Prokop, Larry J.

Background: Shared Decision Making in palliative care encompassing patient-clinician collaboration has shown potential for improved patient outcomes. However, the impact of decision aids intended to support palliative care decision making discussions across clinical care settings remains uncertain. Aim: To assess the impact of shared of decision aids on decision making, clinical outcomes, and quality of life for patients with palliative care needs and their caregivers. Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials, reported according to PRISMA, with overall evidence quality assessed using GRADE. Data sources: Ovid MEDLINE (all segments), EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Scopus, from inception through September 20, 2024, without restrictions on publication date, sample size, or language. Eligible studies were randomized controlled trials that included adult patients with palliative care needs or their caregivers, using any form of decision aids. Outcomes encompassed decision-related, clinical, and quality of life measures. Results: Sixteen randomized controlled trials were included. Participant ages ranged from 44 to 85 years. Predominant decision aids were videos or printed materials addressing goals of care and treatment options, with aims that included improving understanding of prognosis and supporting values clarification. Decision aids significantly improved decision-related knowledge (SMD: 0.40, 95% CI: 0.14–0.67, p = 0.003) and lowered preference for cardiopulmonary resuscitation (OR: 0.28, 95% CI: 0.20–0.40, p < 0.001). They showed no significant impact on decisional conflict, satisfaction, or regret. Conclusion: Evidence regarding the effectiveness of decision aids in palliative care decision making is limited and of low overall quality, with observed improvements primarily in patient knowledge and changes in stated treatment preferences rather than established improvements in decision quality or values-concordant care. Future research should prioritize integration into comprehensive shared decision making frameworks, cultural adaptations, and larger-scale studies to enhance patient-centered outcomes.

Estimates of fibromyalgia prevalence vary widely worldwide due to differences in diagnostic criteria, study methodology, and population characteristics. Accurate estimates are essential to inform population-level surveillance, guide resource allocation, and highlight disparities in disease recognition and access to care. The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to determine the global prevalence of fibromyalgia in the general population, and secondarily to identify factors moderating prevalence variation and to assess prevalence in defined at-risk subpopulations. Pooled prevalence estimates with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using the inverse variance heterogeneity model with Freeman–Tukey transformation. Subgroup analyses were performed by sex, diagnostic criteria, country, and other study characteristics, and meta-regression assessed moderators including publication year and Human Development Index (HDI). Of 21,645 records identified, 1,728 underwent full-text review and 882 studies were included in the final analysis. Across 38 countries and 30,070,032 individuals (188 studies), the pooled fibromyalgia prevalence in the general population was 1.40% (95% CI, 0.49–2.47), with substantial heterogeneity (I 2 = 100%) and very low certainty of evidence. Among at-risk subpopulations (9,771,123 participants; 768 studies), prevalence was markedly higher in autoimmune and inflammatory conditions, such as chronic urticaria (37.1%), interstitial cystitis (30.8%), systemic sclerosis (20.6%), celiac disease (20.5%), and inflammatory bowel disease (19.9%), and elevated in chronic pain, rheumatologic, and post-infection cohorts. Meta-regression identified publication year (β = 0.008, P < .001) and HDI (β = 0.725, P = .002) as significant moderators of prevalence. In conclusion, fibromyalgia affects 1% to 2% of the global population, with substantially higher rates in at-risk subpopulations. Temporal and socioeconomic trends emphasize diagnostic inconsistency and global disparities in care.

Abstract Context Central precocious puberty (CPP). Objective To summarize the available supporting evidence for the Endocrine Society guidelines about the management of CPP. Methods Multiple databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus) were searched to identify studies that addressed the Endocrine Society Guideline Development Panel's 10 clinical questions. Identified studies were selected and appraised, and data were extracted by pairs of independent trained reviewers. Results The systematic review yielded 3796 citations, of which 32 citations were included. The systematic review and meta-analysis demonstrate that in children with CPP, with no central nervous system symptoms, the rate of magnetic resonance imaging identification of pathogenic lesions (ie, hamartomas and brain tumors) was 6% (35 noncomparative studies with 5541 children with CPP). For girls with idiopathic CPP, gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist (GnRHa) treatment was associated with +2.7 cm adult height gain compared to those who did not receive treatment (21 comparative observational studies with 1835 girls [mean age 8.20 ± 1.08 years]). The review did not identify any studies that assessed the clinical questions on: benefits of additional evaluation in cases of early thelarche, differentiation of slowly vs rapidly progressing CPP, order of biochemical testing to establish and monitor the diagnosis of CPP, genetic testing for individuals diagnosed with CPP, and chronological age and/or bone age for discontinuation of GnRHa treatment. Conclusion This systematic review addresses various aspects of CPP evaluation and treatment of CPP and will support the development of the Endocrine Society guidelines.

