Methods: A multi-centred matched case control study was conducted in five local hospitals. A total of 140 histologically confirmed CRC cases were matched with 280 cancer free controls. Mean value and prevalence of the components of metabolic syndrome between cases and controls were measured based on the three definitions. A multiple variable analysis using Cox regression was conducted to measure the strength of the association between the definitions of MetS, components of MetS and risk of CRC.
Results: Multiple variable analyses showed that metabolic syndrome significantly and independently increased the risk of CRC, with an odds ratio ranging from 1.79 to 2.61. This study identified that the definition of metabolic syndrome by the International Diabetes Federation is the most sensitive in predicting the risk of CRC, compared to metabolic syndrome as defined by the World Health Organization and National Cholesterol Education Program Adults Treatment Panel III. Abdominal obesity, low HDL-cholesterol, and hypertension were identified as the three core risk factors, which promote inflammatory signals that contribute to metabolic syndrome and an increased risk of CRC.
Conclusions: These data hypothesized that simple measurement of abdominal obesity, abnormal BP and HDL-cholesterol especially using International Diabetes Federation (IDF) definition of MetS for South Asians for to detect individuals at CRC risk may have higher clinical utility than applying other universal complex MetS definitions.
METHODS: Contents from the Global Spine Care Initiative (GSCI) Classification System and GSCI care pathway papers provided a foundation for the resources list. A seed document was developed that included resources for spine care that could be delivered in primary, secondary and tertiary settings, as well as resources needed for self-care and community-based settings for a wide variety of spine concerns (e.g., back and neck pain, deformity, spine injury, neurological conditions, pathology and spinal diseases). An iterative expert consensus process was used using electronic surveys.
RESULTS: Thirty-five experts completed the process. An iterative consensus process was used through an electronic survey. A consensus was reached after two rounds. The checklist of resources included the following categories: healthcare provider knowledge and skills, materials and equipment, human resources, facilities and infrastructure. The list identifies resources needed to implement a spine care program in any community, which are based upon spine care needs.
CONCLUSION: To our knowledge, this is the first international and interprofessional attempt to develop a list of resources needed to deliver care in an evidence-based care pathway for the management of people presenting with spine-related concerns. This resource list needs to be field tested in a variety of communities with different resource capacities to verify its utility. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.
METHODS: The Global Spine Care Initiative (GSCI) meetings and literature reviews were synthesized into a seed document and distributed to spine care experts. After three rounds of a modified Delphi process, all participants reached consensus on the final model of care and implementation steps.
RESULTS: Sixty-six experts representing 24 countries participated. The GSCI model of care has eight core principles: person-centered, people-centered, biopsychosocial, proactive, evidence-based, integrative, collaborative, and self-sustaining. The model of care includes a classification system and care pathway, levels of care, and a focus on the patient's journey. The six steps for implementation are initiation and preparation; assessment of the current situation; planning and designing solutions; implementation; assessment and evaluation of program; and sustain program and scale up.
CONCLUSION: The GSCI proposes an evidence-based, practical, sustainable, and scalable model of care representing eight core principles with a six-step implementation plan. The aim of this model is to help transform spine care globally, especially in low- and middle-income countries and underserved communities. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.
METHODS: World Spine Care convened the GSCI to develop an evidence-based, practical, and sustainable healthcare model for spinal care. The initiative aims to improve the management, prevention, and public health for spine-related disorders worldwide; thus, global representation was essential. A series of meetings established the initiative's mission and goals. Electronic surveys collected contributorship and demographic information, and experiences with spinal conditions to better understand perceptions and potential biases that were contributing to the model of care.
RESULTS: Sixty-eight clinicians and scientists participated in the deliberations and are authors of one or more of the GSCI articles. Of these experts, 57 reported providing spine care in 34 countries, (i.e., low-, middle-, and high-income countries, as well as underserved communities in high-income countries.) The majority reported personally experiencing or having a close family member with one or more spinal concerns including: spine-related trauma or injury, spinal problems that required emergency or surgical intervention, spinal pain referred from non-spine sources, spinal deformity, spinal pathology or disease, neurological problems, and/or mild, moderate, or severe back or neck pain. There were no substantial reported conflicts of interest.
CONCLUSION: The GSCI participants have broad professional experience and wide international distribution with no discipline dominating the deliberations. The GSCI believes this set of papers has the potential to inform and improve spine care globally. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.
METHODS: Leading spine clinicians and scientists around the world were invited to participate. The interprofessional, international team consisted of 68 members from 24 countries, representing most disciplines that study or care for patients with spinal symptoms, including family physicians, spine surgeons, rheumatologists, chiropractors, physical therapists, epidemiologists, research methodologists, and other stakeholders.
