Citations

Motility disorders, particularly gastroparesis, are prevalent complications following solid organ transplantation, significantly impacting quality of life, nutritional status, graft survival, and mortality. This comprehensive review synthesises evidence from PubMed, Scopus, and Embase databases on pathophysiology, clinical manifestations, diagnosis, management, and prognostic factors across transplant types. Mechanisms include vagal nerve injury (highest in lung transplants, prevalence 40–91%), immunosuppressive effects (e.g., tacrolimus accelerates motility; mycophenolate impairs it), surgical trauma, microbiome dysbiosis (reduced Firmicutes/Bacteroidetes ratio), and metabolic factors like post-transplant diabetes (OR 5.17 in kidney recipients). Pediatric and thoracic recipients face the highest risks, with lung transplant gastroparesis conferring a 2.7-fold increased mortality/retransplantation hazard (p < 0.05). Diagnosis relies on gastric emptying scintigraphy (gold standard, sensitivity 85–95%) and wireless motility capsules (100% sensitivity for delay), while management encompasses prokinetics (60–80% response), endoscopic G-POEM (85% success), gastric electrical stimulation (100% quality-of-life improvement in series), and nutritional support. Prognostic factors include younger age (better intervention response), aetiology (anatomical worse than metabolic), and early therapy success. Outcomes vary: lung recipients experience severe impacts on chronic allograft dysfunction (83% oesophageal motility abnormalities correlate with 66–67% rejection). Future directions emphasise microbiome therapies, AI predictive models (AUC 0.85), and wearables for continuous monitoring. Multidisciplinary approaches are essential to balance immunosuppression with GI management, addressing ethical dilemmas like drug interactions and access disparities. Ultimately, early screening and personalised interventions can mitigate complications, enhancing long-term transplant success.

ABSTRACT The American Society for Apheresis (ASFA) Attending Physician Subcommittee of the Physicians' Committee performed an annual review of articles published in 2024 related to apheresis medicine. The 10 seminal apheresis articles selected by the subcommittee members are summarized in this review. PubMed was used to identify manuscripts published in 2024 in four areas of interest: donor apheresis, therapeutic apheresis, apheresis education, and apheresis for cellular therapy. Only full length, peer‐reviewed manuscripts in English with data from human subjects were included. Case reports, review articles, and meta‐analyses were excluded. Articles were considered seminal if they met at least one of the following previously established criteria: novel finding(s), practice‐altering outcomes, international in scope, randomized‐controlled trial, relevant to current clinical practice, and/or provide evidence for category III or IV indications based on the ASFA 9th special issue of the Guidelines on the Use of Therapeutic Apheresis in Clinical Practice‐Evidence‐Based Approach.

Abstract INTRODUCTION The Genetic Frontotemporal Initiative (GENFI) and Advancing Research and Treatment in Frontotemporal Lobar Degeneration (ARTFL)‐Longitudinal Evaluation of Familial Frontotemporal Dementia Subjects (LEFFTDS) Longitudinal Frontotemporal Lobar Degeneration Study (ALLFTD) consortia developed Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR)‐derived scales with a motor domain to overcome systematic underestimation of disease severity by the CDR. We calculated disease severity scores using these scales in a mixed neurodegenerative cohort and correlated them with objective motor measures. METHODS The CDR plus National Alzheimer's Coordinating Center (NACC) Frontotemporal Lobar Degeneration (FTLD), CDR + NACC FTLD‐M (Motor), and Multidomain Impairment Rating (MIR) scores and motor measures were determined and correlated in 242 participants. RESULTS Both CDR + NACC FTLD‐M and MIR showed increased disease severity scores and correlated with motor measures. These findings were held in 81 amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) participants and correlated with the Revised Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Functional Rating Scale. Including a motor domain required fewer study participants in a simulated clinical trial sample size calculation. DISCUSSION With a motor domain, CDR + NACC FTLD‐M and MIR improve disease severity classification and correlate with quantitative motor assessments. This addition more fully captures the extent of symptoms across the FTD‐ALS spectrum and improves clinical trial efficiency. Highlights CDR + NACC FTLD‐M and MIR strongly correlate with objective motor measures. The enhanced scales improve disease severity classification in FTD and ALS. Greater clinical trial efficiency is achieved using these enhanced scales.

Background Outcome selection in regional anesthesia and acute pain research is inconsistent, often lacking patient-centered priorities and validated instruments. We aimed to prioritize key outcomes and propose suitable measurement tools to improve the quality, consistency, and relevance of regional anesthesia research. Methods We conducted a multiround Delphi process, including two electronic voting rounds, a multiday in-person meeting, and a patient panel. Experts and patients evaluated existing and proposed outcomes for importance, validity, and relevance. Outcomes reaching ≥70% agreement were prioritized, and appropriate measurement instruments were identified. Results Thirty-two experts and three patients participated. Across three Delphi rounds, 10 outcomes were prioritized for future regional anesthesia research: seven efficacy outcomes (pain scores; opioid consumption; Brief Pain Inventory; functional outcomes; cognitive function; length of stay; block duration); two multidimensional outcomes (quality of recovery and development of a regional anesthesia-specific quality-of-recovery instrument); one safety outcome (chronic postsurgical pain). Patients prioritized cognitive recovery, function, chronic pain, and pain scores. Conclusions This consensus-based, patient-centered framework defines the core priorities for future regional anesthesia and acute pain research. Future work should focus on developing and validating a regional anesthesia-specific quality-of-recovery instrument, refining multidimensional measures such as functional recovery, cognitive outcomes, and the Brief Pain Inventory, and standardizing the reporting of chronic pain and opioid-related outcomes. Adoption of these priorities will enhance methodological consistency, comparability, and patient relevance in future clinical trials.

