METHOD: This systematic review used the preferred reporting items of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). We conducted a systematic review of randomized controlled and quasi-experimental studies published from the establishment of the database to October 2022. Marital self-disclosure interventions were conducted with both cancer patients and their spouses. Studies published in a language other than English or Chinese, and studies below a quality grade of C were excluded. Data were extracted through a standardized data collection form, and two reviewers independently extracted and evaluated the data. The quality of the included studies was assessed using the Cochrane Handbook of Systematic Reviews of Interventions, and a third reviewer adjudicated in case of disagreement. The data were synthesized by vote counting based on direction of effect according to the Synthesis Without Meta-analysis (SWiM) reporting guideline.
RESULTS: Thirteen studies were included in the review. Based on quality evaluation, three studies were categorized as grade A (good), and ten studies were grade B (moderate). Seven studies reported moderate rates of participant refusal and attrition. The structure and topics of marital self-disclosure varied across different studies. The five studies had various prespecified disclosure topics, such as fear of cancer recurrence, benefit finding, and emotional distress. The overall results suggest that marital self-disclosure interventions can improve physical and psychological health, enhance marital relationships, and increase self-disclosure ability.
CONCLUSION: The limited number of studies, small sample sizes, diverse intervention strategies, and methodological heterogeneity weakened the evidence base for the effectiveness of marital self-disclosure interventions. Therefore, further high-quality randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are recommended to confirm the effectiveness of such interventions. These studies should also evaluate the interventions' long-term impact, analyze optional topics and methods, identify key features, and explore the development of the best intervention program.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We developed a web-interface, hosted on a web server to collect oral lesions images from international partners. Further, we developed a customised annotation tool, also a web-interface for systematic annotation of images to build a rich clinically labelled dataset. We evaluated the sensitivities comparing referral decisions through the annotation process with the clinical diagnosis of the lesions.
RESULTS: The image repository hosts 2474 images of oral lesions consisting of oral cancer, oral potentially malignant disorders and other oral lesions that were collected through MeMoSA® UPLOAD. Eight-hundred images were annotated by seven oral medicine specialists on MeMoSA® ANNOTATE, to mark the lesion and to collect clinical labels. The sensitivity in referral decision for all lesions that required a referral for cancer management/surveillance was moderate to high depending on the type of lesion (64.3%-100%).
CONCLUSION: This is the first description of a database with clinically labelled oral lesions. This database could accelerate the improvement of AI algorithms that can promote the early detection of high-risk oral lesions.
METHODS: We analyzed the first 1,000 patients included in the International GBS Outcome Study with available biosamples (n = 768) for the presence of a recent infection with Campylobacter jejuni, hepatitis E virus, Mycoplasma pneumoniae, cytomegalovirus, and Epstein-Barr virus.
RESULTS: Serologic evidence of a recent infection with C. jejuni was found in 228 (30%), M. pneumoniae in 77 (10%), hepatitis E virus in 23 (3%), cytomegalovirus in 30 (4%), and Epstein-Barr virus in 7 (1%) patients. Evidence of more than 1 recent infection was found in 49 (6%) of these patients. Symptoms of antecedent infections were reported in 556 patients (72%), and this proportion did not significantly differ between those testing positive or negative for a recent infection. The proportions of infections were similar across continents. The sensorimotor variant and the demyelinating electrophysiologic subtype were most frequent across all infection groups, although proportions were significantly higher in patients with a cytomegalovirus and significantly lower in those with a C. jejuni infection. C. jejuni-positive patients were more severely affected, indicated by a lower Medical Research Council sum score at nadir (p = 0.004) and a longer time to regain the ability to walk independently (p = 0.005). The pure motor variant and axonal electrophysiologic subtype were more frequent in Asian compared with American or European C. jejuni-positive patients (p < 0.001, resp. p = 0.001). Time to nadir was longer in the cytomegalovirus-positive patients (p = 0.004).
DISCUSSION: Across geographical regions, the distribution of infections was similar, but the association between infection and clinical phenotype differed. A mismatch between symptom reporting and serologic results and the high frequency of coinfections demonstrate the importance of broad serologic testing in identifying the most likely infectious trigger. The association between infections and outcome indicates their value for future prognostic models.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with at least one EEG recording were recruited. The EEG and clinical data were collated.
RESULTS: Two hundred and fifty patients underwent EEG and 154 (61.6%) were found to have abnormal EEG. The abnormal changes consist of theta activity (79,31.6%), delta activity (20, 8%), focal discharges (41,16.4%) and generalised discharges (14, 5.6%). Older patients had 3.481 higher risk for EEG abnormalities, p=0.001. Patients who had focal seizures had 2.240 higher risk of having EEG abnormalities, p<0.001. Low protein level was a risk for EEG abnormalities, p=0.003.
CONCLUSION: This study emphasised that an abnormal EEG remains a useful tool in determining the likelihood for seizures in a hospital setting. The risk factors for EEG abnormality in hospitalised patients were age, focal seizures and low protein level. The EEG may have an important role as part of the workup in hospitalised patients to aid the clinician to tailor their management in a holistic manner.