Erwin, Patricia J.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVESHigh‐flow nasal cannula (HFNC) oxygen may provide tailored benefits in patients with preset treatment limitations. The objective of this study was to assess the effectiveness of HFNC oxygen in patients with do‐not‐intubate (DNI) and/or do‐not‐resuscitate (DNR) orders.METHODSWe conducted a systematic review of interventional and observational studies. A search was performed using MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Scopus, and Web of Science, from inception to October 15, 2018.RESULTSWe included six studies evaluating 293 patients. All studies had a high risk of bias. The hospital mortality rates of patients with DNI and/or DNR orders receiving HFNC oxygen were variable and ranged from 40% to 87%. In two before and after studies, the initiation of HFNC oxygen was associated with improved oxygenation and reduced respiratory rates. One comparative study found no difference in dyspnea reduction or morphine doses between patients using HFNC oxygen versus conventional oxygen. No studies evaluated quality of life in survivors or quality of death in nonsurvivors. HFNC was generally well tolerated with few adverse events identified.CONCLUSIONSWhile HFNC oxygen remains a viable treatment option for hospitalized patients who have acute respiratory failure and a DNI and/or DNR order, there is a paucity of high‐quality, comparative, effectiveness data to guide the usage of HFNC oxygen compared with other treatments, such as noninvasive ventilation, conventional oxygen, and palliative opioids.

Objectives Treatment burden is the workload of healthcare for people with long-term conditions (LTC) and its impact on well-being. A method of measurement is required to identify those experiencing high burden and to measure intervention efficacy. Our aim was to identify, examine and appraise validated patient-reported measures (PRMs) of treatment burden in stroke. Here, stroke serves as an exemplar LTC of older adults. Design A systematic review of published studies that describe the development and validation of PRMs measuring treatment burden in stroke survivors. Data sources We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and PsycINFO electronic databases. Eligibility criteria Studies published between January 2000 and 12 April 2019 inclusive, in English language. No restrictions were set based on clinical setting or geographical location. Data extraction and synthesis Screening, data extraction and quality appraisal were conducted by two independent reviewers. Content of the PRMs was compared with a published taxonomy of treatment burden. Quality appraisal was conducted using International Society for Quality of Life Research standards. Results From 3993 articles, 6 relevant PRMs were identified: 3 were stroke specific: The Satisfaction with Stroke Care questionnaire; The Stroke Patient-Reported Outcome Measure and The Barriers to Physical Activity after Stroke scale. Three were generic but validated in stroke: The WHO Quality of Life-100; The Patient’s Questionnaire on Participation in Discharge Planning and The Chao Perception of Continuity scale. None comprehensively measured treatment burden. Examples of omitted burdens included developing coping strategies, managing finances and returning to driving. The most notable issue regarding quality appraisal was that three PRMs lacked any underpinning qualitative research relevant to the sample. Conclusion There is a need to develop a comprehensive PRM of treatment burden for use in stroke, with potential for use in other older populations.

Introduction There is a considerable implementation gap in managing early stage chronic kidney disease (CKD) in primary care despite the high prevalence and risk for increased morbidity and mortality associated with CKD. This systematic review aims to synthesise the evidence of efficacy of implementation interventions aimed at primary care practitioners (PCPs) to improve CKD identification and management. We further aim to describe the interventions’ behavioural change components. Methods and analysis We will conduct a systematic review of studies from 2000 to October 2017 that evaluate implementation interventions targeting PCPs and which include at least one clinically meaningful CKD outcome. We will search several electronic data bases and conduct reference mining of related systematic reviews and publications. An interdisciplinary team will independently and in duplicate, screen publications, extract data and assess the risk of bias. Clinical outcomes will include all clinically meaningful medical management outcomes relevant to CKD management in primary care such as blood pressure, chronic heart disease and diabetes target achievements. Quantitative evidence synthesis will be performed, where possible. Planned subgroup analyses include by (1) study design, (2) length of follow-up, (3) type of intervention, (4) type of implementation strategy, (5) whether a behavioural or implementation theory was used to guide study, (6) baseline CKD severity, (7) patient minority status, (8) study location and (9) academic setting or not. Ethics and dissemination Approval by research ethics board is not required since the review will only include published and publicly accessible data. Review findings will inform a future trial of an intervention to promote uptake of CKD diagnosis and treatment guidelines in our primary care setting and the development of complementary tools to support its successful adoption and implementation. We will publish our findings in a peer-reviewed journal and develop accessible summaries of the results. PROSPERO registration number CRD42018102441.