Background/Objective: Although most melanocytic lesions are diagnosed as benign or malignant by histopathologic evaluation, with or without the aid of immunohistochemistry, diagnosis may remain uncertain in a minority of cases. Assessment of copy number abnormalities (CNAs) may provide sufficient additional evidence to favor either a benign or malignant diagnosis in both pediatric and adult cases and in melanocytic lesions of various subtypes, including Spitzoid, mucosal, and acral. CNAs are common in melanomas, while they are rare, with few exceptions, in benign lesions. Detection of CNAs by fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) and chromosomal microarray (CMA) has been well established for melanocytic lesions, with advantages and disadvantages for each. The objective of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the utility of CNA testing for the diagnosis of melanoma, across subtypes, when a lesion remains ambiguous after histopathologic and immunohistochemical assessment. In addition, the utility of CNAs to determine prognosis in established diagnoses of melanoma was also evaluated. Methods: The Cancer Genomics Consortium Working Group for Melanocytic Lesions reviewed published data from January 1998 through September 2022 of CNAs in melanocytic lesions detected by either FISH or CMA and conducted a meta-analysis of the findings. Results: Specific abnormalities common in primary cutaneous melanomas of various subtypes and uveal melanomas were enumerated. Differences in CNAs found in primary versus metastatic lesions were also determined, and published evidence for prognosis was summarized. Conclusions: The working group established evidence-based recommendations for the use of CNA testing for evaluation of ambiguous melanocytic lesions.

Objective Posterior reversible encephalopathy syndrome (PRES) is a clinicoradiological diagnosis that can be associated with SLE. The clinical presentation, risk factors and outcomes of PRES in patients with SLE remain insufficiently described. Methods We conducted a multicentre cohort study at the Mayo Clinic and performed a systematic literature review (SLR) of patients with incident PRES and SLE. We described the clinical features, treatments and outcomes. Across both the cohort study and SLR, we assessed neurological sequelae, recurrence and survival. Within the cohort study, we examined PRES risk factors and discontinuation of antiseizure medications (ASMs). We used logistic regression to evaluate factors associated with neurological sequelae and Cox regression to assess predictors of recurrence. Kaplan-Meier methods estimated the rates of recurrence, survival and ASMs discontinuation. Results 550 cases (53 from the cohort study) were included, of whom 92% were female. Across both cohort and SLR, the most common symptom was seizure, occurring in 80%. PRES was the first manifestation of SLE in 13% of cases. In the adjusted analysis, older age was associated with neurological sequelae (OR 1.63 per 10-year increase; 95% CI 1.12 to 2.39). After 5 years of follow-up, 11.5% (95% CI 2.3 to 19.9%) of patients had a recurrent PRES episode. 30-day and 180-day survival following PRES was observed in 96.3% (95% CI 93.5 to 99.1%) and 93.7% (95% CI 89.8 to 97.7%) patients, respectively. In the Mayo Clinic cohort, 81% of PRES cases were attributed to hypertension in the context of lupus nephritis (LN), and by the fifth year of follow-up, 78.1% (95% CI 58.7 to 88.4%) of patients had discontinued ASMs. Conclusions In this cohort, most of the incident PRES episodes were preceded by hypertension and occurred in patients with LN. Although short-term and long-term prognoses are favourable, older patients more frequently experienced neurological sequelae.

