Citations

AbstractObjectiveTo analyze the association between preoperative electrodiagnostic (EDX) studies and postoperative pain and functional outcomes following ulnar nerve decompression and/or transposition for ulnar neuropathy at the elbow (UNE).Literature SurveyProtocol was submitted and database search was conducted by an experienced librarian of all available studies in the English language from 1990 to June 8, 2022. Databases included Ovid MEDLINE(R) and Epub Ahead of Print, In‐Process & Other Non‐Indexed Citations and Daily, Ovid EMBASE, Ovid Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Scopus.MethodologyInclusion criteria consisted of randomized controlled trials, prospective and retrospective longitudinal studies, and studies involving adults ≥18 years of age who underwent ulnar nerve decompression and/or transposition for UNE. Study quality and risk of bias were assessed using the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) Study Quality of Assessment Tool. Certainty in evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. A meta‐analysis was not performed.SynthesisA total of 289 studies were screened, and 8 retrospective cohort studies met inclusion criteria comprising 762 patients. A decreased or absent preoperative sensory nerve action potential amplitude (SNAP) showed significance with worse postoperative outcomes. The presence of preoperative conduction block showed significance in higher quality studies. There was limited evidence for slow preoperative motor conduction velocities or preoperative electromyography (EMG) abnormalities and postoperative outcomes. Overall quality assessment demonstrated that two studies had “good,” four “fair,” and two “poor” quality of evidence. Certainty in evidence was “low” due to risk of bias.ConclusionsA decreased or absent preoperative ulnar SNAP may predict worse postoperative outcomes. Per higher quality studies, preoperative conduction block at the elbow may also predict worse postoperative outcomes. Careful interpretation is required with a full understanding of the limited evidence, risk of bias, and low certainty in evidence to support the use of preoperative EDX to predict postoperative outcomes in UNE.

Abstract Background Peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) and midlines are commonly used devices for reliable vascular access. Infection and thrombosis are the main adverse effects of these catheters. We aimed to evaluate the relative risk of complications from midlines and PICCs. Methods We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies. The primary outcomes were catheter-related bloodstream infection (CRBSI) and thrombosis. Secondary outcomes evaluated included mortality, failure to complete therapy, catheter occlusion, phlebitis, and catheter fracture. The certainty of evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach. Results Of 8368 citations identified, 20 studies met the eligibility criteria, including 1 RCT and 19 observational studies. Midline use was associated with fewer patients with CRBSI compared with PICCs (odds ratio [OR], 0.24; 95% CI, 0.15–0.38). This association was not observed when we evaluated risk per catheter. No significant association was found between catheters when evaluating risk of localized thrombosis and pulmonary embolism. A subgroup analysis based on location of thrombosis showed higher rates of superficial venous thrombosis in patients using midlines (OR, 2.30; 95% CI, 1.48–3.57). We did not identify any significant difference between midlines and PICCs for the secondary outcomes. Conclusions Our findings suggest that patients who use midlines might experience fewer CRBSIs than those who use PICCs. However, the use of midline catheters was associated with greater risk of superficial vein thrombosis. These findings can help guide future cost-benefit analyses and direct comparative RCTs to further characterize the efficacy and risks of PICCs vs midline catheters.

AbstractContextHypercalcemia is a common complication of malignancy that is associated with high morbidity and mortality.ObjectiveTo support development of the Endocrine Society Clinical Practice Guideline for the treatment of hypercalcemia of malignancy in adults.MethodsWe searched multiple databases for studies that addressed 8 clinical questions prioritized by a guideline panel from the Endocrine Society. Quantitative and qualitative synthesis was performed. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to assess certainty of evidence.ResultsWe reviewed 1949 citations, from which we included 21 studies. The risk of bias for most of the included studies was moderate. A higher proportion of patients who received bisphosphonate achieved resolution of hypercalcemia when compared to placebo. The incidence rate of adverse events was significantly higher in the bisphosphonate group. Comparing denosumab to bisphosphonate, there was no significant difference in the rate of patients who achieved resolution of hypercalcemia. Two-thirds of patients with refractory/recurrent hypercalcemia of malignancy who received denosumab following bisphosphonate therapy achieved resolution of hypercalcemia. Addition of calcitonin to bisphosphonate therapy did not affect the resolution of hypercalcemia, time to normocalcemia, or hypocalcemia. Only indirect evidence was available to address questions on the management of hypercalcemia in tumors associated with high calcitriol levels, refractory/recurrent hypercalcemia of malignancy following the use of bisphosphonates, and the use of calcimimetics in the treatment of hypercalcemia associated with parathyroid carcinoma. The certainty of the evidence to address all 8 clinical questions was low to very low.ConclusionThe evidence summarized in this systematic review addresses the benefits and harms of treatments of hypercalcemia of malignancy. Additional information about patients’ values and preferences, and other important decisional and contextual factors is needed to facilitate the development of clinical recommendations.

