapy has no effects on mood, but showed an effect on catastrophising immediately post-treatment. CBT is a useful approach to the management of chronic pain. There is no need for more general RCTs reporting group means: rather, different types of studies and analyses are needed to identify which components of CBT work for which type of patient on which outcome/s, and to try to understand why.
Topics: Adult; Affect; Behavior Therapy; Chronic Pain; Cognitive Behavioral Therapy; Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 23152245
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007407.pub3 -
Pediatric Surgery International Apr 2023Ladd's Procedure has been the surgical intervention of choice in the management of congenital intestinal malrotation for the past century. Historically, the procedure... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Ladd's Procedure has been the surgical intervention of choice in the management of congenital intestinal malrotation for the past century. Historically, the procedure included performing an appendectomy to prevent future misdiagnosis of appendicitis, since the location of the appendix will be shifted to the left side of the abdomen. This study consists of two parts. A review of the available literature on appendectomy as part of Ladd's procedure and then a survey sent to pediatric surgeons about their approach (to remove the appendix or not) while performing a Ladd's procedure and the clinical reasoning behind their approach.
METHODS
The study consists of 2 parts: (1) a systematic review was performed to extract articles that fulfill the inclusion criteria; (2) a short online survey was designed and sent by email to 168 pediatric surgeons. The questions in the survey were centered on whether a surgeon performs an appendectomy as part of the Ladd's procedure or not, as well as their reasoning behind either choice.
RESULTS
The literature search yielded five articles, the data from the available literature are inconsistent with performing appendectomy as part of Ladd's procedure. The challenge of leaving the appendix in place has been briefly described with minimal to no focus on the clinical reasoning. The survey demonstrated that 102 responses were received (60% response rate). Ninety pediatric surgeons stated performing an appendectomy as part of the procedure (88%). Only 12% of pediatric surgeons are not performing appendectomy during Ladd's procedure.
CONCLUSION
It is difficult to implement a modification in a successful procedure like Ladd's procedure. The majority of pediatric surgeons perform an appendectomy as part of its original description. This study has identified gaps in the literature pertaining to analyze the outcomes of performing Ladd's procedure without an appendectomy which should be explored in future research.
Topics: Child; Humans; Appendectomy; Laparoscopy; Intestinal Volvulus; Digestive System Surgical Procedures
PubMed: 37010655
DOI: 10.1007/s00383-023-05437-7 -
Medicine Aug 2023Intestinal perforation (IP) is a rare complication of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), and the timely diagnosis and treatment of IP are necessary to prevent death. In...
Intestinal perforation (IP) is a rare complication of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), and the timely diagnosis and treatment of IP are necessary to prevent death. In this study, the clinical features of IP in SLE were described in an attempt to enhance its understanding to reduce mortality. The clinical data of IP in SLE from 1984 to 2022 were retrospectively collected. A total of 18 patients were enrolled, and data on clinical symptoms, preoperative evaluation, surgical procedures, and postoperative outcomes were collected and retrospectively analyzed. The analysis included 15 females and 3 males, with a mean age of 49.2 years. Fifteen patients (83.3%) had a history of the disease for >5 years, and the SLE disease activity index score of 1 (5.6%) patient was <5 points and that of 17 (94.4%) patients was >10 points. A total of 9 (50%), 5 (27.7%), 3 (16.7%), and 1 (5.6%) patient had lesions in the rectum, colon, ileum, and both ileum and appendix, respectively. The cause of perforation in 12 (66.7%) patients was lupus mesenteric vasculitis and in 3 (16.7%) patients was chronic inflammation. Seven (38.9%) patients had other immune system diseases. All patients were treated with steroids and surgical treatment. However, 5 patients died after surgery. A disease duration of >5 years, SLE disease activity index score of >10, nonstandard use of steroids, and concomitant presence of other immune system diseases are the possible risk factors of IP in SLE. The most common site of perforation was the rectum, which was caused by lupus mesenteric vasculitis. The results suggest that the key to successfully manage such cases is early diagnosis, aggressive resuscitation, antibiotics, steroid therapy, and prompt surgical intervention.
