Citations

Abstract Background Symptoms induced by caloric or non‐caloric satiety test meals and gastric myoelectrical activity (GMA) have not been studied in patients with diabetic gastroparesis (DGP) before and after intense glucose management. Aims We determined the effects of continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) with continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) on GI symptoms, volume consumed, and GMA induced by the caloric meal satiety test (CMST) and water load satiety test (WLST) in DGP. Methods Forty‐five patients with DGP underwent CMST and WLST at baseline and 24 weeks after CSII with CGM. Subjects ingested the test meals until they were completely full. Visual analog scales were used to quantify pre‐ and postmeal symptoms, and GMA was recorded with cutaneous electrodes and analyzed visually and by computer. Key Results At baseline and 24‐week visits, nausea, bloating, abdominal discomfort, and fullness were immediately increased after CMST and WLST (Ps < 0.01). The meal volumes ingested were significantly less than normal controls at both visits in almost one‐third of the subjects. After the CMST, the percentage 3 cycle per minute GMA increased and bradygastria decreased compared with WLST (Ps < 0.05). After treatment for 24 weeks meal volumes ingested, postmeal symptoms and GMA were no different than baseline. Conclusions and inferences (a) Satiety test meals elicited symptoms of nausea, bloating, and abdominal discomfort; (b) CMST stimulated more symptoms and changes in GMA than WLST; and (c) CSII with CGM for 24 weeks did not improve symptoms, volumes ingested, or GMA elicited by the two satiety test meals in these patients with diabetic GP. Satiety tests in diabetic gastropresis are useful to study acute postprandial symptoms and GMA, but these measures were not improved by intensive insulin therapy.

Background: Latissimus dorsi myocutaneous flap (LDMF) with tissue expander provides excellent results in breast reconstruction. Acellular dermal matrix (ADM) has been used in expander-based reconstruction (EBR) with good results. This study assesses how ADM compares to LDMF in EBR. Methods: The cohorts comprised 124 patients (218 breasts) who had EBR using ADM between 2006 and 2012, and 242 patients (266 breasts) who had EBR using LDMF between 1994 and 2012. Postoperative complications, reoperations, Breast-Q scores, and objectively assessed aesthetic outcomes were compared. Results: Median age was 55 years for both ADM (range 23–84) and LDMF (range 26–88) groups. No statistically significant differences were noted between the groups in the rates of major postoperative complications (P > 0.3). Forty-nine of the 218 (22.5%) in the ADM group and 67 of 266 (25.2%) in the LDMF group had a total of 63 and 84 reoperations, respectively (P = 0.52), with no significant differences in the reoperations rate (P > 0.3). No significant differences were observed in the Breast-Q scores. Some categorical differences were noted in the aesthetic outcomes; however, the difference between the overall outcomes was not significant (P = 0.54). Conclusion: Our study revealed no statistically significant differences in the complications or reoperation rates, patient satisfaction, or overall aesthetic outcomes when comparing the use of ADM to LDMF in EBR. In conclusion, this study supports the hypothesis that ADM performs as well as LDMF in EBR.

Objectives To improve the trustworthiness of evidence, studies should be prospectively registered and research reports should adhere to existing standards. We aimed to systematically assess the degree to which endocrinology and internal medicine journals endorse study registration and reporting standards for randomised controlled trials (RCTs), systematic reviews (SRs) and observational studies (ObS). Additionally, we evaluated characteristics that predict endorsement of reporting or registration mechanism by these journals. Design Meta-epidemiological study. Setting Journals included in the ‘Endocrinology and Metabolism’ and ‘General and Internal Medicine’ 2017 Journal Citation Reports. Participants Journals with an impact factor of ≥1.0, focused on clinical medicine, and those who publish RCTs, SRs and ObS were included. Primary outcomes Requirement of adherence to reporting guideline and study registration as determined from the journals’ author instructions. Results Of the 170 (82 endocrinology and 88 internal medicine) eligible journals, endorsing of reporting standards was the highest for RCTs, with 35 (43%) of endocrine journals and 55 (63%) of internal medicine journals followed by SRs, with 21 (26%) and 48 (55%), respectively, and lastly, by ObS with 41 (50%) of endocrine journals and 21 (24%) of internal medicine journals. In 78 (46%) journals RCTs were required to be registered and published in adherence to the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials statement. Only 11 (6%) journals required registration of SRs. Internal medicine journals were more likely to endorse reporting guidelines than endocrine journals except for Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology. No other journal characteristic proved to be an independent predictor of reporting standard endorsement for RCTs besides trial registration. Conclusion Our results highlight that study registration requirement and reporting guideline endorsement are suboptimal in internal medicine and endocrine journals. This malpractice may be further enhanced since endorsement does not imply enforcement, impairing the practice of evidence-based medicine.

Abstract Background: The Treatment Burden Questionnaire (TBQ) is a self-reported measure of the effect of treatment workload on patient wellbeing. We sought to validate the TBQ in Spanish and use it to estimate the burden of treatment in Argentinian patients with multiple sclerosis (MS). Methods: The TBQ was forward-backward translated into Spanish. Two focus groups and 25 semi-structured interviews focused on wording and possible item exclusion. Validation was performed in 2 steps. First, 162 patients across a range of MS severity completed the questionnaire. Confirmatory factor analysis assessed the dimensional structure of the TBQ. Construct validity was assessed by studying correlations with fatigue and quality of life (QoL). Then, in a second cohort of 171 patients, we evaluated the association between TBQ scores and patients’ sex, age, education level, employment status, type of MS, disease duration, comorbidities, EDSS, pharmacological treatment and medication adherence. Results: The questionnaire presented a 3-factor structure in which burden was related to pharmacological treatment; comprehensive health assistance; and psycho-social-economic context. Composite reliability was > 0.8 for all factors. TBQ showed positive correlation with fatigue (rs= 0.467, p=0.006), negative correlation with QoL (rs -0.446, p=0.009). For the second cohort, total TBQ score was 43 (SD 29). Lowest scores were observed on self-monitoring (0.53, SD 1.3) and highest for administrative load (4.2, SD 3.4). Inverse association was found between the TBQ score and medication adherence (r 0.243 p=0.001). TBQ scores also correlated with daily patient pill/injection requirements (r 0.175 p=0.020). Individuals receiving injectable treatment scored higher than patients on oral drugs (total TBQ 51 (SD 32) vs 39 (SD 27) p=0.002). Conclusions: The TBQ in Spanish is a reliable instrument and showed adequate correlation with QoL and adherence scales in MS patients. TBQ may benefit health resources allocation and provide tailor therapeutic interventions to construct a minimally disruptive care.