MyMedR

Displaying all 8 publications

Abstract:

Sort:

Personal domains assessed in multiple mini interviews (MMIs) for healthcare student selection: A narrative synthesis systematic review

Callwood A, Jeevaratnam K, Kotronoulas G, Schneider A, Lewis L, Nadarajah VD

Nurse Educ Today, 2018 May;64:56-64.
PMID: 29459193 DOI: 10.1016/j.nedt.2018.01.016

OBJECTIVES: To examine the personal domains multiple mini interviews (MMIs) are being designed to assess, explore how they were determined and contextualise such domains in current and future healthcare student selection processes DESIGN: A systematic review of empirical research reporting on MMI model design was conducted from database inception to November 2017.
DATA SOURCES: Twelve electronic bibliographic databases.
REVIEW METHODS: Evidence was extracted from original studies, and integrated in a narrative synthesis guided by the PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews. Personal domains were clustered into themes using a modified Delphi technique.
RESULTS: A total of 584 articles were screened. 65 unique studies (80 articles) matched our inclusion criteria of which seven were conducted within nursing/midwifery faculties. Six in 10 studies featured applicants to medical school. Across selection processes, we identified 32 personal domains assessed by MMIs, the most frequent being: communication skills (84%), teamwork/collaboration (70%), and ethical/moral judgement (65%). Domains capturing ability to cope with stressful situations (14%), make decisions (14%), and resolve conflict in the workplace (13%) featured in fewer than ten studies overall. Intra- and inter-disciplinary inconsistencies in domain profiles were noted, as well as differences by entry level. MMIs deployed in nursing and midwifery assessed compassion and decision-making more frequently than in all other disciplines. Own programme philosophy and professional body guidance were most frequently cited (~50%) as sources for personal domains; a blueprinting process was reported in only 8% of studies.
CONCLUSIONS: Nursing, midwifery and allied healthcare professionals should develop their theoretical frameworks for MMIs to ensure they are evidence-based and fit-for-purpose. We suggest a re-evaluation of domain priorities to ensure that students who are selected, not only have the capacity to offer the highest standards of care provision, but are able to maintain these standards when facing clinical practice and organisational pressures.
Propensity score matched all comers population treated with ultra-thin strut bare metal and sirolimus-probucol coated drug-eluting stents of identical stent architecture

Krackhardt F, Rosli MA, Leschke M, Schneider A, Sperling C, Heang TM, et al.

Catheter Cardiovasc Interv, 2018 06;91(7):1221-1228.
PMID: 28944613 DOI: 10.1002/ccd.27306

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to compare the safety and efficacy of a polymer-free sirolimus coated, ultrathin strut drug eluting stent (PF-SES) to its uncoated bare-metal stent (BMS) platform of identical stent architecture.
BACKGROUND: Recently published randomized trials comparing BMS to DES with a focus on shortened dual-antiplatelet therapy reported incidences of stent thrombosis (ST) and bleeding complications (LEADERS FREE) in favor of drug eluting stents (DES).
METHODS: Data of previously published large-sale, international, single-armed, multicenter, observational studies of ultra-thin PF-SES, and BMS were propensity score (PS) matched for selected lesion morphological and cardiovascular risk factors to compare target lesion revascularization (TLR), myocardial infarction, cardiac death, major adverse cardiac events (MACE), bleeding complications and ST rates. Primary endpoint in both studies was TLR at 9 months.
RESULTS: At 9 months the rates of TLR was significantly lower in the PF-SES group as compared with patients treated with the BMS analogue of identical stent design (1.4% vs. 4.6%, P = 0.005). Likewise the 9-month MACE rates were lower in the PF-SES group (3.2% vs. 8.7%, P = 0.001) whereas there were no differences in the accumulated ST rates (0.5% vs. 1.5%, P = 0.109). Overall accumulated bleeding incidences (BARC 1-5) were not significantly different between PF-SES and BMS patients (1.8% vs. 2.7%, p = 0.388).
CONCLUSIONS: PF-SES are superior over analogue BMS of identical stent architecture in daily clinical routine with lower rates of TLR and MACE in a PS-matched, unselected patient population without differences in accumulated ST rates and bleeding frequencies given the currently favored postprocedural comedication (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT02629575).
Fulltext Polymer-free sirolimus-eluting stents in a large-scale all-comers population

Krackhardt F, Kočka V, Waliszewski MW, Utech A, Lustermann M, Hudec M, et al.