Topics: Male; Female; Humans; Middle Aged; Retrospective Studies; Intestinal Perforation; Lupus Erythematosus, Systemic; Risk Factors; Vasculitis
PubMed: 37543816
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000034415 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2020Spinal muscular atrophy (SMA) is caused by a homozygous deletion of the survival motor neuron 1 (SMN1) gene on chromosome 5, or a heterozygous deletion in combination... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Spinal muscular atrophy (SMA) is caused by a homozygous deletion of the survival motor neuron 1 (SMN1) gene on chromosome 5, or a heterozygous deletion in combination with a (point) mutation in the second SMN1 allele. This results in degeneration of anterior horn cells, which leads to progressive muscle weakness. Children with SMA type II do not develop the ability to walk without support and have a shortened life expectancy, whereas children with SMA type III develop the ability to walk and have a normal life expectancy. This is an update of a review first published in 2009 and previously updated in 2011.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate if drug treatment is able to slow or arrest the disease progression of SMA types II and III, and to assess if such therapy can be given safely.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Neuromuscular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and ISI Web of Science conference proceedings in October 2018. In October 2018, we also searched two trials registries to identify unpublished trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We sought all randomised or quasi-randomised trials that examined the efficacy of drug treatment for SMA types II and III. Participants had to fulfil the clinical criteria and have a homozygous deletion or hemizygous deletion in combination with a point mutation in the second allele of the SMN1 gene (5q11.2-13.2) confirmed by genetic analysis. The primary outcome measure was change in disability score within one year after the onset of treatment. Secondary outcome measures within one year after the onset of treatment were change in muscle strength, ability to stand or walk, change in quality of life, time from the start of treatment until death or full-time ventilation and adverse events attributable to treatment during the trial period. Treatment strategies involving SMN1-replacement with viral vectors are out of the scope of this review, but a summary is given in Appendix 1. Drug treatment for SMA type I is the topic of a separate Cochrane Review.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We followed standard Cochrane methodology.
MAIN RESULTS
The review authors found 10 randomised, placebo-controlled trials of treatments for SMA types II and III for inclusion in this review, with 717 participants. We added four of the trials at this update. The trials investigated creatine (55 participants), gabapentin (84 participants), hydroxyurea (57 participants), nusinersen (126 participants), olesoxime (165 participants), phenylbutyrate (107 participants), somatotropin (20 participants), thyrotropin-releasing hormone (TRH) (nine participants), valproic acid (33 participants), and combination therapy with valproic acid and acetyl-L-carnitine (ALC) (61 participants). Treatment duration was from three to 24 months. None of the studies investigated the same treatment and none was completely free of bias. All studies had adequate blinding, sequence generation and reporting of primary outcomes. Based on moderate-certainty evidence, intrathecal nusinersen improved motor function (disability) in children with SMA type II, with a 3.7-point improvement in the nusinersen group on the Hammersmith Functional Motor Scale Expanded (HFMSE; range of possible scores 0 to 66), compared to a 1.9-point decline on the HFMSE in the sham procedure group (P < 0.01; n = 126). On all motor function scales used, higher scores indicate better function. Based on moderate-certainty evidence from two studies, the following interventions had no clinically important effect on motor function scores in SMA types II or III (or both) in comparison to placebo: creatine (median change 1 higher, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1 to 2; on the Gross Motor Function Measure (GMFM), scale 0 to 264; n = 40); and combination therapy with valproic acid and carnitine (mean difference (MD) 0.64, 95% CI -1.1 to 2.38; on the Modified Hammersmith Functional Motor Scale (MHFMS), scale 0 to 40; n = 61). Based on low-certainty evidence from other single studies, the following interventions had no clinically important effect on motor