METHODS: A total of 15 femora were examined with four parameters i.e. maximum length of femur (FeMl), diameter of femoral head (FeHd), transverse diameter of midshaft (FeMd) and condylar breadth (FeCb). Osteometric board and vernier calipers were employed for the conventional method, while CT reconstructed images and Osirix MD software was utilised for the virtual method.
RESULTS: Results exhibited that there were no significant differences in the measurements by conventional and virtual methods. There were also no significant differences in the measurements by the intra or inter-observer error analyses. The intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) were more than 0.95 by both intra and inter-observer error analyses. Technical error of measurement had displayed values within the acceptable ranges (rTEM <0.08 for intra-observer, <2.25 for inter-observer), and coefficient of reliability (R) indicated small measurement errors (R > 0.95 for intra-observer, R > 0.92 for inter-observer). By parameters, FeMl showed the highest R value (0.99) with the least error in different methods and observers (rTEM = 0.02-0.41%). Bland and Altman plots revealed points scattered close to zero indicating perfect agreement by both virtual and conventional methods. The mean differences for FeMl, FeHd, FeMd and FeCb measurements were 0.01 cm, -0.01 cm, 0.02 cm and 0.01 cm, respectively.
CONCLUSION: This brought to suggest that bone measurement by virtual method was highly accurate and reliable as in the conventional method. It is recommended for implementation in the future anthropological studies especially in countries with limited skeletal collection.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A prospective study was conducted at the single centre ICU in Hospital Sultanah Aminah (HSA) Malaysia. External validation of APACHE IV involved a cohort of 916 patients who were admitted in 2009. Model performance was assessed through its calibration and discrimination abilities. A first-level customisation using logistic regression approach was also applied to improve model calibration.
RESULTS: APACHE IV exhibited good discrimination, with an area under receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve of 0.78. However, the model's overall fit was observed to be poor, as indicated by the Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test (Ĉ = 113, P <0.001). Predicted in-ICU mortality rate (28.1%) was significantly higher than the actual in-ICU mortality rate (18.8%). Model calibration was improved after applying first-level customisation (Ĉ = 6.39, P = 0.78) although discrimination was not affected.
CONCLUSION: APACHE IV is not suitable for application in HSA ICU, without further customisation. The model's lack of fit in the Malaysian study is attributed to differences in the baseline characteristics between HSA ICU and APACHE IV datasets. Other possible factors could be due to differences in clinical practice, quality and services of health care systems between Malaysia and the United States.
OBJECTIVES: To compare the efficacy and safety of autologous cells derived from different sources, prepared using different protocols, administered at different doses, and delivered via different routes for the treatment of 'no-option' CLI patients.
SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist (CIS) searched the Cochrane Vascular Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE Ovid, Embase Ovid, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), the Allied and Complementary Medicine Database (AMED), and trials registries (16 May 2018). Review authors searched PubMed until February 2017.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) involving 'no-option' CLI patients comparing a particular source or regimen of autologous cell-based therapy against another source or regimen of autologous cell-based therapy.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Three review authors independently assessed the eligibility and methodological quality of the trials. We extracted outcome data from each trial and pooled them for meta-analysis. We calculated effect estimates using a risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI), or a mean difference (MD) with 95% CI.
MAIN RESULTS: We included seven RCTs with a total of 359 participants. These studies compared bone marrow-mononuclear cells (BM-MNCs) versus mobilised peripheral blood stem cells (mPBSCs), BM-MNCs versus bone marrow-mesenchymal stem cells (BM-MSCs), high cell dose versus low cell dose, and intramuscular (IM) versus intra-arterial (IA) routes of cell implantation. We identified no other comparisons in these studies. We considered most studies to be at low risk of bias in random sequence generation, incomplete outcome data, and selective outcome reporting; at high risk of bias in blinding of patients and personnel; and at unclear risk of bias in allocation concealment and blinding of outcome assessors. The quality of evidence was most often low to very low, with risk of bias, imprecision, and indirectness of outcomes the major downgrading factors.Three RCTs (100 participants) reported a total of nine deaths during the study follow-up period. These studies did not report deaths according to treatment group.Results show no clear difference in amputation rates between IM and IA routes (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.18; three RCTs, 95 participants; low-quality evidence). Single-study data show no clear difference in amputation rates between BM-MNC- and mPBSC-treated groups (RR 1.54, 95% CI 0.45 to 5.24; 150 participants; low-quality evidence) and between high and low cell dose (RR 3.21, 95% CI 0.87 to 11.90; 16 participants; very low-quality evidence). The study comparing BM-MNCs versus BM-MSCs reported no amputations.Single-study data with low-quality evidence show similar numbers of participants with healing ulcers between BM-MNCs and mPBSCs (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.83; 49 participants) and