RESULTS: Important issues were identified during the data harmonisation process relating to data ownership, sharing methodologies and ethical concerns. Measures were assessed across eight domains; demographic; dietary; clinical and anthropometric; medical history; hypertension knowledge; physical activity; behavioural (smoking and alcohol); and biochemical domains. Identifying validated measures relevant across a variety of settings presented some difficulties. The resulting GACD hypertension data dictionary comprises 67 consensus measures. Of the 14 responding teams, only two teams were including more than 50 consensus variables, five teams were including between 25 and 50 consensus variables and four teams were including between 6 and 24 consensus variables, one team did not provide details of the variables collected and two teams did not include any of the consensus variables as the project had already commenced or the measures were not relevant to their study.
CONCLUSIONS: Deriving consensus measures across diverse research projects and contexts was challenging. The major barrier to their implementation was related to the time taken to develop and present these measures. Inclusion of consensus measures into future funding announcements would facilitate researchers integrating these measures within application protocols. We suggest that adoption of consensus measures developed here, across the field of hypertension, would help advance the science in this area, allowing for more comparable data sets and generalizable inferences.
METHODS: RCTs comparing the early complication rates following LVSG and LRYGB between 2000 and 2015 were selected from PubMed, Medline, Embase, Science Citation Index, Current Contents, and the Cochrane database. The outcome variables analyzed included 30-day mortality, major and minor complications and interventions required for their management, length of hospital stay, readmission rates, operating time, and conversions from laparoscopic to open procedures.
RESULTS: Six RCTs involving a total of 695 patients (LVSG n = 347, LRYGB n = 348) reported on early major complications. A statistically significant reduction in relative odds of early major complications favoring the LVSG procedure was noted (p = 0.05). Five RCTs representing 633 patients (LVSG n = 317, LRYGB n = 316) reported early minor complications. A non-statically significant reduction in relative odds of 29 % favoring the LVSG procedure was observed for early minor complications (p = 0.4). However, other outcomes directly related to complications which included reoperation rates, readmission rate, and 30-day mortality rate showed comparable effect size for both surgical procedures.
CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis and systematic review of RCTs suggests that fewer early major and minor complications are associated with LVSG compared with LRYGB procedure. However, this does not translate into higher readmission rate, reoperation rate, or 30-day mortality for either procedure.
METHODOLOGY: Pubmed, Medline, SPORTDiscus and Google scholar were searched from inception to 4th January 2021 for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) involving injection therapies (e.g. blood derivatives, corticosteroid, hyaluronic acid, botulinum toxin) for CSTI. The primary and secondary outcomes were pain and function, respectively, at (or nearest to) 6 months. Effect size (ES) was presented as standardised mean difference with 95% confidence interval (CI). Frequentist random effect NMA was used to generate the overall estimates, subgroup estimates (by region and measurement time point) and sensitivity analyses.
RESULTS: A total of 91 articles (87 RCTs; 5859 participants) involving upper limb (74%), lower limb (23%) and truncal/hip (3%) injuries were included. At all time points, prolotherapy had no statistically significant pain benefits over other therapies. This observation remained unchanged when tested under various assumptions and with exclusion of studies with high risk of bias. Although prolotherapy did not offer statistically significant functional improvement compared to most therapies, its ES was consistently better than non-injections and corticosteroid injection for both outcomes. At selected time points and for selected injuries, prolotherapy demonstrated potentially better pain improvement over placebo (<4 months: shoulder [ES 0.65; 95% CI 0.00 to 1.30]; 4-8 months: elbow [ES 0.91; 95% CI 0.12 to 1.70]; >8 months: shoulder [ES 2.08; 95% CI 1.49, to 2.68]). Injections generally produced greater ES when combined with non-injection therapy.
CONCLUSION: While clinical outcomes were generally comparable across types of injection therapy, prolotherapy may be used preferentially for selected conditions at selected times.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study followed a cross-sectional design and was conducted among 1032 Bangladeshi older adults aged 60 years and above during October 2020 through telephone interviews. Self-reported information on nine non-communicable chronic conditions (osteoarthritis, hypertension, heart disease, stroke, hypercholesterolemia, diabetes, chronic respiratory diseases, chronic kidney disease, cancer) was collected. Participants were asked if they faced any difficulties in accessing medicine and receiving routine medical care for their medical conditions during the COVID-19 pandemic. The association between non-communicable chronic conditions and accessing medication and health care was analysed using binary logic regression model.
RESULTS: Most of the participants aged 60-69 years (77.8%), male (65.5%), married (81.4%), had no formal schooling (58.3%) and resided in rural areas (73.9%). Although more than half of the participants (58.9%) reported having a single condition, nearly one-quarter (22.9%) had multimorbidity. About a quarter of the participants reported difficulties accessing medicine (23%) and receiving routine medical care (27%) during the pandemic, and this was significantly higher among those suffering from multimorbidity. In the adjusted analyses, participants with at least one condition (AOR: 1.95, 95% CI: 1.33-2.85) and with multimorbidity (AOR: 4.75, 95% CI: 3.17-7.10) had a higher likelihood of experiencing difficulties accessing medicine. Similarly, participants with at least one condition (AOR: 3.08, 95% CI: 2.11-4.89) and with multimorbidity (AOR: 6.34, 95% CI: 4.03-9.05) were significantly more likely to face difficulties receiving routine medical care during the COVID-19 pandemic.
CONCLUSIONS: Our study found that a sizeable proportion of the older adults had difficulties in accessing medicine and receiving routine medical care during the pandemic. The study findings highlight the need to develop an appropriate health care delivery pathway and strategies to maintain essential health services during any emergencies and beyond. We also argue the need to prioritise the health of older adults with non-communicable chronic conditions in the centre of any emergency response plan and policies of Bangladesh.
METHOD: A literature search of PubMed, Cochrane Library and Google Scholar was conducted based on the PICO model (patient/population, intervention, comparison and outcomes) to retrieve publications of different levels of evidence in order to evaluate outcomes of the use of TLC-NOSF dressings.
RESULTS: A total of 21 publications of different levels, ranging from double-blind randomised control trials to case reports, involving over 12,000 patients, were identified through PubMed, with a further eight publications through Google Scholar and two publications through Cochrane Library. A total of seven results were omitted due to the lack of relevance or repetition.
CONCLUSION: All the evidence provided suggest that these dressings provide clinicians with an evidence-based option for the management of chronic wounds; that the TLC-NOSF dressings are beneficial in promoting the healing process, reducing healing times, enhancing patients' HRQoL, and in allowing a more cost-effective procedure.