function scores in SMA types II or III (or both) in comparison to placebo: gabapentin (median change 0 in the gabapentin group and -2 in the placebo group on the SMA Functional Rating Scale (SMAFRS), scale 0 to 50; n = 66); hydroxyurea (MD -1.88, 95% CI -3.89 to 0.13 on the GMFM, scale 0 to 264; n = 57), phenylbutyrate (MD -0.13, 95% CI -0.84 to 0.58 on the Hammersmith Functional Motor Scale (HFMS) scale 0 to 40; n = 90) and monotherapy of valproic acid (MD 0.06, 95% CI -1.32 to 1.44 on SMAFRS, scale 0 to 50; n = 31). Very low-certainty evidence suggested that the following interventions had little or no effect on motor function: olesoxime (MD 2, 95% -0.25 to 4.25 on the Motor Function Measure (MFM) D1 + D2, scale 0 to 75; n = 160) and somatotropin (median change at 3 months 0.25 higher, 95% CI -1 to 2.5 on the HFMSE, scale 0 to 66; n = 19). One small TRH trial did not report effects on motor function and the certainty of evidence for other outcomes from this trial were low or very low. Results of nine completed trials investigating 4-aminopyridine, acetyl-L-carnitine, CK-2127107, hydroxyurea, pyridostigmine, riluzole, RO6885247/RG7800, salbutamol and valproic acid were awaited and not available for analysis at the time of writing. Various trials and studies investigating treatment strategies other than nusinersen (e.g. SMN2-augmentation by small molecules), are currently ongoing.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Nusinersen improves motor function in SMA type II, based on moderate-certainty evidence. Creatine, gabapentin, hydroxyurea, phenylbutyrate, valproic acid and the combination of valproic acid and ALC probably have no clinically important effect on motor function in SMA types II or III (or both) based on low-certainty evidence, and olesoxime and somatropin may also have little to no clinically important effect but evidence was of very low-certainty. One trial of TRH did not measure motor function.
Topics: Adolescent; Amines; Child; Child, Preschool; Creatine; Cyclohexanecarboxylic Acids; Humans; Hydroxyurea; Neuroprotective Agents; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Spinal Muscular Atrophies of Childhood; Thyrotropin-Releasing Hormone; gamma-Aminobutyric Acid
PubMed: 32006461
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006282.pub5 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2016Beta blockers are commonly used to treat hypertension. The blood pressure reading is the primary tool for physicians and patients to assess the efficacy of the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Beta blockers are commonly used to treat hypertension. The blood pressure reading is the primary tool for physicians and patients to assess the efficacy of the treatment. The blood pressure lowering effect of beta-1 selective blockers is not known.
OBJECTIVES
To quantify the dose-related effects of various doses and types of beta-1 selective adrenergic receptor blockers on systolic and diastolic blood pressure versus placebo in people with primary hypertension.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effectiveness (DARE) for related reviews.We searched the following databases for primary studies: the Cochrane Hypertension Specialised Register (All years to 15 October 2015), CENTRAL via the Cochrane Register of Studies Online (2015, Issue 10), Ovid MEDLINE (1946 to 15 October 2015), Ovid EMBASE (1974 to 15 October 2015) and ClinicalTrials.gov (all years to 15 October 2015).The Hypertension Group Specialised Register includes controlled trials from searches of CAB Abstracts, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, EMBASE, Food Science and Technology Abstracts (FSTA), Global Health, LILACS, MEDLINE, ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, PsycINFO, Web of Science and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP).Electronic databases were searched using a strategy combining the Cochrane Highly Sensitive Search Strategy for identifying randomized trials in MEDLINE: sensitivity-maximizing version (2008 revision) with selected MeSH terms and free text terms. No language restrictions were used. The MEDLINE search strategy was translated into CENTRAL, EMBASE, the Hypertension Group Specialised Register and ClinicalTrials.gov using the appropriate controlled vocabulary as applicable. Full strategies are in Appendix 1.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled parallel or cross-over trials. Studies had to contain a beta blocker monotherapy arm with fixed dose. People enrolled into the studies had to have primary hypertension at baseline. Duration of studies had to be between 3 weeks to 12 weeks. Drugs in this class of beta blockers are atenolol, betaxolol, bevantolol, bisoprolol, esmolol, metoprolol, nebivolol, pafenolol, practolol.