Background and objectives Dialysis is a preference-sensitive decision where prognosis may play an important role. Although patients desire risk prediction, nephrologists are wary of sharing this information. We reviewed the performance of prognostic indices for patients starting dialysis to facilitate bedside translation. Design, setting, participants, & measurements Systematic review and meta-analysis following the PRISMA guidelines. We searched Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, Ovid Central Register of Controlled Trials, Ovid Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Scopus for eligible studies of patients starting dialysis published from inception to December 31, 2018. Selection Criteria: Articles describing validated prognostic indices predicting mortality at the start of dialysis. We excluded studies limited to prevalent dialysis patients, AKI and studies excluding mortality in the first 1–3 months. Two reviewers independently screened abstracts, performed full text assessment of inclusion criteria and extracted: study design, setting, population demographics, index performance and risk of bias. Pre-planned random effects meta-analysis was performed stratified by index and predictive window to reduce heterogeneity. Results Of 12,132 articles screened and 214 reviewed in full text, 36 studies were included describing 32 prognostic indices. Predictive windows ranged from 3 months to 10 years, cohort sizes from 46 to 52,796. Meta-analysis showed discrimination area under the curve (AUC) of 0.71 (95% confidence interval, 0.69 to 073) with high heterogeneity ( I 2 =99.12). Meta-analysis by index showed highest AUC for The Obi, Ivory, and Charlson comorbidity index (CCI)=0.74, also CCI was the most commonly used (ten studies). Other commonly used indices were Kahn-Wright index (eight studies, AUC 0.68), Hemmelgarn modification of the CCI (six studies, AUC 0.66) and REIN index (five studies, AUC 0.69). Of the indices, ten have been validated externally, 16 internally and nine were pre-existing validated indices. Limitations include heterogeneity and exclusion of large cohort studies in prevalent patients. Conclusions Several well validated indices with good discrimination are available for predicting survival at dialysis start.

Abstract Background The use of mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) in clinical applications for the treatment of musculoskeletal disease is steadily increasing in office-based practice. The so-called “first generation” of MSCs is defined as autologous stem cells that have undergone minimal manipulation and are used for a homologous purpose. Systematic reviews of the clinical trials completed to date of such MSCs enable practitioners to better understand what is currently known about the outcomes and side effects of such treatments. Study Design A systematic review of human clinical studies of office-based MSC therapy for the treatment of painful degenerative musculoskeletal conditions. Methods A search of the Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Scopus databases was conducted from 2006 through September 2016. Seven hundred sixty-one records were identified from database searching, and two records from reference review of included papers. Studies with human subjects that evaluated treatment of musculoskeletal disease with minimally manipulated MSCs were included. Results Eight studies were included in this review based on selection criteria. A total of 941 patients were included, 841 of whom received cellular products, and no significant adverse events were reported. Symptomatology generally improved, though no differences were seen over controls where present. Conclusion Support in the literature is strongest for the use of bone marrow aspirate concentrate (BMAC) injections for the treatment of knee pain, but applications of the use of BMAC and peripheral blood–derived MSCs for the treatment of hip pain, tendon pain, and disc pain have all been reported. Further research is required, with large randomized controlled trials.

