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.
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.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: RCTs comparing postoperative comorbid disease resolution such as hypertension, dyslipidemia, obstructive sleep apnea, joint and musculoskeletal conditions, gastroesophageal reflux disease, and menstrual irregularities following LVSG and LRYGB were included for analysis. The studies were selected from PubMed, Medline, EMBASE, Science Citation Index, Current Contents, and the Cochrane database and reported on at least one comorbidity resolution or improvement. The present work was undertaken according to the Preferred Reporting Items of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). The Jadad method for assessment of methodological quality was applied to the included studies.
RESULTS: Six RCTs performed between 2005 and 2015 involving a total of 695 patients (LVSG n = 347, LRYGB n = 348) reported on the resolution or improvement of comorbid disease following LVSG and LRYGB procedures. Both bariatric procedures provide effective and almost comparable results in improving or resolving these comorbidities.
CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review of RCTs suggests that both LVSG and LRYGB are effective in resolving or improving preoperative nondiabetic comorbid diseases in obese patients. While results are not conclusive at this time, LRYGB may provide superior results compared to LVSG in mediating the remission and/or improvement in some conditions such as dyslipidemia and arthritis.
METHODS: Self-administered questionnaires were distributed to 233 undergraduate dental students involved with clinical teaching. This modified and validated questionnaire focusing on students' learning environment was used in order to gain relevant information related to dental clinical teaching. Six domains with different criteria applicable to clinical teaching in dentistry were selected consisting of modelling (four criteria), coaching (four criteria), scaffolding (four criteria), articulation (four criteria), reflection (two criteria) and general learning environment (six criteria). Data analyses were performed using IBM SPSS Statistics 20.
RESULTS: Majority of the students expressed positive perceptions on their clinical learning experience towards the clinical teachers in the Faculty of Dentistry, University of Malaya, in all criteria of the domains. Few negative feedbacks concerning the general learning environment were reported.
CONCLUSION: Further improvement in the delivery of clinical teaching preferably by using wide variety of teaching-learning activities can be taken into account through students' feedback on their learning experience.
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.
DESIGN: Two-year prospective cohort study.
SETTING: Kuala Pilah, a district in Negeri Sembilan approximately 100 km from the capital city, Kuala Lumpur.
PARTICIPANTS: Community-dwelling older adults aged 60 and older. Using a multistage cluster sampling strategy, 1,927 respondents were recruited and assessed at baseline, of whom 1,189 were re-assessed 2 years later.
MEASURES: EAN was determined using the modified Conflict Tactic Scale, and chronic pain was assessed through self-report using validated questions.
RESULTS: The prevalence of chronic pain was 20.4%. Cross-sectional results revealed 8 variables significantly associated with chronic pain-age, education, income, comorbidities, self-rated health, depression, gait speed, and EAN. Abused elderly adults were 1.52 times as likely to have chronic pain (odds ratio=1.52, 95% confidence interval (CI)=1.03-2.27), although longitudinal analyses showed no relationship between EAN and risk of chronic pain (risk ratio=1.14, 95% CI=0.81-1.60). This lack of causal link was consistent when comparing analysis with complete cases with that of imputed data.
CONCLUSION: Our findings indicate no temporal relationship between EAN and chronic pain but indicated cross-sectional associations between the two. This might indicate that, although EAN does not lead to chronic pain, individuals with greater physical limitations are more vulnerable to abuse. Our study also shows the importance of cohort design in determining causal relationships between EAN and potentially linked health outcomes.
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.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Searches of electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane) were undertaken for randomized controlled trials describing weight loss outcomes in adults at 5 years postoperatively. Where sufficient data was available to undertake meta-analysis, the Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman estimation method for random effects model was utilized. The review was registered with PROSPERO and reported following in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses.
RESULTS: Five studies met the inclusion criteria totaling 1028 patients (LVSG=520, LRYGB=508). Moderate but comparable levels of bias were observed within studies. Statistically significant body mass index loss ranged from -11.37 kg/m (range: -6.3 to -15.7 kg/m) in the LVSG group and -12.6 kg/m (range: -9.5 to -15.4 kg/m) for LRYGB at 5 years (P<0.001). Systematic review suggested that LRYGB produced a greater weight loss expressed as percent excess weight and percent excess body mass index loss than LVSG: this was not corroborated in the meta-analysis.
CONCLUSIONS: Five year weight loss outcomes suggest both LRYGB and LVSG are effective in achieving significant weight loss at 5 years postoperatively, however, differences in reporting parameters limit the ability to reliably compare the outcomes using statistical methods. Furthermore, results may be impacted by large dropout rates and per protocol analysis of the 2 largest included studies. Further long-term studies are required to contradict or validate the results of this meta-analysis.
METHODS: Electronic databases (Pubmed, EMBASE, CINAHL) were searched for RCTs conducted in adults (>18y) that compared the 5-year- outcomes of LVSG to LRYGB and described comorbidity outcomes were included. Where data allowed, effect sizes were calculated using the Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman estimation method for random effects model. Presence of bias was assessed with Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 and funnel plots, and certainty of evidence evaluated by GRADE. The study prospectively registered with PROSPERO (CRD42018112054).
RESULTS: Three RCTs (LVSG=254, LRYGB=255) met inclusion criteria and reported on chronic disease outcomes. Improvement and/or resolution of hypertension favoured LRYGB (odds ratio 0.49, 95% CI 0.29, 0.84; P =0.03). Trends favoring LRYGB were seen for type 2 diabetes and dysplidemia, and LVSG for sleep apnea and back/joint conditions ( P >0.05). The certainty of evidence associated with each assessed outcome ranged from low to very low, in the setting of 'some' to 'high' bias assessed as being present.
CONCLUSION: Both LRYGB and LVSG are effective in providing long-term improvements in commonly experienced obesity-related comorbidities; however, the limited certainty of the evidence does not allow for strong clinical conclusions to be made at this time regarding benefit of one procedure over the other.