RESULTS: Literature reviews on the burden of spinal disorders and six categories of evidence-based interventions for spinal disorders (assessment, public health, psychosocial, noninvasive, invasive, and the management of osteoporosis) were completed. In addition, participants developed a stratification system for surgical intervention, a classification system for spinal disorders, an evidence-based care pathway, and lists of resources and recommendations to implement the GSCI model of care.
CONCLUSION: The GSCI proposes an evidence-based model that is consistent with recent calls for action to reduce the global burden of spinal disorders. The model requires testing to determine feasibility. If it proves to be implementable, this model holds great promise to reduce the tremendous global burden of spinal disorders. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.
METHODS: The Global Spine Care Initiative (GSCI) care pathway development team extracted interventions recommended for the management of spinal disorders from six GSCI articles that synthesized the available evidence from guidelines and relevant literature. Sixty-eight international and interprofessional clinicians and scientists with expertise in spine-related conditions were invited to participate. An iterative consensus process was used.
RESULTS: After three rounds of review, 46 experts from 16 countries reached consensus for the care pathway that includes five decision steps: awareness, initial triage, provider assessment, interventions (e.g., non-invasive treatment; invasive treatment; psychological and social intervention; prevention and public health; specialty care and interprofessional management), and outcomes. The care pathway can be used to guide the management of patients with any spine-related concern (e.g., back and neck pain, deformity, spinal injury, neurological conditions, pathology, spinal diseases). The pathway is simple and can be incorporated into educational tools, decision-making trees, and electronic medical records.
CONCLUSION: A care pathway for the management of individuals presenting with spine-related concerns includes evidence-based recommendations to guide health care providers in the management of common spinal disorders. The proposed pathway is person-centered and evidence-based. The acceptability and utility of this care pathway will need to be evaluated in various communities, especially in low- and middle-income countries, with different cultural background and resources. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.
Materials and Methods: This cross-sectional study was conducted among the GDPs of Karachi. A questionnaire was designed to collect data from 100 GDPs. The questionnaire included general/demographic information (practitioner's education, experience, and place of practice) and an average number of fixed prosthesis constructed by the GDP. The questionnaire was further categorized to evaluate the knowledge/practice of pontic design selection and latest recommendations.
Results: For the maxillary anterior segment, the ridge lap pontic was the most common (32%) followed by the modified ridge lap (28%). In the maxillary posterior segment, the ridge lap pontic was the most common (37%) followed by sanitary design (34%). For the mandibular anterior segment, the modified ridge lap (50%) was the most common followed by ridge lap pontic (17%). In case of the mandibular posterior segment, the sanitary design (34%) was the most common followed by ridge lap pontic (30%).
Conclusions: The pontic design selection for the fixed prosthesis is a neglected domain. The contemporary guidelines are not followed with full spirit by the GDPs leading to wide variations in the pontic design selection.
Materials and Methods: CBCT images which show MFPMs recorded in HUSM Dental Clinic between January 2015 and June 2016 was obtained and analyzed for their number of roots and canals. A total of 208 CBCT images of MFPMs were collected; 118 patients had unilateral molars and 90 patients had bilateral molars. The following observations were made: (1) root number; (2) number of canals per root; and (3) comparisons of number of roots and canals according to gender, ethnicity, and position.
Results: The majority of cases of bilateral MFPM had the same number of roots (95.6%, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 89.01%, 98.78%) on both the right and left side and only 4 cases (4.4%, 95% CI: 1.22%, 10.99%) had 3 roots on the right and 2 roots on the left sides. The majority of cases had the same number of canals on both sides (66.7%, 95% CI: 55.95, 76.26%) and 33.3% (95% CI: 23.74%, 44.05%) with unequal number of canals. The occurrence of the number of canals was not independent of the sides of the arch (P < 0.001) and there was statistically significantly greater proportion of cases who had greater number of canals on the right side than the left (P = 0.03). The prevalence of right single-rooted MFPM was very small at 0.3% (n = 1) in a Malay male (95% CI: 0.00, 1.83) and the most prevalent was two roots first molar (88.4%). The number of roots was not associated with sex or ethnic group (P > 0.05). The MFPM with a single root was found to have only one mesial canal. For two rooted MFPM, the most prevalent occurrence was two canals at the mesial and one canal at the distal roots (59%); followed by single canals in each mesial and distal (21%) and double canals per root (18%). Three roots MFPM have either single or double canals in the mesial root and double canals in the distal root.
Conclusions: The majority of population in the East Coast region of Malaysia has two roots and three root canals in their MFPMs. There was no difference in the number of roots between gender and ethnic and canals between ethnic.