Objective: To critically examine the literature regarding the involvement of CCB in manifestation of LUTS in humans.
Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted on PubMed, SciELO, Scopus, and OpenGrey databases to find all potentially relevant research studies before August 2016.
Results: Five studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in this review. Three out of five studies stated that CCB were involved in either precipitation or exacerbation of LUTS. As for the remaining two studies, one study found out that only the monotherapy of CCB was associated with increased prevalence of nocturia and voiding symptoms in young females, whereas the other study reported an inverse association of CCB with LUTS. The methodological quality of studies was considered high for four studies and low for one study.
Conclusion: Healthcare providers should make efforts for an earlier identification of the individuals at risk of LUTS prior to the commencement of CCB therapy. Moreover, patients should be counselled to notify their healthcare provider if they notice urinary symptoms after the initiation of CCB.
OBJECTIVE: Several European and international consensus statements concerning faecal microbiota transplantation have been issued. While these documents provide overall guidance, we aim to provide a detailed description of all processes that relate to the collection, handling and clinical application of human donor stool in this document.
METHODS: Collaborative subgroups of experts on stool banking drafted concepts for all domains pertaining to stool banking. During a working group meeting in the United European Gastroenterology Week 2019 in Barcelona, these concepts were discussed and finalised to be included in our overall guidance document about faecal microbiota transplantation.
RESULTS: A guidance document for all domains pertaining to stool banking was created. This document includes standard operating manuals for several processes involved with stool banking, such as handling of donor material, storage and donor screening.
CONCLUSION: The implementation of faecal microbiota transplantation by stool banks in concordance with our guidance document will enable quality assurance and guarantee the availability of donor faeces preparations for patients.
METHODS: Nine hospitals in Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines and Thailand participated in SEA-ORCHID. These hospitals were supported by researchers from three Australian centres. Health care practices and outcomes were assessed for 1000 women at each hospital both before and after the intervention. The capacity development intervention was tailored to the needs and context of each hospital and delivered over an 18 month period. Main outcomes included adherence to forms of care likely to be beneficial and avoidance of forms of care likely to be ineffective or harmful.
RESULTS: We observed substantial variation in clinical practice change between sites. The capacity development intervention had a positive impact on some care practices across all countries, including increased family support during labour and decreased perineal shaving before birth, but in some areas there was no significant change in practice and a few beneficial practices were followed less often.
CONCLUSION: The results of SEA-ORCHID demonstrate that investing in developing capacity for research use, synthesis and generation can lead to improvements in maternal and neonatal health practice and highlight the difficulty of implementing evidence-based practice change.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: Given the current lack of evidence on quality and safety improvements and on the cost-benefits associated with the introduction of eHealth applications, there should be a focus on implementing more mature technologies; it is also important that eHealth applications should be evaluated against a comprehensive and rigorous set of measures, ideally at all stages of their application life cycle.
METHODS: The agreement indices (or pass rates) for global and local gamma evaluation, maximum allowed dose difference (MADD) and divide and conquer (D&C) techniques were calculated using a selection of acceptance criteria for 429 patient-specific pretreatment quality assurance measurements. Regression analysis was used to quantify the similarity of behavior of each technique, to determine whether possible variations in sensitivity might be present.
RESULTS: The results demonstrated that the behavior of D&C gamma analysis and MADD box analysis differs from any other dose comparison techniques, whereas MADD gamma analysis exhibits similar performance to the standard global gamma analysis. Local gamma analysis had the least variation in behavior with criteria selection. Agreement indices calculated for 2%/2 mm and 2%/3 mm, and 3%/2 mm and 3%/3 mm were correlated for most comparison techniques.
CONCLUSION: Radiation oncology treatment centers looking to compare between different dose comparison techniques, criteria or lower dose thresholds may apply the results of this study to estimate the expected change in calculated agreement indices and possible variation in sensitivity to delivery dose errors.