Abstract Context Interventions targeting hypoglycemia in people with diabetes are important for improving quality of life and reducing morbidity and mortality. Objective To support development of the Endocrine Society Clinical Practice Guideline for management of individuals with diabetes at high risk for hypoglycemia. Methods We searched several databases for studies addressing 10 questions provided by a guideline panel from the Endocrine Society. Meta-analysis was conducted when feasible. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology was used to assess certainty of evidence. Results We included 149 studies reporting on 43 344 patients. Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) reduced episodes of severe hypoglycemia in patients with type 1 diabetes (T1D) and reduced the proportion of patients with hypoglycemia (blood glucose [BG] levels <54 mg/dL). There were no data on use of real-time CGM with algorithm-driven insulin pumps vs multiple daily injections with BG testing in people with T1D. CGM in outpatients with type 2 diabetes taking insulin and/or sulfonylureas reduced time spent with BG levels under 70 mg/dL. Initiation of CGM in hospitalized patients at high risk for hypoglycemia reduced episodes of hypoglycemia with BG levels lower than 54 mg/dL and time spent under 54 mg/dL. The proportion of patients with hypoglycemia with BG levels lower than 70 mg/dL and lower than 54 mg/dL detected by CGM was significantly higher than point-of-care BG testing. We found no data evaluating continuation of personal CGM in the hospital. Use of an inpatient computerized glycemic management program utilizing electronic health record data was associated with fewer patients with and episodes of hypoglycemia with BG levels lower than 70 mg/dL and fewer patients with severe hypoglycemia compared with standard care. Long-acting basal insulin analogs were associated with less hypoglycemia. Rapid-acting insulin analogs were associated with reduced severe hypoglycemia, though there were more patients with mild to moderate hypoglycemia. Structured diabetes education programs reduced episodes of severe hypoglycemia and time below 54 mg/dL in outpatients taking insulin. Glucagon formulations not requiring reconstitution were associated with longer times to recovery from hypoglycemia, although the proportion of patients who recovered completely from hypoglycemia was not different between the 2 groups. Conclusion This systematic review summarized the best available evidence about several interventions addressing hypoglycemia in people with diabetes. This evidence base will facilitate development of clinical practice guidelines by the Endocrine Society.

Thyroid hormone (TH) augmentation, although commonly used for major depression, is sparingly used for bipolar disorder (BD) after the failure of mood-stabilizing agents. While the exact mechanisms of thyroid hormone action in BD remains unclear, central thyroid hormone deficit has been postulated as a mechanism for rapid cycling. This systematic review—conducted in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines—of eight studies synthesizes the evidence for TH augmentation in BD. A systematic search of the Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and Cochrane databases was conducted for randomized controlled trials (RCT), open-label trials, and observational studies of levothyroxine (LT4) and triiodothyronine (T3) for BD. Open-label studies of high dose LT4 augmentation for bipolar depression and rapid cycling showed improvement in depression outcomes and reduction in recurrence, respectively. However, an RCT of high-dose LT4 did not show benefit in contrast to placebo. An RCT comparing LT4, T3, and placebo showed benefit only in rapid-cycling bipolar women. A meta-analysis could not be completed due to significant differences in study designs, interventions, and outcomes. Our systematic review shows mixed evidence and a lack of high-quality studies. The initial promise of supratherapeutic LT4 augmentation from open-label trials has not been consistently replicated in RCTs. Limited data are available for T3. The studies did not report significant thyrotoxicosis, and TH augmentation were well tolerated. Therefore, TH augmentation, especially with supratherapeutic doses, should be reserved for highly treatment-resistant bipolar depression and rapid-cycling BD.

Peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS) has been utilized for over 50 years with accumulating evidence of efficacy in a variety of chronic pain conditions. The level and strength of evidence supporting the use of PNS for peripheral neuropathic pain remains unclear. The purpose of this review is to synthesize data from prospective studies on the efficacy of PNS for neuropathic pain as it pertains to pain intensity, neurological deficits/neuropathy (e.g., weakness, sensory deficits, gait/balance), and other secondary outcomes (quality of life, satisfaction, emotional functioning, and adverse events). In compliance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, this review identified articles from MEDLINE(R), EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Scopus. Overall, per the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) criteria, pooled results demonstrate very low quality or low quality of evidence supporting modest to substantial improvement in pain and neurological function after PNS implantation for treatment of peripheral neuropathic pain. PNS for phantom limb pain was the only indication that had moderate level evidence. Future prospective and well-powered studies are warranted to assess the efficacy of PNS for peripheral neuropathic pain.