Open Heart, 2017 06 06;4(2):e000592.
PMID: 28761678 DOI: 10.1136/openhrt-2017-000592

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to assess the safety and efficacy of a polymer-free sirolimus coated, ultrathin strut drug-eluting stent (PF-SES) in an unselected patient population with a focus on acute coronary syndrome (ACS). Furthermore, stable coronary artery disease (CAD) with short (≤6 months) versus long (>6 months) dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) were also studied.
METHODS: Patients who received PF-SES were investigated in an unselected large-scale international, single-armed, multicenter, 'all comers' observational study. The primary endpoint was the 9-month target lesion revascularisation (TLR) rate, whereas secondary endpoints included the 9-month major adverse cardiac events (MACE) and procedural success rates. A priori defined subgroups such as patients with ACS, diabetes, lesion subsets and procedural characteristics relative to DAPT were investigated.
RESULTS: A total of 2877 patients of whom 1084 had ACS were treated with PF-SES (1.31±0.75 stents per patient). At 9 months, the accumulated overall TLR rate was 2.3% (58/2513). There was no significant difference between ACS and stable CAD (2.6% vs 2.1%, p=0.389). However, the overall MACE rate was 4.3% (108/2513) with a higher rate in patients with ACS when compared with the stable CAD subgroup (6.1%, 58/947 vs 3.2%, 50/1566, p<0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: PF-SES angioplasty is safe and effective in the daily clinical routine with low rates of TLR and MACE in an unselected patient population. Our data are in agreement with prior clinical findings that extended DAPT duration beyond 6 months do not improve clinical outcomes in patients with stable CAD (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT02629575).
TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02629575.
Thin strut bare metal stents in patients with atrial fibrillation: Is there still a need for BMS?

Leschke M, Waliszewski M, Pons M, Champin S, Nait Saidi L, Mok Heang T, et al.

Catheter Cardiovasc Interv, 2016 Sep;88(3):358-66.
PMID: 26650913 DOI: 10.1002/ccd.26261

OBJECTIVES: This observational study assessed the 9-month clinical outcomes in an « all comers » population with a focus on patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) after thin strut bare metal stenting.
BACKGROUND: Drug eluting stent (DES) implantation is the treatment of choice for coronary artery disease (CAD) leaving only marginal indications for the use of bare metal stents (BMS). However, selected treatment populations with DES contraindications such as patients who cannot sustain 6-12 months of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) remain candidates for BMS implantations.
METHODS: Thin strut bare metal stenting in a priori defined subgroups were investigated in a non-randomized, international, multicenter «all comers» observational study. Primary endpoint was the 9-month TLR rate whereas secondary endpoints included the 9-month MACE and procedural success rates.
RESULTS: A total of 783 patients of whom 98 patients had AF underwent BMS implantation. Patient age was 70.4 ± 12.8 years. Cardiovascular risk factors in the overall population were male gender (78.2%, 612/783), diabetes (25.2%, 197/783), hypertension (64.1%, 502/783), cardiogenic shock (4.9%, 38/783) and end stage renal disease (4.9%, 38/783). In-hospital MACE was 4.1% (30/783) in the overall population. The 9-month TLR rate was 4.5% (29/645) in the non-AF group and 3.3% (3/90) in the AF group (P = 0.613). At 9 months, the MACE rate in the AF-group and non-AF group was not significantly different either (10.7%, 69/645 vs. 6.7%, 6/90; P = 0.237). Accumulated stroke rates were 0.3% (2/645) in the non-AF subgroup at baseline and 1.1% (1/90) in the AF subgroup (P = 0.264).
CONCLUSION: Bare metal stenting in AF patients delivered acceptably low TLR and MACE rates while having the benefit of a significantly shorter DAPT duration in a DES dominated clinical practice. © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Fulltext Evidence for action: a One Health learning platform on interventions to tackle antimicrobial resistance

Wernli D, Jørgensen PS, Parmley EJ, Troell M, Majowicz S, Harbarth S, et al.

Lancet Infect Dis, 2020 Dec;20(12):e307-e311.
PMID: 32853549 DOI: 10.1016/S1473-3099(20)30392-3

Improving evidence for action is crucial to tackle antimicrobial resistance. The number of interventions for antimicrobial resistance is increasing but current research has major limitations in terms of efforts, methods, scope, quality, and reporting. Moving the agenda forwards requires an improved understanding of the diversity of interventions, their feasibility and cost-benefit, the implementation factors that shape and underpin their effectiveness, and the ways in which individual interventions might interact synergistically or antagonistically to influence actions against antimicrobial resistance in different contexts. Within the efforts to strengthen the global governance of antimicrobial resistance, we advocate for the creation of an international One Health platform for online learning. The platform will synthesise the evidence for actions on antimicrobial resistance into a fully accessible database; generate new scientific insights into the design, implementation, evaluation, and reporting of the broad range of interventions relevant to addressing antimicrobial resistance; and ultimately contribute to the goal of building societal resilience to this central challenge of the 21st century.
Fulltext A Public Health Research Agenda for Managing Infodemics: Methods and Results of the First WHO Infodemiology Conference

Calleja N, AbdAllah A, Abad N, Ahmed N, Albarracin D, Altieri E, et al.