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors confirmed the inclusion of studies and extracted the data independently. Review Manager (RevMan) 5.3.5 was used to synthesise data.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified 56 RCTs (randomised controlled trials) that examined the blood pressure (BP) lowering efficacy of beta-1 selective blockers (beta-1 blocker) in 7812 primary hypertensive patients. Among the included trials, 26 RCTs were parallel studies and 30 RCTs were cross-over studies, examining eight beta-1 blockers. Overall, the majority of beta-1 blockers studied significantly lowered systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP). In people with mild to moderate hypertension, beta-1 selective blockers lowered BP by an average of -10/-8 mmHg and reduced heart rate by 11 beats per minute. The maximum BP reduction of beta-1 blockers occurred at twice the starting dose. Individual beta-1 blockers did not exhibit a graded dose-response effect on SBP and DBP over the recommended dose range.Most beta-1 blockers tested significantly lowered heart rate. A graded dose-response of beta-1 blockers on heart rate was evident. Higher dose beta-1 blockers lowered heart rate more than lower doses. Individually and overall beta-1 blockers did not affect pulse pressure, which distinguishes them from other classes of drugs.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
This review provides low quality evidence that in people with mild to moderate hypertension, beta-1 selective blockers lowered BP by an average of -10/-8 mmHg and reduced heart rate by 11 beats per minute as compared to placebo. The effect of beta-1 blockers at peak hours, -12/-9 mmHg, was greater than the reduction at trough hours, -8/-7 mmHg. Beta-1 selective blockers lowered BP by a greater magnitude than dual receptor beta-blockers and partial agonist beta-blockers, lowered BP similarly to nonselective beta-blockers. Beta-1 selective blockers lowered SBP by a similar degree and lowered DBP by a greater degree than diuretics, angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers. Because DBP is lowered by a similar extent to SBP, beta-1 selective blockers do not reduce pulse pressure.
Topics: Adrenergic beta-Antagonists; Antihypertensive Agents; Blood Pressure; Diastole; Essential Hypertension; Heart Rate; Humans; Hypertension; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Systole
PubMed: 26961574
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007451.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2005Appendicitis is the most common cause of acute abdominal pain requiring surgical intervention. The cause of appendicitis is unclear and the mechanism of pathogenesis... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Appendicitis is the most common cause of acute abdominal pain requiring surgical intervention. The cause of appendicitis is unclear and the mechanism of pathogenesis continues to be debated. Despite improved asepsis and surgical techniques, postoperative complications, such as wound infection and intraabdominal abscess, still account for a significant morbidity. Several studies implicate that postoperative infections are reduced by administration of antimicrobial regimes.
OBJECTIVES
This review evaluated the use of antibiotics compared to placebo or no treatment in patients undergoing appendectomy. Will these patients benefit from antimicrobial prophylaxis? The outcomes were described according to the nature of the appendix, as either simple appendicitis (including the non-infectious stage) and complicated appendicitis. The efficacy of different antibiotic regimens were not evaluated.
SEARCH STRATEGY
We searched The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Cochrane Library 2005 issue 1); Pubmed ; EMBASE; and the Cochrane Colorectal Cancer Group Specialised Register (April 2005). In addition, we manually searched the reference lists of the primary identified trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We evaluated Randomised Controlled Trials (RCTs) and Controlled Clinical Trials (CCTs) in which any antibiotic regime were compared to placebo in patients suspected of having appendicitis, and undergoing appendectomy. Both studies on children and adults were reviewed. The outcome measures of the studies were: Wound infection, intra abdominal abscess, length of stay in hospital, and mortality.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Eligibility and trial quality were assessed, recorded and cross-checked by two reviewers.