Abstract Aims To evaluate the association of basic life support with survival after sports-related sudden cardiac arrest (SR-SCA). Methods and results In this systematic review and meta-analysis, a search of several databases from each database inception to 31 July 2021 without language restrictions was conducted. Studies were considered eligible if they evaluated one of three scenarios in patients with SR-SCA: (i) bystander presence, (ii) bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), or (iii) bystander automated external defibrillator (AED) use and provided information on survival. Risk of bias was evaluated using Risk of Bias in Non-randomized Studies of Interventions. The primary outcome was survival at the longest follow up. The meta-analysis was conducted using the random-effects model. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) approach was used to rate certainty in the evidence. In total, 28 non-randomized studies were included. The meta-analysis showed significant benefit on survival in all three groups: bystander presence [odds ratio (OR) 2.55, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.48–4.37; I2 = 25%; 9 studies—988 patients], bystander CPR (OR 3.84, 95% CI 2.36–6.25; I2 = 54%; 23 studies—2523 patients), and bystander AED use (OR 5.25, 95% CI 3.58–7.70; I2 = 16%; 19 studies—1227 patients). The GRADE certainty of evidence was judged to be moderate. Conclusion In patients with SR-SCA, bystander presence, bystander CPR, and bystander AED use were significantly associated with survival. These results highlight the importance of witness intervention and encourage countries to develop their first aid training policy and AED installation in sport settings.

ImportanceApproval by the US Food and Drug Administration of immune checkpoint inhibition (ICI) for advanced gastroesophageal cancer (aGEC) irrespective of PD-L1 status has generated controversy. Exploratory analyses from individual trials indicate a lack of meaningful benefit from ICI in patients with absent or low PD-L1 expression; however, analysis of a single variable while ignoring others may not consider the instability inherent in exploratory analyses.ObjectiveTo systematically examine the predictive value of tissue-based PD-L1 status compared with that of other variables for ICI benefit in aGEC to assess its stability.Data SourcesMEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Central Register (2000-2022).Study Selection, Data Extraction, and SynthesisRandomized clinical trials (RCTs) were included of adults with aGEC (adenocarcinoma [AC] or squamous cell carcinoma [SCC]) randomized to anti−PD-1 or PD-L1−containing treatment vs standard of care (SOC). Study screening, data abstraction, and bias assessment were completed independently by 2 reviewers. Of 5752 records screened, 26 were assessed for eligibility; 17 trials were included in the analysis.Main Outcomes and MeasuresThe prespecified primary end point was overall survival. The mean hazard ratio (HR) for ICI vs SOC was calculated (random-effects model). Predictive values were quantified by calculating the ratio of mean HRs between 2 levels of each variable.ResultsIn all, 17 RCTs (9 first line, 8 after first line) at low risk of bias and 14 predictive variables were included, totaling 11 166 participants (5067 with SCC, 6099 with ACC; 77.6% were male and 22.4% were female; 59.5% of patients were younger than 65 years, 40.5% were 65 years or older). Among patients with SCCs, PD-L1 tumor proportion score (TPS) was the strongest predictor of ICI benefit (HR, 0.60 [95% CI, 0.53-0.68] for high TPS; and HR, 0.84 [95% CI, 0.75-0.95] for low TPS), yielding a predictive value of 41.0% favoring high TPS (vs ≤16.0% for other variables). Among patients with AC, PD-L1 combined positive score (CPS) was the strongest predictor (after microsatellite instability high status) of ICI benefit (HR, 0.73 [95% CI, 0.66-0.81] for high CPS; and HR, 0.95 [95% CI, 0.84-1.07] for low CPS), yielding a predictive value of 29.4% favoring CPS-high (vs ≤12.9% for other variables). Head-to-head analyses of trials containing both levels of a variable and/or having similar design generally yielded consistent results.Conclusions and RelevanceTissue-based PD-L1 expression, more than any variable other than microsatellite instability-high, identified varying degrees of benefit from ICI-containing therapy vs SOC among patients with aGEC in 17 RCTs.

The introduction of robotics in living donor liver transplantation has been revolutionary. We aimed to examine the safety of robotic living donor right hepatectomy (RLDRH) compared to open (ODRH) and laparoscopic (LADRH) approaches. A systematic review was carried out in Medline and six additional databases following PRISMA guidelines. Data on morbidity, postoperative liver function, and pain in donors and recipients were extracted from studies comparing RLDRH, ODRH, and LADRH published up to September 2020; PROSPERO (CRD42020214313). Dichotomous variables were pooled as risk ratios and continuous variables as weighted mean differences. Four studies with a total of 517 patients were included. In living donors, the postoperative total bilirubin level (MD: −0.7 95%CI −1.0, −0.4), length of hospital stay (MD: −0.8 95%CI −1.4, −0.3), Clavien–Dindo complications I–II (RR: 0.5 95%CI 0.2, 0.9), and pain score at day > 3 (MD: −0.6 95%CI −1.6, 0.4) were lower following RLDRH compared to ODRH. Furthermore, the pain score at day > 3 (MD: −0.4 95%CI −0.8, −0.09) was lower after RLDRH when compared to LADRH. In recipients, the postoperative AST level was lower (MD: −0.5 95%CI −0.9, −0.1) following RLDRH compared to ODRH. Moreover, the length of stay (MD: −6.4 95%CI −11.3, −1.5) was lower after RLDRH when compared to LADRH. In summary, we identified low- to unclear-quality evidence that RLDRH seems to be safe and feasible for adult living donor liver transplantation compared to the conventional approaches. No postoperative deaths were reported.