between IM and IA routes (RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.76; 41 participants). In contrast, more participants appeared to have healing ulcers in the BM-MSC group than in the BM-MNC group (RR 2.00, 95% CI 1.02 to 3.92; one RCT, 22 participants; moderate-quality evidence). Researchers comparing high versus low cell doses did not report ulcer healing.Single-study data show similar numbers of participants with reduction in rest pain between BM-MNCs and mPBSCs (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.06; 104 participants; moderate-quality evidence) and between IM and IA routes (RR 1.22, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.64; 32 participants; low-quality evidence). One study reported no clear difference in rest pain scores between BM-MNC and BM-MSC (MD 0.00, 95% CI -0.61 to 0.61; 37 participants; moderate-quality evidence). Trials comparing high versus low cell doses did not report rest pain.Single-study data show no clear difference in the number of participants with increased ankle-brachial index (ABI; increase of > 0.1 from pretreatment), between BM-MNCs and mPBSCs (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.40; 104 participants; moderate-quality evidence), and between IM and IA routes (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.43 to 2.00; 35 participants; very low-quality evidence). In contrast, ABI scores appeared higher in BM-MSC versus BM-MNC groups (MD 0.05, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.09; one RCT, 37 participants; low-quality evidence). ABI was not reported in the high versus low cell dose comparison.Similar numbers of participants had improved transcutaneous oxygen tension (TcO₂) with IM versus IA routes (RR 1.22, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.72; two RCTs, 62 participants; very low-quality evidence). Single-study data with low-quality evidence show a higher TcO₂ reading in BM-MSC versus BM-MNC groups (MD 8.00, 95% CI 3.46 to 12.54; 37 participants) and in mPBSC- versus BM-MNC-treated groups (MD 1.70, 95% CI 0.41 to 2.99; 150 participants). TcO₂ was not reported in the high versus low cell dose comparison.Study authors reported no significant short-term adverse effects attributed to autologous cell implantation.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Mostly low- and very low-quality evidence suggests no clear differences between different stem cell sources and different treatment regimens of autologous cell implantation for outcomes such as all-cause mortality, amputation rate, ulcer healing, and rest pain for 'no-option' CLI patients. Pooled analyses did not show a clear difference in clinical outcomes whether cells were administered via IM or IA routes. High-quality evidence is lacking; therefore the efficacy and long-term safety of autologous cells derived from different sources, prepared using different protocols, administered at different doses, and delivered via different routes for the treatment of 'no-option' CLI patients, remain to be confirmed.Future RCTs with larger numbers of participants are needed to determine the efficacy of cell-based therapy for CLI patients, along with the optimal cell source, phenotype, dose, and route of implantation. Longer follow-up is needed to confirm the durability of angiogenic potential and the long-term safety of cell-based therapy.
BACKGROUND: Mononuclear cells contain progenitor cells including haematopoietic and mesenchymal stem cells, endothelial progenitor cells and fibroblasts which facilitate wound healing through cytokines, growth factor secretions, cell-cell interactions and provision of extracellular matrix scaffolding. Clinical applications of autologous mononuclear cells therapy in wound healing in non-malignant patients with critical limb ischaemia have been reported with remarkable outcome.
METHODS: We report three patients with haematological malignancies undergoing chemotherapy, who received autologous mononuclear cells implantation to treat non-healing wound after optimum conventional wound care. The sources of mononuclear cells (MNC) were from bone marrow (BM), peripheral blood (PB) and mobilised PB cells (mPB-MNC) using granulocyte colony stimulating factor (G-CSF). The cells were directly implanted into wound and below epidermis. Wound sizes and adverse effects from implantation were assessed at regular intervals.
RESULTS: All patients achieved wound healing within three months following autologous mononuclear cells implantation. No implantation adverse effects were observed.
CONCLUSIONS: Autologous mononuclear cells therapy is a feasible alternative to conventional wound care to promote complete healing in non-healing wounds compounded by morbid factors such as haematological malignancies, chemotherapy, diabetes mellitus (DM), infections and prolonged immobility.
BACKGROUND: Caregivers play an important role in the oral health care of elders in nursing homes.
METHODS: This study employed a qualitative approach using the nominal group technique (NGT) to obtain caregivers' feedback in nursing homes in Malaysia. Data were manually transcribed, summarised into keywords/key phrases, and ranked using weighted scores.
RESULTS: In total, 36 caregivers (21 from government and 15 from private nursing homes) participated in the NGT sessions. Overall, caregivers were satisfied with the low treatment cost, the quality of treatment, and the availability of dental visits to nursing homes. Caregivers were dissatisfied with the frequency of dental visits, long waiting times at government dental clinics, and inadequate denture hygiene education for elders in nursing homes. The challenges faced by caregivers were elders' poor oral health knowledge and attitude and lack of elders' trust of caregivers to look after their oral health. Suggestions for improvement were to increase the frequency of dental visits to nursing homes, provide oral health education to elders and caregivers, and give treatment priority to elders at dental clinics.
