Citations

CONTEXT: Unplanned PICU readmissions within 48 hours of discharge (to home or a different hospital setting) are considered a quality metric of critical care. OBJECTIVE: We sought to determine identifiable risk factors associated with early unplanned PICU readmissions. DATA SOURCES: A comprehensive search of Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Scopus was conducted from each database’s inception to July 16, 2018. STUDY SELECTION: Observational studies of early unplanned PICU readmissions (<48 hours) in children (<18 years of age) published in any language were included. DATA EXTRACTION: Two reviewers selected and appraised studies independently and abstracted data. A meta-analysis was performed by using the random-effects model. RESULTS: We included 11 observational studies in which 128 974 children (mean age: 5 years) were evaluated. The presence of complex chronic diseases (odds ratio 2.42; 95% confidence interval 1.06 to 5.55; I2 79.90%) and moderate to severe disability (odds ratio 2.85; 95% confidence interval 2.40 to 3.40; I2 11.20%) had the highest odds of early unplanned PICU readmission. Other significant risk factors included an unplanned index admission, initial admission to a general medical ward, spring season, respiratory diagnoses, and longer initial PICU stay. Readmission was less likely after trauma- and surgery-related index admissions, after direct admission from home, or during the summer season. Modifiable risk factors, such as evening or weekend discharge, revealed no statistically significant association. Included studies were retrospective, which limited our ability to account for all potential confounders and establish causality. CONCLUSIONS: Many risk factors for early unplanned PICU readmission are not modifiable, which brings into question the usefulness of this quality measure.

Abstract Background: Hypercalcemia of malignancy is the second most common cause of hypercalcemia and is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Several treatment options are available including pharmacological therapy with bisphosphonates, denosumab, glucocorticoids, and calcimimetics, as well as conventional therapy with hydration and possibly calcitonin. While guidelines have previously considered treatment effects, no guideline has yet considered a range of contextual factors impacting recommendations for the management. Objective: The aim of this study is to summarize the available evidence on important decisional factors for the development of guidelines for the treatment of hypercalcemia of malignancy. These include patient’s values and preferences, cost, acceptability, feasibility, and equity. Methods/Design: This is a systematic review of observational studies, case series, trials, reviews and qualitative studies involving treatment of adult patients with hypercalcemia of malignancy. We developed and executed two independent search strategies using five databases: Pubmed, Medline (OVID), Embase.com, CINAHL (EBSCO) and Cochrane, and reviewed their combined output. Two reviewers screened titles and abstracts and full texts and will implement data abstraction from relevant studies independently and in duplicate. The outcomes of interest are the decisional factors that influence drug selection, with possible subgroup analyses by drug class or etiology of hypercalcemia of malignancy. We will present the data collected in a narrative and thematic approach. Discussion: This systematic review will identify important treatment decisional factors, and will assist guidelines panels, physicians and patients to decide on therapeutic options based on the current evidence.

Abstract Background Accurate molecular diagnostic tests are necessary for confirming a diagnosis of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Direct detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) nucleic acids in respiratory tract specimens informs patient, healthcare institution and public health level decision-making. The numbers of available SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid detection tests are rapidly increasing, as is the COVID-19 diagnostic literature. Thus, the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) recognized a significant need for frequently updated systematic reviews of the literature to inform evidence-based best practice guidance. Objective The IDSA’s goal was to develop an evidence-based diagnostic guideline to assist clinicians, clinical laboratorians, patients and policymakers in decisions related to the optimal use of SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid amplification tests. In addition, we provide a conceptual framework for understanding molecular diagnostic test performance, discuss the nuance of test result interpretation in a variety of practice settings and highlight important unmet research needs in the COVID-19 diagnostic testing space. Methods IDSA convened a multidisciplinary panel of infectious diseases clinicians, clinical microbiologists, and experts in systematic literature review to identify and prioritize clinical questions and outcomes related to the use of SARS-CoV-2 molecular diagnostics. 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 17 diagnostic recommendations. Conclusions Universal access to accurate SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid testing is critical for patient care, hospital infection prevention and the public response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Information on the clinical performance of available tests is rapidly emerging, but the quality of evidence of the current literature is considered moderate to very low. Recognizing these limitations, the IDSA panel weighed available diagnostic evidence and recommends nucleic acid testing for all symptomatic individuals suspected of having COVID-19. In addition, testing is recommended for asymptomatic individuals with known or suspected contact with a COVID-19 case. Testing asymptomatic individuals without known exposure is suggested when the results will impact isolation/quarantine/personal protective equipment (PPE) usage decisions, dictate eligibility for surgery, or inform solid organ or hematopoietic stem cell transplantation timing. Ultimately, prioritization of testing will depend on institutional-specific resources and the needs of different patient populations.