Background: The use of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) for managing severe refractory chronic pain has expanded considerably due to positive statistical evidence regarding its use; however, the statistical robustness of the underlying randomized controlled trials (RCTs) requires further scrutiny. One such tool that can be used for this purpose is the fragility index, which quantifies how many individual outcome events must be altered for an outcome to lose statistical significance. Thus the index can be used quantitatively to assess the stability and robustness of an RCT’s conclusions, with higher values indicating increased trial stability. This study assesses the fragility of pain outcomes across RCTs investigating SCS for chronic pain to better understand the quality and robustness of evidence. Methods: A systematic search was conducted for RCTs assessing SCS for any chronic pain indication. The primary outcome was an evaluation of the trial-specific fragility index for the prespecified pain primary outcomes of RCTs. Secondary outcomes included an evaluation of fragility for (1) specified indications for SCS therapy, (2) reported pain outcomes appearing in three or more RCTs, (3) the presence/absence of a conflict of interest, and (4) comparisons of SCS to conservative management or different SCS waveform modalities. Results: A total of 30 RCTs were included. The median (interquartile range [IQR]) fragility index across the primary outcome of all trials was 5.45 (3.00 to 11.45). There was no statistical difference between the (1) types of outcomes (dichotomous vs. continuous; P = 0.710), (2) primary versus secondary pain outcomes ( P = 0.771), or (3) presence versus absence of trial conflict of interest ( P = 0.753). Indications with a median (IQR) fragility score greater than three included persistent spinal pain syndrome type 2 with a score of 8.00 (2.80 to 12.60), painful diabetic neuropathy with a score of 6.00 (3.00 to 11.80), complex regional pain syndrome with a score of 7.20 (4.62 to 81.50), mixed etiologies with a score of 9.00 (3.00 to 38.00), and other etiologies with a score of 3.00 (1.00 to 8.55). Conclusions: This study suggests that the majority of RCTs investigating primary pain outcomes after SCS therapy are robust with relatively high fragility scores. Reporting the fragility of outcomes in trials can provide a more comprehensive assessment of trial robustness and can further aid clinicians in interpreting trial results and making informed treatment decisions.

Background Peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS) has emerged as a promising neurostimulation modality, yet its effectiveness and durability for chronic pain remain uncertain. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate changes in pain intensity following implantable PNS therapy. Methods Eligible studies included adults (≥18 years) with chronic pain treated with an implantable PNS system, and pain intensity was assessed at baseline and follow-up time points. The primary outcome was change in pain intensity from baseline to 6 months after PNS implantation. Secondary outcomes included changes in pain intensity at 3, 12 and 24 months after PNS implantation. Standardized mean differences (Hedges’ g ) were pooled using a random-effects model. Results A total of 106 studies comprising 9272 patients were included. PNS was associated with large, statistically significant reductions in pain intensity from baseline to all time points: 3 months (Hedges’ g 2.92; 95% CI 2.62 to 3.21), 6 months (Hedges’ g 3.08; 95% CI 2.68 to 3.48), 12 months (Hedges’ g 2.68; 95% CI 2.30 to 3.05) and 24 months (Hedges’ g 2.08; 95% CI 1.68 to 2.48) (all p<0.001). However, the certainty of evidence as assessed by the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation criteria was rated as low for the primary outcome, due to pooling from observational studies, risk of bias, and heterogeneity (statistical, clinical and methodological). Subgroup analyses revealed no differences by study design or device type, while smaller effect sizes were reported in industry-funded studies and those with declared conflicts of interest. The largest effect sizes were observed in pelvic and upper extremity pain, whereas the smallest in truncal pain. Conclusion Implantable PNS provides persistent and clinically meaningful analgesia for chronic pain, with benefits sustained up to 24 months. These findings support broader clinical adoption and provide evidence to inform pay0r coverage and policy decisions.

