SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: A previous systematic review identified 115 outcomes in 60 trials and systematic reviews evaluating treatments for children with appendicitis, suggesting the need for a COS.
METHODS: The development process consisted of 4 phases: (1) an updated systematic review identifying all previously reported outcomes, (2) a 2-stage international Delphi study in which parents with their children and surgeons rated these outcomes for inclusion in the COS, (3) focus groups with young people to identify missing outcomes, and (4) international expert meetings to ratify the final COS.
RESULTS: The systematic review identified 129 outcomes which were mapped to 43 unique outcome terms for the Delphi survey. The first-round included 137 parents (8 countries) and 245 surgeons (10 countries), the second-round response rates were 61% and 85% respectively, with 10 outcomes emerging with consensus. After 2 young peoples' focus groups, 2 additional outcomes were added to the final COS (12): mortality, bowel obstruction, intraabdominal abscess, recurrent appendicitis, complicated appendicitis, return to baseline health, readmission, reoperation, unplanned appendectomy, adverse events related to treatment, major and minor complications.
CONCLUSION: An evidence-informed COS based on international consensus, including patients and parents has been developed. This COS is recommended for all future studies evaluating treatment ofsimple appendicitis in children, to reduce heterogeneity between studies and facilitate data synthesis and evidence-based decision-making.
METHOD: This study utilized modified e-Delphi method to build consensus. A validated e-Delphi survey was administered to a purposive sample of 29 experts. Consensus was pre-defined to be the point where >85% of the experts fall in either agree or strongly agree category for each statement. The inter-expert agreement was computed in both rounds using Intra-class correlation coefficient and Kendall's W. Delphi operates in an iterative fashion till there comes stability in responses. At the end of each round, experts were provided aggregate response, their own response and choice to change their response in the light of aggregate response.
RESULTS: Response rate was 70.73% and 100% in 1st and 2nd round, respectively. Consensus was achieved on 119/132 statements which mainly referred to the need, structural and regulatory aspects of CMTM model in Malaysia. However, there were some flashpoints on dispensing separation and means to finance this model. Stability in response of experts was achieved after 2nd round; hence, no next round was executed.
CONCLUSION: Overall, the study findings witnessed the expert panel's support for the CMTM model. Study helped to sketch CMTM model and facilitated development of some recommendations to the authorities which may help to formulate a policy to bring CPs under a working relationship with GPs. Hence, this study should be taken as a call for redefining of the roles of CPs and GPs in Malaysia.
METHODS AND RESULTS: A multidisciplinary panel of fifty-two international experts comprising Hepatologists, Endocrinologists, Diabetologists, Cardiologists and Family Physicians from six continents (Asia, Europe, North America, South America, Africa and Oceania) participated in a formal Delphi survey and developed consensus statements on the association between MAFLD and the risk of CVD. Statements were developed on different aspects of CVD risk, ranging from epidemiology to mechanisms, screening, and management.
CONCULSIONS: The expert panel identified important clinical associations between MAFLD and the risk of CVD that could serve to increase awareness of the adverse metabolic and cardiovascular outcomes of MAFLD. Finally, the expert panel also suggests potential areas for future research.
METHODS: A 'meta-model' with 4894 concentrations from 1631 neonates was built using NONMEM, and Monte Carlo simulations were performed to design an optimal intermittent infusion, aiming to reach a target AUC0-24 of 400 mg·h/L at steady-state in at least 80% of neonates.
RESULTS: A two-compartment model best fitted the data. Current weight, postmenstrual age (PMA) and serum creatinine were the significant covariates for CL. After model validation, simulations showed that a loading dose (25 mg/kg) and a maintenance dose (15 mg/kg q12h if <35 weeks PMA and 15 mg/kg q8h if ≥35 weeks PMA) achieved the AUC0-24 target earlier than a standard 'Blue Book' dosage regimen in >89% of the treated patients.
CONCLUSIONS: The results of a population meta-analysis of vancomycin data have been used to develop a new dosing regimen for neonatal use and to assist in the design of the model-based, multinational European trial, NeoVanc.
Methods: A cross-sectional study was carried out in two general paediatric wards in a public hospital. SGNA and STAMP were performed on 82 children (52 boys and 30 girls) of age 1-7 years. The scores from both methods were compared against Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics/American Society of Parental and Enteral Nutrition Consensus Statement for identification of paediatric malnutrition. The objective measurements include anthropometry (weight, height and mid-arm circumference), dietary intake and biochemical markers (C-reactive protein, total lymphocytes and serum albumin). Kappa agreement between methods, sensitivity, specificity and cross-classification were computed.
Results: SGNA and STAMP identified 45% and 79% of the children to be at risk of malnutrition, respectively. Using a compendium of objective parameters, 46% of the children were confirmed to be malnourished. The agreement between SGNA and objective measurements (k = 0.337) was stronger than between STAMP and objective measurements (k = 0.052) in evaluating the nutritional status of hospitalized children. SGNA also has a 4-fold higher specificity (70.45%) than STAMP (18.18%) in detecting children who are malnourished.
Conclusion: SGNA is a valid nutrition assessment tool in diagnosing malnutrition status among hospitalized children in Malaysia. The discrepancy in specificity values between the two methods explains the distinguished roles between SGNA and STAMP. The use of STAMP will have to be followed up with a more valid tool such as SGNA to verify the actual nutrition status of the paediatric population.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A search of relevant literature from 2014 to 2016 concerning targeted therapies in RA was conducted. The RA Update Working Group evaluated the evidence and proposed updated recommendations using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) approach, to describe the quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. Recommendations were finalized through consensus using the Delphi technique.
RESULTS: This update provides 16 RA treatment recommendations based on current best evidence and expert clinical opinion. Recommendations 1-3 deal with the use of conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs. The next three recommendations (4-6) cover the need for screening and management of infections and comorbid conditions prior to starting targeted therapy, while the following seven recommendations focus on use of these agents. We address choice of targeted therapy, switch, tapering and discontinuation. The last three recommendations elaborate on targeted therapy for RA in special situations such as pregnancy, cancer, and major surgery.
CONCLUSION: Rheumatoid arthritis remains a significant health problem in the Asia-Pacific region. Patients with RA can benefit from the availability of effective targeted therapies, and these updated recommendations provide clinicians with guidance on their use.