Abstract Background Abdominal pain is a debilitating symptom affecting ∼80% of pancreatic cancer (PC) patients. Pancreatic duct (PD) decompression has been reported to alleviate this pain, although this practice has not been widely adopted. We aimed to evaluate the role, efficacy, and safety of endoscopic PD decompression for palliation of PC post-prandial obstructive-type pain. Methods A systematic review until 7 October 2020 was performed. Two independent reviewers selected studies, extracted data, and assessed the methodological quality. Results We identified 12 publications with a total of 192 patients with PC presenting with abdominal pain, in whom PD decompression was attempted, and was successful in 167 patients (mean age 62.5 years, 58.7% males). The use of plastic stents was reported in 159 patients (95.2%). All included studies reported partial or complete improvement in pain levels after PD stenting, with an improvement rate of 93% (95% confidence interval, 79%–100%). The mean duration of pain improvement was 94 ± 16 days. Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP)-related adverse events (AEs) were post-sphincterotomy bleeding (1.8%), post-ERCP pancreatitis (0.6%), and hemosuccus pancreaticus (0.6%). AEs were not reported in two patients who underwent endoscopic ultrasound-guided PD decompression. In the 167 patients with technical success, the stent-migration and stent-occlusion rates were 3.6% and 3.0%, respectively. No AE-related mortality was reported. The methodological quality assessment showed the majority of the studies having low or unclear quality. Conclusion In this exploratory analysis, endoscopic PD drainage may be an effective and safe option in selected patients for the management of obstructive-type PC pain. However, a randomized–controlled trial is needed to delineate the role of this invasive practice.

Background The reported prevalence of chronic pain after spinal cord injury (SCI) varies widely due, in part, to differences in the taxonomy of chronic pain. A widely used classification system is available to describe subcategories of chronic pain in SCI, but the prevalence of chronic pain in SCI based on this system is unknown. Objective The primary objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to determine the prevalence of chronic pain after SCI based on the International Spinal Cord Injury Pain (ISCIP) classification system. Evidence review A comprehensive search of databases from January 1980 to August 2019 was conducted. The risk of bias was assessed using a modified tool developed for uncontrolled studies. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach was used to assess certainty in prevalence estimates. Findings A total of 1305 records were screened, and 37 studies met inclusion criteria. The pooled prevalence of overall chronic pain was 68% (95% CI 63% to 73%). The pooled prevalence of neuropathic pain in 13 studies was 58% (95% CI 49% to 68%); the pooled prevalence of musculoskeletal pain in 11 studies was 56% (95% CI 41% to 70%); the pooled prevalence of visceral pain in 8 studies was 20% (95% CI 11% to 29%) and the pooled prevalence of nociceptive pain in 2 studies was 45% (95% CI 13% to 78%). Meta-regression of risk of bias (p=0.20), traumatic versus non-traumatic etiology of injury (p=0.59), and studies where pain was a primary outcome (p=0.32) demonstrated that these factors were not significant moderators of heterogeneity. Certainty in prevalence estimates was judged to be low due to unexplained heterogeneity. Conclusion This systematic review and meta-analysis extends the findings of previous studies by reporting the prevalence of chronic pain after SCI based on the ISCIP classification system, thereby reducing clinical heterogeneity in the reporting of pain prevalence related to SCI.