MAIN RESULTS
Forty-five studies including 9576 patients were included in this review. The overall result is that the use of antibiotics is superior to placebo for preventing wound infection and intraabdominal abscess, with no apparent difference in the nature of the removed appendix. Studies exclusively on children and studies examining topical application reported results in favour to the above, although the results were not significant.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Antibiotic prophylaxis is effective in the prevention of postoperative complications in appendectomised patients, whether the administration is given pre-, peri- or post-operatively, and could be considered for routine in emergency appendectomies.
Topics: Abdominal Abscess; Adult; Antibiotic Prophylaxis; Appendectomy; Appendicitis; Child; Controlled Clinical Trials as Topic; Humans; Length of Stay; Postoperative Complications; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Surgical Wound Infection
PubMed: 16034862
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001439.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Nov 2017Laparoscopic appendectomy is amongst the most common general surgical procedures performed in the developed world. Arguably, the most critical part of this procedure is... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Laparoscopic appendectomy is amongst the most common general surgical procedures performed in the developed world. Arguably, the most critical part of this procedure is effective closure of the appendix stump to prevent catastrophic intra-abdominal complications from a faecal leak into the abdominal cavity. A variety of methods to close the appendix stump are used worldwide; these can be broadly divided into traditional ligatures (such as intracorporeal or extracorporeal ligatures or Roeder loops) and mechanical devices (such as stapling devices, clips, or electrothermal devices). However, the optimal method remains unclear.
OBJECTIVES
To compare all surgical techniques now used for appendix stump closure during laparoscopic appendectomy.
SEARCH METHODS
In June 2017, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2017, Issue 6) in the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 14 June 2017), Embase Ovid (1974 to 14 June 2017), Science Citation Index - Expanded (14 June 2017), China Biological Medicine Database (CBM), the World Health Organization International Trials Registry Platform search portal, ClinicalTrials.gov, Current Controlled Trials, the Chinese Clinical Trials Register, and the EU Clinical Trials Register (all in June 2017). We searched the reference lists of relevant publications as well as meeting abstracts and Conference Proceedings Citation Index to look for additional relevant clinical trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared mechanical appendix stump closure (stapler, clips, or electrothermal devices) versus ligation (Endoloop, Roeder loop, or intracorporeal knot techniques) for uncomplicated appendicitis.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors identified trials for inclusion, collected data, and assessed risk of bias independently. We performed the meta-analysis using Review Manager 5. We calculated the odds ratio (OR) for dichotomous outcomes and the mean difference (MD) for continuous outcomes, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).
MAIN RESULTS
We included eight randomised studies encompassing 850 participants. Five studies compared titanium clips versus ligature, two studies compared an endoscopic stapler device versus ligature, and one study compared an endoscopic stapler device, titanium clips, and ligature. In our analyses of primary outcomes, we found no differences in total complications (OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.27 to 3.50, 8 RCTs, very low-quality evidence), intraoperative complications (OR 0.93, 95% CI 0.34 to 2.55, 8 RCTs, very low-quality evidence), or postoperative complications (OR 0.80, 95% CI 0.21 to 3.13, 8 RCTs, very low-quality evidence) between ligature and all types of mechanical devices. However, our analyses of secondary outcomes revealed that use of mechanical devices saved approximately nine minutes of total operating time when compared with use of a ligature (mean difference (MD) -9.04 minutes, 95% CI -12.97 to -5.11 minutes, 8 RCTs, very low-quality evidence). However, this finding did not translate into a clinically or statistically significant reduction in inpatient hospital stay (MD 0.02 days, 95% CI -0.12 to 0.17 days, 8 RCTs, very low-quality evidence). Available information was insufficient for reliable comparison of total hospital costs and postoperative pain/quality of life between the two approaches. Overall, evidence across all analyses was of very low quality, with substantial potential for confounding factors. Given the limitations of all studies in terms of bias and the low quality of available evidence, a clear conclusion regarding superiority of any one particular type of mechanical device over another is not possible.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Evidence is insufficient at present to advocate omission of conventional ligature-based appendix stump closure in favour of any single type of mechanical device over another in uncomplicated appendicitis.
