Icodextrin Versus Glucose Solutions for the Once-Daily Long Dwell in Peritoneal Dialysis: An Enriched Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Rationale & Objective The efficacy and safety of icodextrin versus glucose-only peritoneal dialysis (PD) regimens is unclear. The aim of this study was to compare once-daily long-dwell icodextrin versus glucose among patients with kidney failure undergoing PD. Study Design Systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs), enriched with unpublished data from investigator-initiated and industry-sponsored studies. Setting & Study Populations Individuals with kidney failure receiving regular PD treatment enrolled in clinical trials of dialysate composition. Selection Criteria for Studies Medline, Embase, CENTRAL, Ichushi Web, 10 Chinese databases, clinical trials registries, conference proceedings, and citation lists from inception to November 2018. Further data were obtained from principal investigators and industry clinical study reports. Data Extraction 2 independent reviewers selected studies and extracted data using a prespecified extraction instrument. Analytic Approach Qualitative synthesis of demographics, measurement scales, and outcomes. Quantitative synthesis with Mantel-Haenszel risk ratios (RRs), Peto odds ratios (ORs), or (standardized) mean differences (MDs). Risk of bias of included studies at the outcome level was assessed using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for RCTs. Results 19 RCTs that enrolled 1,693 participants were meta-analyzed. Ultrafiltration was improved with icodextrin (medium-term MD, 208.92 [95% CI, 99.69-318.14] mL/24 h; high certainty of evidence), reflected also by fewer episodes of fluid overload (RR, 0.43 [95% CI, 0.24-0.78]; high certainty). Icodextrin-containing PD probably decreased mortality risk compared to glucose-only PD (Peto OR, 0.49 [95% CI, 0.24-1.00]; moderate certainty). Despite evidence of lower peritoneal glucose absorption with icodextrin-containing PD (medium-term MD, −40.84 [95% CI, −48.09 to −33.59] g/long dwell; high certainty), this did not directly translate to changes in fasting plasma glucose (−0.50 [95% CI, −1.19 to 0.18] mmol/L; low certainty) and hemoglobin A1c levels (−0.14% [95% CI, −0.34% to 0.05%]; high certainty). Safety outcomes and residual kidney function were similar in both groups; health-related quality-of-life and pain scores were inconclusive. Limitations Trial quality was variable. The follow-up period was heterogeneous, with a paucity of assessments over the long term. Mortality results are based on just 32 events and were not corroborated using time-to-event analysis of individual patient data. Conclusions Icodextrin for once-daily long-dwell PD has clinical benefit for some patients, including those not meeting ultrafiltration targets and at risk for fluid overload. Future research into patient-centered outcomes and cost-effectiveness associated with icodextrin is needed

Prehospital management of chest injuries in severely injured patients—a systematic review and clinical practice guideline update

Purpose Our aim was to review and update the existing evidence-based and consensus-based recommendations for the management of chest injuries in patients with multiple and/or severe injuries in the prehospital setting. This guideline topic is part of the 2022 update of the German Guideline on the Treatment of Patients with Multiple and/or Severe Injuries. Methods MEDLINE and Embase were systematically searched to May 2021. Further literature reports were obtained from clinical experts. Randomised controlled trials, prospective cohort studies, cross-sectional studies, and comparative registry studies were included if they compared interventions for the detection and management of chest injuries in severely injured patients in the prehospital setting. We considered patient-relevant clinical outcomes such as mortality and diagnostic test accuracy. Risk of bias was assessed using NICE 2012 checklists. The evidence was synthesised narratively, and expert consensus was used to develop recommendations and determine their strength. Results Two new studies were identified, both investigating the accuracy of in-flight ultrasound in the detection of pneumothorax. Two new recommendations were developed, one recommendation was modified. One of the two new recommendations and the modified recommendation address the use of ultrasound for detecting traumatic pneumothorax. One new good (clinical) practice point (GPP) recommends the use of an appropriate vented dressing in the management of open pneumothorax. Eleven recommendations were confirmed as unchanged because no new high-level evidence was found to support a change. Conclusion Some evidence suggests that ultrasound should be considered to identify pneumothorax in the prehospital setting. Otherwise, the recommendations from 2016 remained unchanged.Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL.Universitätsklinikum Essen (8912

The management of desmoid tumours: A joint global consensus-based guideline approach for adult and paediatric patients

