Citations

AbstractPurposeTo prospectively assess acute differences in patient‐reported outcomes in bowel and urinary domains between intensity‐modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and proton beam therapy (PBT) for prostate cancer.Methods and MaterialsBowel function (BF), urinary irritative/obstructive symptoms (UO), and urinary incontinence (UI) domains of EPIC‐26 were collected in patients with T1‐T2 prostate cancer receiving IMRT or PBT at a tertiary cancer center (2015‐2018). Mean changes in domain scores were analyzed from pretreatment to the end of and 3 months post‐radiotherapy for each modality. A clinically meaningful change was defined as a score change >50% of the baseline standard deviation.ResultsA total of 157 patients receiving IMRT and 105 receiving PBT were included. There were no baseline differences in domain scores between cohorts. At the end of radiotherapy, there was significant and clinically meaningful worsening of BF and UO scores for patients receiving either modality. In the BF domain, the IMRT cohort experienced greater decrement (−13.0 vs −6.7, P < .01), and had a higher proportion of patients with clinically meaningful reduction (58.4% vs 39.5%, P = .01), compared to PBT. At 3 months post‐radiotherapy, the IMRT group had significant and clinically meaningful worsening of BF (−9.3, P < .001), whereas the change in BF score of the PBT cohort was no longer significant or clinically meaningful (−1.2, P = .25). There were no significant or clinically meaningful changes in UO or UI 3 months post‐radiotherapy.ConclusionsPBT had less acute decrement in BF than IMRT following radiotherapy. There was no difference between the two modalities in UO and UI.

Background. Participant withdrawal from clinical trials occurs for various reasons, predominantly adverse effects or intervention inefficacy. Because these missing participant data can have implications for the validity, reproducibility, and generalizability of study results, when conducting a systematic review, it is important to collect and appropriately analyze missing data information to assess its effects on the robustness of the study results. Methods. In this methodologic survey of missing participant data reporting and handling in systematic reviews, we included meta-analyses that provided pooled estimates of at least 1 dichotomous intervention outcome of a randomized controlled trial performed in adult kidney transplant subjects. Results. Eighty-three systematic reviews (17 Cochrane and 66 non-Cochrane reviews) met the inclusion criteria. The most common intervention was drugs (80%), with the majority involving immunosuppressant drugs 55% (n = 46), followed by surgery in 14% (n = 12). The median follow-up duration was 12 months (maximum, 240 mo). Intention-to-treat or modified intention-to-treat analysis was reported in 24% (n = 20) of the reviews (76% of Cochrane and 10% of non-Cochrane). Overall, the majority of systematic reviews did not quantify (90% [n = 60] non-Cochrane and 29% [n = 5] Cochrane) or include the reasons for missing participant data (88% [n = 58] non-Cochrane and 24% [n = 4] Cochrane). Eleven percent (n = 9) handled missing participant data, 5% (n = 4) justified the analytical method(s) used to handle it, and 2% (n = 2) performed a sensitivity analysis for it. Conclusions. Systematic reviews of kidney transplantation provide inadequate information on missing participant data and usually do not handle or discuss the associated risk of bias with it.

AbstractBackgroundWhile parenchymal hepatic metastases were previously considered a contraindication to cytoreductive surgery (CRS) and heated intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC), liver resection (LR) is increasingly performed with CRS/HIPEC.MethodsPatients from the US HIPEC Collaborative (2000–2017) with invasive appendiceal or colorectal adenocarcinoma undergoing primary, curative intent CRS/HIPEC with CC0‐1 resection were included. LR was defined as a formal parenchymal resection. Primary endpoints were postoperative complications and overall survival (OS).ResultsA total of 658 patients were included. About 83 (15%) underwent LR of colorectal (58%) or invasive appendiceal (42%) metastases. LR patients had more complications (81% vs. 60%; p = .001), greater number of complications (2.3 vs. 1.5; p < .001) per patient and required more reoperations (22% vs. 11%; p = .007) and readmissions (39% vs. 25%; p = .014) than non‐LR patients. LR patients had decreased OS (2‐year OS 62% vs. 79%, p < .001), even when accounting for peritoneal carcinomatosis index and histology type. Preoperative factors associated with decreased OS on multivariable analysis in LR patients included age < 60 years (HR, 3.61; 95% CI, 1.10–11.81), colorectal histology (HR, 3.84; 95% CI, 1.69–12.65), and multiple liver tumors (HR, 3.45; 95% CI, 1.21–9.85) (all p < .05). When assigning one point for each factor, there was an incremental decrease in 2‐year survival as the risk score increased from 0 to 3 (0: 100%; 1: 91%; 2: 58%; 3: 0%).ConclusionsAs CRS/HIPEC + LR has become more common, we created a simple risk score to stratify patients considered for CRS/HIPEC + LR. These data aid in striking the balance between an increased perioperative complication profile with the potential for improvement in OS.

