MATERIALS AND METHODS: This is a prospective observational study conducted on fifty-two fingers and thumbs in 52 patients treated from 1st July 2014 till 31st December 2014, in the Orthopaedic Section, Department of Surgery, Aga Khan University Hospital, Karachi, Pakistan. All the baseline characteristics of the patients, like demographics, symptoms, Quinell's criteria and functional outcome were recorded. The patients were treated at our hospital with trigger finger, managed with percutaneous release using an 18 gauge needle and followed up for a minimum period of three months. The follow-up information included range of motion scoring, patient satisfaction and overall outcome of the procedure in terms of patient acceptance. The data was analyzed to determine the functional outcome at three months.
RESULTS: There was complete release of A1 pulleys in 52 out of 52 digits (100%) in the patients undergoing percutaneous release and significant patient satisfaction. No recurrence was observed.
CONCLUSION: Percutaneous release of trigger finger with needle was not only associated with excellent functional outcome and recovery in terms of patient satisfaction and range of finger motion three months post-procedure but also was found to be cost effective.
METHODS: A 12-week randomized controlled trial in men and women aged 40-70 years was used to test whether skin microcirculation, measured by skin video-capillaroscopy on the dorsum of the finger, influenced functional capillary density (number of capillaries perfused under basal conditions), structural capillary density (number of anatomical capillaries perfused during finger cuff inflation) and capillary recruitment (percentage difference between structural and functional capillary density).
RESULTS: Microvascular measures were available for 137 subjects out of the 165 participants randomized to treatment. There was evidence of compliance to the dietary intervention, and participants randomized to follow dietary guidelines showed significant falls in resting supine systolic, diastolic and mean arterial pressure of 3.5, 2.6 and 2.9 mmHg compared to the control diet. There was no evidence of differences in capillary density, but capillary recruitment was 3.5 % (95 % CI 0.2, 6.9) greater (P = 0.04) on dietary guidelines compared with control.
CONCLUSIONS: Adherence to dietary guidelines may help maintain a healthy microcirculation in middle-aged men and women. This study is registered at www.isrctn.com as ISRCTN92382106.
METHODS: A call for papers was announced on the website of Methods of Information in Medicine in April 2016 with submission deadline in September 2016. A peer review process was established to select the papers for the focus theme, managed by two guest editors.
RESULTS: Three papers were selected to be included in the focus theme. Topics range from contributions to patient care through implementation of clinical decision support functionality in clinical registries; analysing similar-purposed acute coronary syndrome registries of two countries and their registry-to-SNOMED CT maps; and data extraction for speciality population registries from electronic health record data rather than manual abstraction.
CONCLUSIONS: The focus theme gives insight into new developments related to disease registration. This applies to technical challenges such as data linkage and data as well as data structure abstraction, but also the utilisation for clinical decision making.
METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We published our protocol apriori. Current guidelines for case series (PROCESS), cohort studies (STROBE) and randomised controlled trials (CONSORT) were analysed to compile a list of items which were used as baseline material for developing a suitable checklist for surgical cohort guidelines. These were then put forward in a Delphi consensus exercise to an expert panel of 74 surgeons and academics via Google Forms.
RESULTS: The Delphi exercise was completed by 62% (46/74) of the participants. All the items were passed in a single round to create a STROCSS guideline consisting of 17 items.
CONCLUSION: We present the STROCSS guideline for surgical cohort, cross-sectional and case-control studies consisting of a 17-item checklist. We hope its use will increase the transparency and reporting quality of such studies. This guideline is also suitable for cross-sectional and case control studies. We encourage authors, reviewers, journal editors and publishers to adopt these guidelines.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of psychological interventions for diabetes-related distress in adults with T2DM.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, BASE, WHO ICTRP Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov. The date of the last search was December 2014 for BASE and 21 September 2016 for all other databases.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on the effects of psychological interventions for DRD in adults (18 years and older) with T2DM. We included trials if they compared different psychological interventions or compared a psychological intervention with usual care. Primary outcomes were DRD, health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and adverse events. Secondary outcomes were self-efficacy, glycosylated haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), blood pressure, diabetes-related complications, all-cause mortality and socioeconomic effects.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently identified publications for inclusion and extracted data. We classified interventions according to their focus on emotion, cognition or emotion-cognition. We performed random-effects meta-analyses to compute overall estimates.
MAIN RESULTS: We identified 30 RCTs with 9177 participants. Sixteen trials were parallel two-arm RCTs, and seven were three-arm parallel trials. There were also seven cluster-randomised trials: two had four arms, and the remaining five had two arms. The median duration of the intervention was six months (range 1 week to 24 months), and the median follow-up period was 12 months (range 0 to 12 months). The trials included a wide spectrum of interventions and were both individual- and group-based.A meta-analysis of all psychological interventions combined versus usual care showed no firm effect on DRD (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.07; 95% CI -0.16 to 0.03; P = 0.17; 3315 participants; 12 trials; low-quality evidence), HRQoL (SMD 0.01; 95% CI -0.09 to 0.11; P = 0.87; 1932 participants; 5 trials; low-quality evidence), all-cause mortality (11 per 1000 versus 11 per 1000; risk ratio (RR) 1.01; 95% CI 0.17 to 6.03; P = 0.99; 1376 participants; 3 trials; low-quality evidence) or adverse events (17 per 1000 versus 41 per 1000; RR 2.40; 95% CI 0.78 to 7.39; P = 0.13; 438 participants; 3 trials; low-quality evidence). We saw small beneficial effects on self-efficacy and HbA1c at medium-term follow-up (6 to 12 months): on self-efficacy the SMD was 0.15 (95% CI 0.00 to 0.30; P = 0.05; 2675 participants; 6 trials; low-quality evidence) in favour of psychological interventions; on HbA1c there was a mean difference (MD) of -0.14% (95% CI -0.27 to 0.00; P = 0.05; 3165 participants; 11 trials; low-quality evidence) in favour of psychological interventions. Our included trials did not report diabetes-related complications or socioeconomic effects.Many trials were small and were at high risk of bias for incomplete outcome data as well as possible performance and detection biases in the subjective questionnaire-based outcomes assessment, and some appeared to be at risk of selective reporting. There are four trials awaiting further classification. These are parallel RCTs with cognition-focused and emotion-cognition focused interventions. There are another 18 ongoing trials, likely focusing on emotion-cognition or cognition, assessing interventions such as diabetes self-management support, telephone-based cognitive behavioural therapy, stress management and a web application for problem solving in diabetes management. Most of these trials have a community setting and are based in the USA.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Low-quality evidence showed that none of the psychological interventions would improve DRD more than usual care. Low-quality evidence is available for improved self-efficacy and HbA1c after psychological interventions. This means that we are uncertain about the effects of psychological interventions on these outcomes. However, psychological interventions probably have no substantial adverse events compared to usual care. More high-quality research with emotion-focused programmes, in non-US and non-European settings and in low- and middle-income countries, is needed.