Background Bedside rounds (BR) have been proposed as an ideal method to promote patient-centred hospital care, but there is substantial variation in their implementation and effects. Our objectives were to describe the implementation of BR in hospital settings and determine their effect on patient-centred outcomes. Methods Data sources included Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, Scopus and Ovid Cochrane Central Registry of Clinical Trials from database inception through 28 July 2017. We included experimental studies comparing BR to another form of rounds in a hospital-based setting (ie, medical/surgical unit, intensive care unit (ICU)) and reporting a quantitative patient-reported or objectively measured clinical outcome. We used random effects models to calculate pooled Cohen's d effect size estimates for the patient knowledge and patient experience outcome domains. Results Twenty-nine studies met inclusion criteria, including 20 from adult care (17 non-ICU, 3 ICU), and nine from paediatrics (5 non-ICU, 4 ICU), the majority of which (n=23) were conducted in the USA. Thirteen studies implemented BR with cointerventions as part of a ‘bundle’. Studies most commonly reported outcomes in the domains of patient experience (n=24) and patient knowledge (n=10). We found a small, statistically significant improvement in patient experience with BR (summary Cohen’s d=0.09, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.14, p<0.001, I2=56%), but no significant association between BR and patient knowledge (Cohen’s d=0.21, 95% CI −0.004 to –0.43, p=0.054, I2=92%). Risk of bias was moderate to high, with methodological limitations most often relating to selective reporting, low adherence rates and missing data. Conclusions BR have been implemented in a variety of hospital settings, often ‘bundled’ with cointerventions. However, BR have demonstrated limited effect on patient-centred outcomes.

Background The relationship between delayed gastric emptying and upper GI symptoms (UGI Sx) is controversial. Objective To assess association between gastric emptying and UGI Sx, independent of treatment. Design We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature from 2007 to 2017, review of references and additional papers identified by content expert. We included studies evaluating the association between gastric emptying and nausea, vomiting, early satiety/postprandial fullness, abdominal pain and bloating. Covariate analyses included optimal gastric emptying test method, gastric emptying type (breath test or scintigraphy) and patient category. Meta-regression compared the differences based on type of gastric emptying tests. Results Systematic review included 92 gastric emptying studies (26 breath test, 62 scintigraphy, 1 ultrasound and 3 wireless motility capsule); 25 of these studies provided quantitative data for meta-analysis (15 scintigraphy studies enrolling 4056 participants and 10 breath test studies enrolling 2231 participants). Meta-regression demonstrated a significant difference between optimal and suboptimal gastric emptying test methods when comparing delayed gastric emptying with nausea and vomiting. On evaluating studies using optimal gastric emptying test methodology, there were significant associations between gastric emptying and nausea (OR 1.6, 95% CI 1.4 to 1.8), vomiting (OR 2.0, 95% CI 1.6 to 2.7), abdominal pain (OR 1.5, 95% CI 1.0 to 2.2 ) and early satiety/fullness (OR 1.8, 95% CI 1.2 to 2.6) for patients with UGI Sx; gastric emptying and early satiety/fullness in patients with diabetes; gastric emptying and nausea in patients with gastroparesis. Conclusions The systematic review and meta-analysis supports an association between optimally measured delayed gastric emptying and UGI Sx.

BackgroundReplacing sitting with standing is one of several recommendations to decrease sedentary time and increase the daily energy expenditure, but the difference in energy expenditure between standing versus sitting has been controversial. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to determine this difference.Designs and methodsWe searched Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase Scopus, Web of Science and Google Scholar for observational and experimental studies that compared the energy expenditure of standing versus sitting. We calculated mean differences and 95% confidence intervals using a random effects model. We conducted different predefined subgroup analyses based on characteristics of participants and study design.ResultsWe identified 658 studies and included 46 studies with 1184 participants for the final analysis. The mean difference in energy expenditure between sitting and standing was 0.15 kcal/min (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.12–0.17). The difference among women was 0.1 kcal/min (95% CI 0.0–0.21), and was 0.19 kcal/min (95% CI 0.05–0.33) in men. Observational studies had a lower difference in energy expenditure (0.11 kcal/min, 95% CI 0.08–0.14) compared to randomised trials (0.2 kcal/min, 95% CI 0.12–0.28). By substituting sitting with standing for 6 hours/day, a 65 kg person will expend an additional 54 kcal/day. Assuming no increase in energy intake, this difference in energy expenditure would be translated into the energy content of about 2.5 kg of body fat mass in 1 year.ConclusionsThe substitution of sitting with standing could be a potential solution for a sedentary lifestyle to prevent weight gain in the long term. Future studies should aim to assess the effectiveness and feasibility of this strategy.