METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a community-based prospective cohort study using randomly selected households from the national census. A multistage sampling method was employed to obtain a total of 2496 older adults living in the rural Kuala Pilah district. The study is divided into two phases: cross-sectional study (baseline), and a longitudinal follow-up study at the third and fifth years. Elder mistreatment was measured using instrument derived from the previous literature and modified Conflict Tactic Scales. Outcomes of elder mistreatment include mortality, physical function, mental health, quality of life and health utilisation. Logistic regression models are used to examine the relationship between risk factors and abuse estimates. Cox proportional hazard regression will be used to estimate risk of mortality associated with abuse. Associated annual rate of hospitalisation and health visit frequency, and reporting of abuse, will be estimated using Poisson regression.
ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study has been approved by the Medical Ethics Committee of the University of Malaya Medical Center (MEC Ref 902.2) and the Malaysian National Medical Research Register (NMRR-12-1444-11726). Written consent was obtained from all respondents prior to baseline assessment and subsequent follow-up. Findings will be disseminated to local stakeholders via forums with community leaders, and health and social welfare departments, and published in appropriate scientific journals and presented at conferences.
METHODS: A meta-analysis and systematic review of MEDLINE, PubMed Central (via PubMed), Embase (via Ovid), SCOPUS, ScienceDirect, Google Scholar, SCI and Cochrane Library databases were undertaken. Seven randomized controlled trials assessing the outcomes of PSR and POMR were analyzed in accordance with the PRISMA statement. The risk of bias was assessed using the Rob2 tool.
RESULTS: According to the pooled analysis, POMR significantly reduced the incidence of IH compared to the PSR (OR 5.82 [95% CI 2.69, 12.58] P
METHODS: This study used available under-five nutritional secondary data from the Demographic and Health Surveys performed in sub-Saharan African countries. The research used bagging, boosting, and voting algorithms, such as random forest, decision tree, eXtreme Gradient Boosting, and k-nearest neighbors machine learning methods, to generate the MVBHE model.
RESULTS: We evaluated the model performances in contrast to each other using different measures, including accuracy, precision, recall, and the F1 score. The results of the experiment showed that the MVBHE model (96%) was better at predicting malnutrition than the random forest (81%), decision tree (60%), eXtreme Gradient Boosting (79%), and k-nearest neighbors (74%).
CONCLUSIONS: The random forest algorithm demonstrated the highest prediction accuracy (81%) compared with the decision tree, eXtreme Gradient Boosting, and k-nearest neighbors algorithms. The accuracy was then enhanced to 96% using the MVBHE model. The MVBHE model is recommended by the present study as the best way to predict malnutrition in under-five children.
DATA SOURCES: A search of PubMed and other electronic databases comparing LARR and ORR between Jan 2000 and June 2016 was performed. Histopathological variables analyzed included; location of rectal tumors; complete and incomplete TME; positive and negative circumferential resection margins (+/-CRM); positive distal resected margins (+DRM); distance of tumor from DRM; number of lymph nodes harvested; resected specimen length; tumor size and perforated rectum.
RESULTS: Fourteen RCTs totaling 3843 patients (LARR = 2096, ORR = 1747) were analyzed. Comparable effects were noted for all these histopathological variables except for the variable perforated rectum which favored ORR.
CONCLUSIONS: LARR compares favorably to ORR for rectal cancer treatment. However, there is significantly higher risk of rectal perforation during LARR compared to ORR.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A search of the Medline, Embase, Science Citation Index, Current Contents and PubMed databases identified English-language randomized clinical trials comparing LARR and ORR. The meta-analysis was prepared in accordance with the PRISMA statement. Thirteen outcome variables were analyzed. Random effects meta-analyses were performed due to heterogeneity.
RESULTS: A total of 14 randomized clinical trials that included 3843 rectal resections (LARR 2096, ORR 1747) were analyzed. The summary point estimates favored LARR for the intraoperative blood loss, commencement of oral intake, first bowel movement, and length of hospital stay. There was significantly longer duration of operating time of 38.29 minutes for the LARR group. Other outcome variables such as total complications, postoperative pain, postoperative ileus, abdominal abscesses, postoperative anastomotic leak, reintervention and postoperative mortality rates were found to have comparable outcomes for both cohorts.