Background and Aims: With rapid changes in the management landscape of chronic hepatitis B (CHB), this technical systematic review addresses 4 critical Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome (PICO) questions to provide guidance to the formulation of recommendations to the 2025 AASLD practice guideline for management of CHB. Approach: The review was reported in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. Outcomes were evaluated across 4 key PICOs: (1) antiviral therapy for prevention of horizontal HBV transmission in high-risk groups, (2) antiviral therapy versus observation for persons in the immune-tolerant phase, (3) discontinuation versus continuation of nucleos(t)ide analogue therapy in HBeAg-negative individuals with undetectable HBV DNA, and (4) hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) surveillance in non-cirrhotic individuals with HBsAg clearance or co-infections with HCV, HDV, or HIV. Results: For PICO 1, limited evidence suggests antiviral therapy may reduce horizontal transmission risk, though with low certainty. PICO 2 analyses reveal uncertain benefits of treating persons in the immune-tolerant phase, with very low certainty due to heterogeneity and bias. PICO 3 analyses demonstrate that discontinuing antiviral therapy in persons who are HBeAg negative with undetectable HBV DNA increases HBsAg loss rates (OR: 12.65, 95% CI: 1.58–101.51) but carries moderate risks of virologic relapse (OR: 47.17, 95% CI: 2.79–797.35) and clinical flares. PICO 4 analyses on several cohort studies showed that in patients co-infected with HCV, HBV, or HIV, the annual incidence of HCC was higher than the level where screening becomes cost-effective, suggesting that regular liver cancer screening could be beneficial for these patients. Conclusions: Despite low certainty, the findings support shared decision-making in high-risk horizontal transmission scenarios or in treating individuals in the immune tolerance phase, caution in discontinuing antiviral therapy in virologically suppressed individuals without HBsAg loss, and tailored HCC surveillance for those with co-infection or cirrhosis.

Abstract Objective Microscopic surgery assessment tools vary in objectivity and requirements for determining surgical proficiency. Artificial intelligence methods for objective microsurgical analysis have become more common, but their applications to mastoidectomy have not been reconciled with earlier efforts. This scoping review aimed to (1) compile and compare objective features and assessment targets of microscopic surgery analysis tools and (2) inform the development of a standardized annotation framework for mastoidectomy. Data Sources Ovid MEDLINE®, Embase (Ovid), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, Ovid), Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (Ovid), and Scopus. Review Methods A scoping review of English‐language, full‐text articles describing any objective analysis tool for microscopic surgery performed by participants of any level. Extracted data included procedure type, evaluation modality, and classification into five domains: checklist/rating‐based, instrument motion analysis, error identification, workflow modeling, and artificial intelligence‐assisted feedback. Results Of 2203 screened studies, 52 met the inclusion criteria across otolaryngology, ophthalmology, and neurological surgery. Manual assessments (n = 42, 80.8%) primarily used checklists, rating scales, or end‐product evaluations. Automated assessments (n = 10, 19.2%) incorporated motion tracking and artificial intelligence‐assisted feedback. Otolaryngology contributed 28 tools, 22 of which evaluated mastoidectomy, cochlear implantation, or temporal bone dissection. Virtual reality was the most commonly reported training platform (n = 13). Conclusion Although instrument tracking and artificial intelligence‐assisted feedback have been explored, evaluation of microscopic surgery remains largely manual and subjective, with limited adoption of automated assessment tools. The lack of a standardized framework for automated mastoidectomy assessment represents a potential area for future development.

ABSTRACT Background Bile acid diarrhoea, a common cause of diarrhoea‐predominant irritable bowel syndrome, has a similar prevalence to coeliac disease and inflammatory bowel diseases. The mainstay of treatment is bile acid sequestrants (BAS). The effectiveness of using bile acid‐targeted therapies remains unclear. Aim To compare BAS with placebo for bile acid diarrhoea. Methods We conducted a systematic review and meta‐analysis of randomised controlled trials comparing BAS to placebo using a comprehensive search of databases from inception to 8/1/2023. Inclusion required unequivocal diagnosis using serum or faecal biochemical parameters, or 75 SeHCAT. Co‐primary endpoints were ≥ 30% improvement in bowel movement consistency and frequency averaged over 7 days. Adverse effects were also summarised. Results Database search resulted in 1152 citations; 1 additional study was added. Ultimately, 6 trials (5 parallel arm, 1 crossover) involving 182 participants evaluated the effectiveness of BAS over 1–8 weeks. Participants were between the third and seventh decades of life and mostly female. The risk of bias was low except in one parallel and one crossover trial. Meta‐analysis of parallel‐design trials of sequestrants only showed a clinically significant reduction in stool consistency and frequency with pooled relative risks of 1.50 (95% CI: 1.14–1.96) and 2.80 (95% CI: 1.68–4.67), respectively. There was no observable heterogeneity ( I 2 = 0%), and the certainty of evidence was moderate. There was no statistically significant difference in adverse effects. Conclusions This study quantifies the significant and rapid improvement in both stool consistency and frequency with BAS in patients with objective diagnosis of bile acid diarrhoea. Sequestrants also appear well tolerated.