While numerous guidelines for the prescription of physical activity are released each year, the quality and practicability of these guidelines is unknown. We assessed the quality of 95 guidance documents published since 2000 that included recommendations about physical activity for the promotion of general health and prevention of cardiometabolic disease. We used 3 tools: Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE II), the National Academy of Medicine’s (NAM) Standards for Trustworthy Clinical Practice Guidelines, and the Frequency, Intensity, Time, and Type (FITT) score. Average AGREE II domain scores ranged from 38%−84%, and the portion of criteria fulfilled per NAM domain ranged from 7%–39%. The average FITT score for all recommendations was 2.48 out of 4. While guidelines improved according to both AGREE II and the NAM standards over time, their practicability as assessed by FITT score did not improve. Guidelines produced by governmental agencies or other nonprofit organizations, using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach, or fulfilling a higher number of NAM criteria tended to be of higher quality. Organizations producing physical activity guidelines can improve their quality by establishing and reporting processes for public representation, external review, and conflict of interest (COI) management. Future recommendations about physical activity should be more specific and include strategies to improve implementation. Registration no.: PROSPERO CRD42019126364. Novelty: Most physical activity recommendations are not sufficiently specific to be practically implemented. The overall quality of guidelines has improved over time, but the specificity of recommendations has not. Improved public representation, external review, and COI disclosure and management processes would improve guideline quality.

Abstract Background The availability of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) serologic testing has rapidly increased. Current assays use a variety of technologies, measure different classes of immunoglobulin or immunoglobulin combinations, and detect antibodies directed against different portions of the virus. The overall accuracy of these tests, however, has not been well defined. The Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) convened an expert panel to perform a systematic review of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) serology literature and construct best-practice guidance related to SARS-CoV-2 serologic testing. This guideline is the fourth in a series of rapid, frequently updated COVID-19 guidelines developed by IDSA. Objective IDSA’s goal was to develop evidence-based recommendations that assist clinicians, clinical laboratories, patients, and policymakers in decisions related to the optimal use of SARS-CoV-2 serologic tests in a variety of settings. We also highlight important unmet research needs pertaining to the use of anti–SARS-CoV-2 antibody tests for diagnosis, public health surveillance, vaccine development, and the selection of convalescent plasma donors. Methods A multidisciplinary panel of infectious diseases clinicians, clinical microbiologists, and experts in systematic literature review identified and prioritized clinical questions related to the use of SARS-CoV-2 serologic tests. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology was used to assess the certainty of evidence and make testing recommendations. Results The panel agreed on 8 diagnostic recommendations. Conclusions Information on the clinical performance and utility of SARS-CoV-2 serologic tests is rapidly emerging. Based on available evidence, detection of anti–SARS-CoV-2 antibodies may be useful for confirming the presence of current or past infection in selected situations. The panel identified 3 potential indications for serologic testing, including (1) evaluation of patients with a high clinical suspicion for COVID-19 when molecular diagnostic testing is negative and ≥2 weeks have passed since symptom onset, (2) assessment of multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children, and (3) conducting serosurveillance studies. The certainty of available evidence supporting the use of serology for either diagnosis or epidemiology was, however, graded as very low to moderate. For the most updated version of these guidelines, please go to https://www.idsociety.org/covid19guidelines.

Background. Early diagnosis of cerebral venous sinus thrombosis (CVST) associated with reproductive health-related risk factors (RHRF) including pregnancy, puerperium, and oral contraceptive (OC) use can prevent severe neurological sequelae; thus, the symptoms must be documented in detail for each group. Methods. Out of 1144 patients with CVST, a total of 777 women were enrolled from a multicenter for the study of cerebral venous sinus thrombosis (VENOST). Demographic, biochemical, clinical, and radiological aspects were compared for 324 cases with RHRF and 453 cases without RHRF. Results. The mean age of the RHRF (-) group (43.2 ± 13 years) was significantly higher than of the RHRF (+) group (34±9 years). A previous history of deep venous thrombosis (3%), isolated cavernous sinus involvement (1%), cranial neuropathy (13%), comorbid malignancy (7%), and its disability scores after 12 months (9%) were significantly higher in the RHRF (-) group. The RHRF (+) group consisted of 44% cases of puerperium, 33% cases of OC users and 23% of pregnant women. The mean age was found to be higher in OC users (38±9 years). A previous history of deep venous thrombosis was slightly higher in the pregnancy subgroup (4%). Epileptic seizures were more common in the puerperium group (44%). Conclusion. The results of our study indicate that the risk of CSVT increases parallel to age, OC use, and puerperium period. In addition, when considering the frequency of findings and symptoms, epileptic seizures in the puerperium subgroup of the RHRF (+) group and malignancies in the RHRF (-) group may accompany the CSVT. In daily practice, predicting these risks for the CSVT and early recognition of the symptoms will provide significant benefits to patients.