Background There has been limited research on the positive aspects of physician wellness and to our knowledge there have been no validity studies on measures of resilience and grit among internal medicine (IM) residents. Objectives To investigate the validity of resilience (10 items Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC 10)) and grit (Short Grit Scale (GRIT-S)) scores among IM residents at a large academic centre, and assess potential associations with previously validated measures of medical knowledge, clinical performance and professionalism. Methods We evaluated CD-RISC 10 and GRIT-S instrument scores among IM residents at the Mayo Clinic Rochester, Minnesota between July 2017 and June 2019. We analysed dimensionality, internal consistency reliability and criterion validity in terms of relationships between resilience and grit, with standardised measures of residents’ medical knowledge (in-training examination (ITE)), clinical performance (faculty and peer evaluations and Mini-Clinical Evaluation Examination (mini-CEX)) and professionalism/dutifulness (conference attendance and evaluation completion). Results A total of 213 out of 253 (84.2%) survey-eligible IM residents provided both CD-RISC 10 and GRIT-S survey responses. Internal consistency reliability (Cronbach alpha) was excellent for CD-RISC 10 (0.93) and GRIT-S (0.82) overall, and for the GRIT subscales of consistency of interest (0.84) and perseverance of effort (0.71). CD-RISC 10 scores were negatively associated with ITE percentile (β=−3.4, 95% CI −6.2 to −0.5, p=0.02) and mini-CEX (β=−0.2, 95% CI −0.5 to −0.02, p=0.03). GRIT-S scores were positively associated with evaluation completion percentage (β=2.51, 95% CI 0.35 to 4.67, p=0.02) and conference attendance (β=2.70, 95% CI 0.11 to 5.29, p=0.04). Conclusions This study revealed favourable validity evidence for CD-RISC 10 and GRIT-S among IM residents. Residents demonstrated resilience within a competitive training environment despite less favourable test performance and grittiness that was manifested by completing tasks. This initial validity study provides a foundation for further research on resilience and grit among physicians in training.

Background: Assessment of heterogeneity in meta-analyses is critical to ensure the consistency of pooled results. Therefore, we sought to assess the evaluation and reporting of heterogeneity in heart failure (HF) meta-analyses. Methods: Study level meta-analyses pertaining to HF were selected from January 2009 to July 2019, published in 11 high impact factor journals. We tabulated the overall proportion of the meta-analyses reporting statistical heterogeneity and specific metrics and methods employed to quantify and explore heterogeneity. Results: Of 126 HF meta-analyses (612 outcomes), heterogeneity was reported for 422 outcomes (68.9 %) in 108 meta-analyses. Out of the 422 outcomes reporting statistical heterogeneity, 137 outcomes (32.5%) had no observable heterogeneity: ( I 2 =0%), 40 outcomes (9.5%) had low heterogeneity ( I 2 <25%), 76 outcomes (18%) had moderate heterogeneity ( I 2 =25%–50%), and 169 outcomes (40%) had high heterogeneity ( I 2 >50%). Reporting of statistical heterogeneity was not significantly associated with year of publication, funding source, disclosure information, or the type of studies pooled. Sensitivity analysis (n=68) was the most common statistical technique employed to evaluate the source of heterogeneity followed by subgroup analyses (n=59) and meta-regression (n=40). Conclusions: Despite being an essential component of meta-analyses, heterogeneity was not reported for nearly 30% of outcomes and variably handled in contemporary HF meta-analyses. As meta-analyses increase across HF science, interpreting and handling of heterogeneity should be standardized.

Abstract Background The current standard of care for the management of patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma (GBM) includes maximal safe resection followed by radiotherapy (RT) with concurrent and adjuvant temozolomide (TMZ). While it is well established that TMZ has better efficacy in patients with MGMT promoter methylation, it remains an area of debate whether TMZ should be omitted when treating GBM patients with unmethylated MGMT. Methods We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to provide separate estimates of median overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) for patients with methylated and unmethylated GBM treated with RT with or without TMZ. We searched multiple databases from inception to January 13, 2020. Results The median OS for patients with unmethylated GBM treated with RT/TMZ pooled from 5 phase III studies (N = 655) was 14.11 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 13.18–15.04) with a median PFS of 4.99 months (95% CI, 4.25–5.72). In contrast, the median OS for patients with methylated GBM pooled from 6 studies (N = 753) was 24.59 months (95% CI, 22.19–26.99) with a median PFS pooled from 7 studies (N = 805) of 9.51 months (95% CI, 7.41–11.61). There is a paucity of prospective data pertaining to OS/PFS in unmethylated patients treated with RT only and therefore a direct comparison was not possible. Conclusions This meta-analysis provides estimates of survival for patients with MGMT methylated or unmethylated GBM treated with RT/TMZ. Further research is needed to delineate whether TMZ should be withheld for patients with unmethylated GBM outside of the setting of clinical trials.