CONCLUSION: Despite being satisfied with the basic oral healthcare services received by elders in Malaysian nursing homes, caregivers raised some issues that required further attention. Suggestions for improvement include policy changes in nursing home dental visits and treatment priority for elders at government dental clinics.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of cell-based therapy for people with ALS/MND, compared with placebo or no treatment.
SEARCH METHODS: On 31 July 2019, we searched the Cochrane Neuromuscular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase. We also searched two clinical trials registries for ongoing or unpublished studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included RCTs that assigned people with ALS/MND to receive cell-based therapy versus a placebo or no additional treatment. Co-interventions were allowed, provided that they were given to each group equally.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We followed standard Cochrane methodology.
MAIN RESULTS: Two RCTs involving 112 participants were eligible for inclusion in this review. One study compared autologous bone marrow-mesenchymal stem cells (BM-MSC) plus riluzole versus control (riluzole only), while the other study compared combined intramuscular and intrathecal administration of autologous mesenchymal stem cells secreting neurotrophic factors (MSC-NTF) to placebo. The latter study was reported as an abstract and provided no numerical data. Both studies were funded by biotechnology companies. The only study that contributed to the outcome data in the review involved 64 participants, comparing BM-MSC plus riluzole versus control (riluzole only). It reported outcomes after four to six months. It had a low risk of selection bias, detection bias and reporting bias, but a high risk of performance bias and attrition bias. The certainty of evidence was low for all major efficacy outcomes, with imprecision as the main downgrading factor, because the range of plausible estimates, as shown by the 95% confidence intervals (CIs), encompassed a range that would likely result in different clinical decisions. Functional impairment, expressed as the mean change in the Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Functional Rating Scale-Revised (ALSFRS-R) score from baseline to six months after cell injection was slightly reduced (better) in the BM-MSC group compared to the control group (mean difference (MD) 3.38, 95% CI 1.22 to 5.54; 1 RCT, 56 participants; low-certainty evidence). ALSFRS-R has a range from 48 (normal) to 0 (maximally impaired); a change of 4 or more points is considered clinically important. The trial did not report outcomes at 12 months. There was no clear difference between the BM-MSC and the no treatment group in change in respiratory function (per cent predicted forced vital capacity; FVC%; MD -0.53, 95% CI -5.37 to 4.31; 1 RCT, 56 participants; low-certainty evidence); overall survival at six months (risk ratio (RR) 1.07, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.22; 1 RCT, 64 participants; low-certainty evidence); risk of total adverse events (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.19; 1 RCT, 64 participants; low-certainty evidence) or serious adverse events (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.13 to 1.72; 1 RCT, 64 participants; low-certainty evidence). The study did not measure muscle strength.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Currently, there is a lack of high-certainty evidence to guide practice on the use of cell-based therapy to treat ALS/MND. Uncertainties remain as to whether this mode of therapy is capable of restoring muscle function, slowing disease progression, and improving survival in people with ALS/MND. Although one RCT provided low-certainty evidence that BM-MSC may slightly reduce functional impairment measured on the ALSFRS-R after four to six months, this was a small phase II trial that cannot be used to establish efficacy. We need large, prospective RCTs with long-term follow-up to establish the efficacy and safety of cellular therapy and to determine patient-, disease- and cell treatment-related factors that may influence the outcome of cell-based therapy. The major goals of future research are to determine the appropriate cell source, phenotype, dose and method of delivery, as these will be key elements in designing an optimal cell-based therapy programme for people with ALS/MND. Future research should also explore novel treatment strategies, including combinations of cellular therapy and standard or novel neuroprotective agents, to find the best possible approach to prevent or reverse the neurological deficit in ALS/MND, and to prolong survival in this debilitating and fatal condition.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of cell-based therapy for people with ALS/MND, compared with placebo or no additional treatment.
SEARCH METHODS: On 21 June 2016, we searched the Cochrane Neuromuscular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase. We also searched two clinical trials' registries for ongoing or unpublished studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We planned to include randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs and cluster RCTs that assigned people with ALS/MND to receive cell-based therapy versus a placebo or no additional treatment. Co-interventions were allowable, provided that they were given to each group equally.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We followed standard Cochrane methodology.
MAIN RESULTS: No studies were eligible for inclusion in the review. We identified four ongoing trials.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Currently, there is a lack of high-quality evidence to guide practice on the use of cell-based therapy to treat ALS/MND.We need large, prospective RCTs to establish the efficacy of cellular therapy and to determine patient-, disease- and cell treatment-related factors that may influence the outcome of cell-based therapy. The major goals of future research should be to determine the appropriate cell source, phenotype, dose, and route of delivery, as these will be key elements in designing an optimal cell-based therapy programme for people with ALS/MND. Future research should also explore novel treatment strategies, including combinations of cellular therapy and standard or novel neuroprotective agents, to find the best possible approach to prevent or reverse the neurological deficit in ALS/MND, and to prolong survival in this debilitating and fatal condition.