Background While there is a long history of measuring death and disability from injuries, modern research methods must account for the wide spectrum of disability that can occur in an injury, and must provide estimates with sufficient demographic, geographical and temporal detail to be useful for policy makers. The Global Burden of Disease (GBD) 2017 study used methods to provide highly detailed estimates of global injury burden that meet these criteria. Methods In this study, we report and discuss the methods used in GBD 2017 for injury morbidity and mortality burden estimation. In summary, these methods included estimating cause-specific mortality for every cause of injury, and then estimating incidence for every cause of injury. Non-fatal disability for each cause is then calculated based on the probabilities of suffering from different types of bodily injury experienced. Results GBD 2017 produced morbidity and mortality estimates for 38 causes of injury. Estimates were produced in terms of incidence, prevalence, years lived with disability, cause-specific mortality, years of life lost and disability-adjusted life-years for a 28-year period for 22 age groups, 195 countries and both sexes. Conclusions GBD 2017 demonstrated a complex and sophisticated series of analytical steps using the largest known database of morbidity and mortality data on injuries. GBD 2017 results should be used to help inform injury prevention policy making and resource allocation. We also identify important avenues for improving injury burden estimation in the future.

Abstract Real-time location systems (RTLS) such as radio frequency identification (RFID) have been shown to improve safety, save cost, and increase patient satisfaction in a healthcare setting especially in the emergency department (ED). Hospital administrators have realized the potential of these applications for improved workflow and operations and are positively adopting it despite the substantial implementation costs of such technologies. Our group has reported several studies with RFID data in the ED showing the relationship between RFID determined patient contact times and length of stay (LOS). In this study, we use ED RFID data to determine the relationship between the total LOS in ED to the overall patient satisfaction obtained from a survey report. ED survey results from 35 questions were obtained from patients after discharge. An observational cohort study was performed in the ED using RFID data from Jan 1 – Dec 31, 2017 matched with the ED survey participants. A total of 2595 survey data was used for logistic regression analysis with the RFID data. Results show that higher treatment LOS influenced overall patient satisfaction negatively. The results provide new insights into designing ideal patient-care team interactions to reduce overall LOS while providing optimal ED care, thereby improving patient satisfaction.

Abstract Background Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is a highly transmissible virus that can infect healthcare personnel (HCP) and patients in healthcare settings. Specific care activities, in particular, aerosol-generating procedures, may have a higher risk of transmission. The rapid emergence and global spread of SARS-CoV-2 has created significant challenges in healthcare facilities, particularly with severe shortages of personal protective equipment (PPE) used to protect HCP. Evidence-based recommendations for what PPE to use in conventional, contingency, and crisis standards of care are needed. Where evidence is lacking, the development of specific research questions can help direct funders and investigators. Objective Our objective was to develop evidence-based rapid guidelines intended to support HCP in their decisions about infection prevention when caring for patients with suspected or known coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Methods The Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) formed a multidisciplinary guideline panel that included front-line clinicians, infectious diseases specialists, experts in infection control, and guideline methodologists with representation from the disciplines of preventive care, public health, medical microbiology, pediatrics, critical care medicine, and gastroenterology. The process followed a rapid recommendation checklist. The panel prioritized questions and outcomes. Then, a systematic review of the peer-reviewed and gray literature was conducted. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach was used to assess the certainty of evidence and make recommendations. Results The IDSA guideline panel agreed on 8 recommendations and provided narrative summaries of other interventions undergoing evaluations. Conclusions Using a combination of direct and indirect evidence, the panel was able to provide recommendations for 8 specific questions on the use of PPE for HCP who provide care for patients with suspected or known COVID-19. Where evidence was lacking, attempts were made to provide potential avenues for investigation. Significant gaps in the understanding of the transmission dynamics of SARS-CoV-2 remain, and PPE recommendations may need to be modified in response to new evidence.