Abstract Importance Voice-based health technologies are growing rapidly, but they lack standardized terminology, which hinders interdisciplinary collaboration, research quality, and clinical translation. Objective The objective of this work is to develop universally accepted definitions in the rapidly evolving field of vocal biomarkers, as part of the VOCAL ( V ocal Biomarker Guidelines for O ntology, C lassification, A pplication, and L ogistics) initiative, a structured, international consensus-based framework that aims to provide standards, and guidelines. Design VOCAL is a rigorous, international, multi-stage consensus-building study conducted in 2024-2025. Setting Multi-institutional collaboration between representatives from the Bridge2AI-Voice Consortium (North America) and the eVoiceNet Network (European Union), culminating in an in-person workshop at the 2025 Bridge2AI Voice Symposium. Participants A group of 24 international experts in medicine, clinical research, speech and language, audio signal processing, statistics, methodology, regulation, ethics. Methods VOCAL’s iterative process involved five rounds of review, feedback, and an in-person workshop at the international 2025 Bridge2AI Voice Symposium, ensuring the incorporation of diverse perspectives and achieving a robust agreement on the proposed definitions. Main outcomes and measures Consensus-based definitions for vocal biomarkers, spanning from broad concepts (biomarker, digital biomarker, vocal biomarker) to domain-specific measures (cardio-respiratory acoustic, voice, speech/articulatory, cognitive/language). Results A hierarchical continuum model of vocal biomarkers was established. We first distinguished between the concepts of vocal measures and vocal biomarkers. We then defined terms from broad, overarching concepts (Level 0: Biomarker, Digital Biomarker, Vocal Biomarker) to more specific physiological and cognitive domains (Level 1: Cardio-Respiratory Acoustic; Level 2: Voice; Level 3: Speech/Articulatory; Level 4: Cognitive/Language, including linguistic and paralinguistic subtypes). Conclusions and Relevance This work provides a shared vocabulary that is essential for fostering communication through interdisciplinary collaboration, improving the quality and efficiency of research and development, and ensuring the ethical, reliable, and scalable deployment of future voice-based health technologies. It lays foundational groundwork for upcoming guidelines and standards, which are crucial for advancing the field of vocal biomarkers into widespread clinical utility. Key points Question Can we establish an international consensus on the definitions related to vocal biomarkers? Findings Through a multi-stage international consensus process involving expert representatives from the Bridge2AI-Voice Consortium and eVoiceNet Network, a hierarchical model of vocal biomarkers was developed, defining terms from broad concepts (biomarker, digital biomarker, vocal biomarker) to specific physiological and cognitive domains (cardio-respiratory acoustic, voice, speech/articulatory, cognitive/language). Meaning Standardized definitions for vocal biomarkers provide an essential shared vocabulary for interdisciplinary collaboration and lay the foundational groundwork for future guidelines needed to advance the implementation of voice-based health technologies into clinical practice and clinical research.

Background: The incidence of lymphedema may be as high as 65% among breast cancer patients, varying according to the diagnostic method and locoregional treatment. Therefore, investigations of preventive methods are highly welcomed. Our goal was to conduct a systematic review of the literature about the use of axillary reverse mapping to prevent lymphedema during breast cancer treatment. We hypothesized that identification of arm-draining lymph nodes may decrease the incidence of lymphedema. Methods: On October 7, 2019, we conducted a systematic review of studies in PubMed, Cochrane Clinical Answers, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, without time frame or language limitations, on the use of axillary reverse mapping to prevent lymphedema during breast cancer treatment. We excluded articles that investigated other uses of lymphoscintigraphy, such as lymphedema diagnosis or treatment evaluation. Results: Of 104 potential articles found in the literature, 5 studies fulfilled the eligibility criteria. A total of 501 patients were included. Reverse mapping was done with radiography or single-photon emission computed tomography/computed tomography. Moreover, the examination was applied with different treatments, such as axillary lymph node dissection or radiotherapy, allowing preservation of noncompromised lymph nodes. Axillary reverse mapping also had prognostic value and was used with sentinel lymph node biopsy to identify patients at higher risk for lymphedema. Only one study compared the incidence of lymphedema between patients who received standard care or reverse mapping, showing significant benefits of its use. Conclusions: Use of axillary reverse mapping to prevent lymphedema is feasible and seems to provide valuable information for breast cancer treatment. Future studies that compare reverse mapping and standard care are still necessary.

Introduction Implementation science research increases the uptake of evidence-based interventions, which may improve health equity among racial and ethnic minorities. However, it is unclear how anti-racism and anti-colonialism practices have been integrated into implementation science research. The objectives of this scoping review are to describe the current conceptualisations of racism and colonialism within the USA, examine racism or colonialism-conscious approaches and analyse gaps in the operationalisation of anti-racism or anti-colonialism within implementation science studies. Methods and analysis This scoping review will be conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses extension for scoping reviews guidelines. The Center for Chronic Disease Reduction and Equity Promotion Across Minnesota conceptual framework and an implementation science anti-racism lens will guide the study design and analysis. To determine study eligibility for the scoping review, articles will undergo abstract and full-text screening by two independent reviewers and discrepancies will be settled together. Data charting will be extracted from included articles by eight independent reviewers. The search strategy will use controlled vocabulary and natural language keywords related to health equity, health disparities and anti-racism/colonialism on six databases. The scoping review will include studies that applied implementation science theories, models or frameworks among US-based populations. Additionally, included studies will report any of the following implementation activities: implementation strategies, implementation outcomes, adaptations to evidence-based interventions, or evaluations of pre-implementation or implementation context. Ethics and dissemination No ethical approval was required for the scoping review. Dissemination will be through publication in a peer-reviewed journal and conference presentations.