CONCLUSIONS: LARR was associated with significantly reduced blood loss, quicker resumption of oral intake, earlier return of gastrointestinal function, and shorter length of hospital stay at the expense of significantly longer operating time. Postoperative morbidity and mortality and analgesia requirement for both these groups were comparable. LARR seems to be a safe and effective alternative to ORR; however, it needs to be performed in established colorectal units with experienced laparoscopic surgeons.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: Randomized controlled trials evaluating the effects of these 2 treatment modalities were searched from PubMed and other electronic databases between January 1991 and July 2018. The outcome variables analyzed included operating time, complications, recurrence of HH or wrap migration, reoperation, hospital stay and quality of life.
RESULTS: Five randomized controlled trials totaling 478 patients (suture=222, mesh=256) were analyzed. For reoperation variable, the odds ratio was significantly 3.26 times higher for the suture group. For recurrence of HH, the odds ratio for the suture group was nonsignificantly 1.65 times higher compared with the mesh group. Comparable effects were noted for all other variables.
CONCLUSIONS: Mesh repair seems to be superior to suture cruroplasty for large HH repair. Therefore, the routine use of mesh may be advantageous in selected cases.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Randomized controlled comparing MIE versus OE were searched from PubMed and other electronic databases between January 1991 and March 2019. Thirteen outcome variables were analyzed. Random effects model was used to calculate the effect size. The meta-analysis was prepared in accordance with PRISMA guidelines.
RESULTS: Four randomized controlled trials totaling 569 patients were analyzed. For MIE, there was a significantly reduction of 67% in the odds of pulmonary complications. For operating time, MIE was nonsignificantly 29 minutes longer. MIE was associated with nonsignificantly less blood loss of 443.98 mL. There was nonsignificant 60% reduction in the odds of total complications and 51% reduction in the odds of medical complications favoring MIE group. For delayed gastric emptying, there was a nonsignificant reduction of 75% in the odds ratio favoring the MIE group. For postoperative anastomotic leak, there was a nonsignificant increase of 48% in the odds ratio for MIE group. For gastric necrosis, chylothorax, reintervention and 30-day mortality, no difference was observed for both groups. There was a nonsignificant reduction in the length of hospital stay of 7.98 days and intensive care unit stay of 2.7 days favoring MIE.
CONCLUSIONS: MIE seems to be superior to OE for only pulmonary complications. All the other perioperative variables were comparable however, the trend is favoring the MIE. Therefore, the routine use of MIE presently may only be justifiable in high volume esophagogastric units.
METHODS: RCTs comparing the early complication rates following LVSG and LRYGB between 2000 and 2015 were selected from PubMed, Medline, Embase, Science Citation Index, Current Contents, and the Cochrane database. The outcome variables analyzed included 30-day mortality, major and minor complications and interventions required for their management, length of hospital stay, readmission rates, operating time, and conversions from laparoscopic to open procedures.
RESULTS: Six RCTs involving a total of 695 patients (LVSG n = 347, LRYGB n = 348) reported on early major complications. A statistically significant reduction in relative odds of early major complications favoring the LVSG procedure was noted (p = 0.05). Five RCTs representing 633 patients (LVSG n = 317, LRYGB n = 316) reported early minor complications. A non-statically significant reduction in relative odds of 29 % favoring the LVSG procedure was observed for early minor complications (p = 0.4). However, other outcomes directly related to complications which included reoperation rates, readmission rate, and 30-day mortality rate showed comparable effect size for both surgical procedures.
CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis and systematic review of RCTs suggests that fewer early major and minor complications are associated with LVSG compared with LRYGB procedure. However, this does not translate into higher readmission rate, reoperation rate, or 30-day mortality for either procedure.
METHODS: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was undertaken using the PRISMA guidelines to investigate the postoperative impact on diabetes resolution following LVSG versus LRYGB.
RESULTS: Seven RCTs involving a total of 732 patients (LVSG n = 365, LRYGB n = 367) met inclusion criteria. Significant diabetes resolution or improvement was reported with both procedures across all time points. Similarly, measures of glycemic control (HbA1C and fasting blood glucose levels) improved with both procedures, with earlier improvements noted in LRYGB that stabilized and did not differ from LVSG at 12 months postoperatively. Early improvements in measures of insulin resistance in both procedures were also noted in the studies that investigated this.
CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review of RCTs suggests that both LVSG and LRYGB are effective in resolving or improving preoperative type 2 diabetes in obese patients during the reported 3- to 5-year follow-up periods. However, further studies are required before longer-term outcomes can be elucidated. Areas identified that need to be addressed for future studies on this topic include longer follow-up periods, standardized definitions and time point for reporting, and financial analysis of outcomes obtained between surgical procedures to better inform procedure selection.