JMIR Infodemiology, 2021 09 15;1(1):e30979.
PMID: 34604708 DOI: 10.2196/30979

Background: An infodemic is an overflow of information of varying quality that surges across digital and physical environments during an acute public health event. It leads to confusion, risk-taking, and behaviors that can harm health and lead to erosion of trust in health authorities and public health responses. Owing to the global scale and high stakes of the health emergency, responding to the infodemic related to the pandemic is particularly urgent. Building on diverse research disciplines and expanding the discipline of infodemiology, more evidence-based interventions are needed to design infodemic management interventions and tools and implement them by health emergency responders.
Objective: The World Health Organization organized the first global infodemiology conference, entirely online, during June and July 2020, with a follow-up process from August to October 2020, to review current multidisciplinary evidence, interventions, and practices that can be applied to the COVID-19 infodemic response. This resulted in the creation of a public health research agenda for managing infodemics.
Methods: As part of the conference, a structured expert judgment synthesis method was used to formulate a public health research agenda. A total of 110 participants represented diverse scientific disciplines from over 35 countries and global public health implementing partners. The conference used a laddered discussion sprint methodology by rotating participant teams, and a managed follow-up process was used to assemble a research agenda based on the discussion and structured expert feedback. This resulted in a five-workstream frame of the research agenda for infodemic management and 166 suggested research questions. The participants then ranked the questions for feasibility and expected public health impact. The expert consensus was summarized in a public health research agenda that included a list of priority research questions.
Results: The public health research agenda for infodemic management has five workstreams: (1) measuring and continuously monitoring the impact of infodemics during health emergencies; (2) detecting signals and understanding the spread and risk of infodemics; (3) responding and deploying interventions that mitigate and protect against infodemics and their harmful effects; (4) evaluating infodemic interventions and strengthening the resilience of individuals and communities to infodemics; and (5) promoting the development, adaptation, and application of interventions and toolkits for infodemic management. Each workstream identifies research questions and highlights 49 high priority research questions.
Conclusions: Public health authorities need to develop, validate, implement, and adapt tools and interventions for managing infodemics in acute public health events in ways that are appropriate for their countries and contexts. Infodemiology provides a scientific foundation to make this possible. This research agenda proposes a structured framework for targeted investment for the scientific community, policy makers, implementing organizations, and other stakeholders to consider.
Genomic analyses in Cornelia de Lange Syndrome and related diagnoses: Novel candidate genes, genotype-phenotype correlations and common mechanisms

Kaur M, Blair J, Devkota B, Fortunato S, Clark D, Lawrence A, et al.

Am J Med Genet A, 2023 Aug;191(8):2113-2131.
PMID: 37377026 DOI: 10.1002/ajmg.a.63247

Cornelia de Lange Syndrome (CdLS) is a rare, dominantly inherited multisystem developmental disorder characterized by highly variable manifestations of growth and developmental delays, upper limb involvement, hypertrichosis, cardiac, gastrointestinal, craniofacial, and other systemic features. Pathogenic variants in genes encoding cohesin complex structural subunits and regulatory proteins (NIPBL, SMC1A, SMC3, HDAC8, and RAD21) are the major pathogenic contributors to CdLS. Heterozygous or hemizygous variants in the genes encoding these five proteins have been found to be contributory to CdLS, with variants in NIPBL accounting for the majority (>60%) of cases, and the only gene identified to date that results in the severe or classic form of CdLS when mutated. Pathogenic variants in cohesin genes other than NIPBL tend to result in a less severe phenotype. Causative variants in additional genes, such as ANKRD11, EP300, AFF4, TAF1, and BRD4, can cause a CdLS-like phenotype. The common role that these genes, and others, play as critical regulators of developmental transcriptional control has led to the conditions they cause being referred to as disorders of transcriptional regulation (or "DTRs"). Here, we report the results of a comprehensive molecular analysis in a cohort of 716 probands with typical and atypical CdLS in order to delineate the genetic contribution of causative variants in cohesin complex genes as well as novel candidate genes, genotype-phenotype correlations, and the utility of genome sequencing in understanding the mutational landscape in this population.
Fulltext Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (4th edition)1

Klionsky DJ, Abdel-Aziz AK, Abdelfatah S, Abdellatif M, Abdoli A, Abel S, et al.

Autophagy, 2021 Jan;17(1):1-382.
PMID: 33634751 DOI: 10.1080/15548627.2020.1797280

In 2008, we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, this topic has received increasing attention, and many scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Thus, it is important to formulate on a regular basis updated guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Despite numerous reviews, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to evaluate autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. Here, we present a set of guidelines for investigators to select and interpret methods to examine autophagy and related processes, and for reviewers to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of reports that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a dogmatic set of rules, because the appropriateness of any assay largely depends on the question being asked and the system being used. Moreover, no individual assay is perfect for every situation, calling for the use of multiple techniques to properly monitor autophagy in each experimental setting. Finally, several core components of the autophagy machinery have been implicated in distinct autophagic processes (canonical and noncanonical autophagy), implying that genetic approaches to block autophagy should rely on targeting two or more autophagy-related genes that ideally participate in distinct steps of the pathway. Along similar lines, because multiple proteins involved in autophagy also regulate other cellular pathways including apoptosis, not all of them can be used as a specific marker for bona fide autophagic responses. Here, we critically discuss current methods of assessing autophagy and the information they can, or cannot, provide. Our ultimate goal is to encourage intellectual and technical innovation in the field.