METHODS: The NFS was calculated and LSM obtained for consecutive adult NAFLD patients scheduled for liver biopsy. The accuracy of predicting advanced fibrosis using either modality and in combination were assessed. An algorithm combining the NFS and LSM was developed from a training cohort and subsequently tested in a validation cohort.
RESULTS: There were 101 and 46 patients in the training and validation cohort, respectively. In the training cohort, the percentages of misclassifications using the NFS alone, LSM alone, LSM alone (with grey zone), both tests for all patients and a 2-step approach using LSM only for patients with indeterminate and high NFS were 5.0, 28.7, 2.0, 2.0 and 4.0 %, respectively. The percentages of patients requiring liver biopsy were 30.7, 0, 36.6, 36.6 and 18.8 %, respectively. In the validation cohort, the percentages of misclassifications were 8.7, 28.3, 2.2, 2.2 and 8.7 %, respectively. The percentages of patients requiring liver biopsy were 28.3, 0, 41.3, 43.5 and 19.6 %, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: The novel 2-step approach further reduced the number of patients requiring a liver biopsy whilst maintaining the accuracy to predict advanced fibrosis. The combination of NFS and LSM for all patients provided no apparent advantage over using either of the tests alone.
DESIGN: Semi-structured, qualitative interviews.
SETTINGS: A teaching hospital in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
PARTICIPANTS: A total of 17 healthcare professionals aged 23-43 years, 82% women.
RESULTS: Thematic analysis revealed five themes that represent HCPs' perceptions in relation to the usage of PEG feeding: 1) knowledge of HCPs, 2) communication, 3) understanding among patients, and 4) financial and affordability.
CONCLUSION: The rationale for reluctance towards PEG feeding observed in this regions was explained by lack of education, knowledge, communication, team work, and financial support. Future studies should assess the effects of educational programmes among HCPs and changes in policies to promote affordability on the utilization of PEG feeding in this region.
METHODS: We searched Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science and PubMed databases through to December 2013 using the terms "percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy", "gastrostomy", "PEG", "nasogastric", "nasogastric tube", "nasogastric feeding" and "intubation". We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-RCTs which compared PEG with NG feeding in individuals with non-stroke dysphagia.
RESULTS: 9 studies involving 847 participants were included in the final analysis, including two randomized trials. Pooled analysis indicated no significant difference in the risk of pneumonia [relative risk (RR) = 1.18, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.87-1.60] and overall complications [relative risk (RR) = 0.80, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.63-1.02] between PEG and NG feeding. A meta-analysis was not possible for mortality and nutritional outcomes, but three studies suggested improved mortality outcomes with PEG feeding while two out of three studies reported PEG feeding to be better from a nutritional perspective.
CONCLUSIONS: Firm conclusions could not be derived on whether PEG feeding is beneficial over NG feeding in older persons with non-stroke dysphagia, as previously published literature were unclear or had a high risk of bias. A well-designed and adequately powered RCT, which includes carer strain and quality of life as outcome measures is therefore urgently needed.