Topics: Abdominal Wound Closure Techniques; Appendectomy; Appendix; Humans; Intraoperative Complications; Laparoscopy; Length of Stay; Operative Time; Postoperative Complications; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Surgical Instruments; Surgical Staplers; Sutures
PubMed: 29190038
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006437.pub3 -
Current Rheumatology Reports Oct 2014The objective of the work reported in this paper was to critically assess how sequential disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) have been modelled in the... (Review)
Review
The objective of the work reported in this paper was to critically assess how sequential disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) have been modelled in the context of economic evaluation of the use of DMARDs for treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). A secondary purpose was to identify the methodological challenges of modelling sequential therapies. Systematic searches of 10 databases were undertaken in February 2013. Studies were included if they were in the English language and a full comparative economic evaluation was reported. They were appraised by use of the Drummond checklist (Appendix to this paper). Data extracted included economic evaluation data, data relating to sequential treatment, and data on the modelling methods used. Fifty-seven studies were identified, with 25 (44 %) modelling a sequence of treatments. Forty-three (75 %) were cost-utility analyses. Eleven (19 %) were UK studies and 11 (19 %) were US. The remainder were mainly European (26 (46 %)). A distinction was made between studies of recent-onset RA (14 (25 %)) and those of established RA (42 (74 %)). One study (1 %) was unclear. Individual-level models were more likely to meet the Drummond criteria and evaluate sequences. No study identified an optimum sequence of multiple treatments given a set of treatment options. The level of reporting of the methods and evidence used to assess the effect of downstream treatments in the sequence was generally poor. When lifelong models and downstream treatment sequences were considered, evidence gaps were identified. The review discovered that methods have not been consistently applied, leading to varied estimates of cost-effectiveness. Treatment sequences have not been fully considered and modelled, potentially resulting in inaccurate estimates of cost-effectiveness.
Topics: Antirheumatic Agents; Arthritis, Rheumatoid; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Health Care Costs; Humans; Models, Economic
PubMed: 25182675
DOI: 10.1007/s11926-014-0447-2 -
Cureus Oct 2022Acute appendicitis (AA) is one of the most common surgical pathologies. Its diagnosis is often carried out based on clinical signs and symptoms, with additional... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Acute appendicitis (AA) is one of the most common surgical pathologies. Its diagnosis is often carried out based on clinical signs and symptoms, with additional minimally invasive tests (i.e., blood testing) done to support the diagnosis. Procalcitonin (PCT) is a relatively novel biomarker that is starting to be used by clinicians for patients admitted into hospitals with a variety of infections. Its level can be used to identify the presence of infection. The aim of this review is to assess how useful PCT is as a biomarker in supporting clinicians' assessment of patients with suspected appendicitis.
METHODS
A systematic literature search was carried out, yielding a total of 16 primary research papers deemed appropriate for appraisal.
RESULTS
The usefulness of PCT in aiding the diagnosis of AA depends on the severity of appendicitis. Patients who experience complicated appendicitis (CAA) such as perforation, gangrene, or necrosis have a significantly raised PCT level (p<0.05) compared to those with uncomplicated appendicitis (UAA) and a variety of other non-appendiceal intra-abdominal pathologies.
CONCLUSIONS
The use of PCT in UAA is weak, however, PCT was deemed useful in helping predict CAA, thus helping portray the severity of infection. This, in turn, will help ensure patients are taken to the operating theatre in a timely and safe manner for subsequent appendicectomy.
PubMed: 36407148
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.30292