Abstract Desmoid tumor (DT; other synonymously used terms: Desmoid-type fibromatosis, aggressive fibromatosis) is a rare and locally aggressive monoclonal, fibroblastic proliferation characterised by a variable and often unpredictable clinical course. Previously surgery was the standard primary treatment modality; however, in recent years a paradigm shift towards a more conservative management has been introduced and an effort to harmonise the strategy amongst clinicians has been made. We present herein an evidence-based, joint global consensus guideline approach to the management of this disease focussing on: molecular genetics, indications for an active treatment, and available systemic therapeutic options. This paper follows a one-day consensus meeting held in Milan, Italy, in June 2018 under the auspices of the European Reference Network for rare solid adult cancers, EURACAN, the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Soft Tissue and Bone Sarcoma Group (STBSG) as well as Sarcoma Patients EuroNet (SPAEN) and The Desmoid tumour Research Foundation (DTRF). The meeting brought together over 50 adult and pediatric sarcoma experts from different disciplines, patients and patient advocates from Europe, North America and Japan

The effect of preoperative stoma site marking on risk of stoma-related complications in patients with intestinal ostomy – a systematic review and meta-analysis

Investigation if preoperative stoma site marking compared to no preoperative marking in patients undergoing intestinal stoma surgery reduces the risk of stoma-related complication

Simulated patient methodology applied in health services research – protocol for a scoping review

This scoping review aims to provide an updated overview on how the simulated patient (SP) method is applied within non-pharmaceutical settings. In particular, we will address the following questions: (1) what are the topics covered by the SP studies examining non-pharmaceutical services; (2) what study designs and what form(s) of interaction (e.g. visits, telephone calls) between SPs and healthcare providers (HCPs) are applied in these studies; (3) how was the training of SPs performed; and (4) whether and in what form feedback to the HCPs was provided

Emergency psychology in acute and emergency medicine

Medical emergency situations can be highly distressing for patients, potentially leading to the development of psychological disorders. Despite the obvious need of psychosocial care and interventions to help processing emergency situations there is limited research regarding appropriate psychosocial handling of preclinical and clinical emergency patients. This review will provide an overview of the current state of research in emergency medicine, with a particular focus on communication methodologies and other psychological interventions. The aim is to present an overview of the psychosocial management of emergency patients. A search will be conducted on PubMed and PsycInfo for suitable articles on psychosocial interventions or communication styles that assist medical personnel in the care of somatic emergency patients with psychosocial needs

How is AMSTAR applied by authors – a call for better reporting

Abstract Background The assessment of multiple systematic reviews (AMSTAR) tool is widely used for investigating the methodological quality of systematic reviews (SR). Originally, AMSTAR was developed for SRs of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Its applicability to SRs of other study designs remains unclear. Our objectives were to: 1) analyze how AMSTAR is applied by authors and (2) analyze whether the authors pay attention to the original purpose of AMSTAR and for what it has been validated. Methods We searched MEDLINE (via PubMed) from inception through October 2016 to identify studies that applied AMSTAR. Full-text studies were sought for all retrieved hits and screened by one reviewer. A second reviewer verified the excluded studies (liberal acceleration). Data were extracted into structured tables by one reviewer and were checked by a second reviewer. Discrepancies at any stage were resolved by consensus or by consulting a third person. We analyzed the data descriptively as frequencies or medians and interquartile ranges (IQRs). Associations were quantified using the risk ratio (RR), with 95% confidence intervals. Results We identified 247 studies. They included a median of 17 reviews (interquartile range (IQR): 8 to 47) per study. AMSTAR was modified in 23% (57/247) of studies. In most studies, an AMSTAR score was calculated (200/247; 81%). Methods for calculating an AMSTAR score varied, with summing up all yes answers (yes = 1) being the most frequent option (102/200; 51%). More than one third of the authors failed to report how the AMSTAR score was obtained (71/200; 36%). In a subgroup analysis, we compared overviews of reviews (n = 154) with the methodological publications (n = 93). The overviews of reviews were much less likely to mention both limitations with respect to study designs (if other studies other than RCTs were included in the reviews) (RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.75) and overall score (RR 0.08, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.35). Conclusions Authors, peer reviewers, and editors should pay more attention to the correct use and reporting of assessment tools in evidence synthesis. Authors of overviews of reviews should ensure to have a methodological expert in their review team