Work-Related Musculoskeletal Disorders in Endoscopic Sinus and Skull Base Surgery: A Systematic Review With Meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Endoscopic sinus and skull base surgery has led to significant improvements in patient outcomes, yet may have come at a cost to surgeons' musculoskeletal (MSK) health. We aimed to determine the prevalence and characteristics of work-related MSK disorders (WRMDs) in endoscopic sinus and skull base surgeons; to investigate contributing factors for WRMD in this population; and to evaluate the effectiveness of ergonomic interventions on the severity or prevalence of WRMD in this population. DATA SOURCES: Medline, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, and Scopus from inception to April 2, 2024. A bibliographic examination was performed for further papers. REVIEW METHODS: Inclusion criteria included original peer-reviewed papers with work-related MSK outcomes (prevalence, contributing factors, and interventions) relating to endoscopic sinus and/or skull base surgeons in any language. RESULTS: Of 25,772 unique citations, 37 studies met the inclusion criteria. The pooled lifetime, point, and 12-month prevalences of WRMD were 75.9% (95% confidence interval; I2, 67.2%-83.6%, I2 95.6%), 80.8% (77.0%-84.3%, I2 98.0%), and 82.0% (71.8%-90.3%, I2 60.96%) respectively. The neck, lumbar spine, and thoracic spine were the most commonly involved areas. One of 9 studies on contributing factors investigated discomfort as an outcome. The remainder focussed on surrogate outcomes (eg, posture, hand dysfunction). Two of the 13 intervention studies investigated pain or fatigue as an outcome. The remainder targeted posture, muscle activity, or workload. CONCLUSION: WRMDs are highly prevalent in endoscopic sinus and skull base surgeons. Further studies focusing on the direct outcomes of WRMD such as pain are needed.

Development of a patient decision aid for children and adolescents following anterior cruciate ligament rupture: an international mixed-methods study.

AIM: To develop and user test an evidence-based patient decision aid for children and adolescents who are considering anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. DESIGN: Mixed-methods study describing the development of a patient decision aid. SETTING: A draft decision aid was developed by a multidisciplinary steering group (including various types of health professionals and researchers, and consumers) informed by the best available evidence and existing patient decision aids. PARTICIPANTS: People who ruptured their ACL when they were under 18 years old (ie, adolescents), their parents, and health professionals who manage these patients. Participants were recruited through social media and the network outreach of the steering group. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOMES: Semistructured interviews and questionnaires were used to gather feedback on the decision aid. The feedback was used to refine the decision aid and assess acceptability. An iterative cycle of interviews, refining the aid according to feedback and further interviews, was used. Interviews were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis. RESULTS: We conducted 32 interviews; 16 health professionals (12 physiotherapists, 4 orthopaedic surgeons) and 16 people who ruptured their ACL when they were under 18 years old (7 were adolescents and 9 were adults at the time of the interview). Parents participated in 8 interviews. Most health professionals, patients and parents rated the aid's acceptability as good-to-excellent. Health professionals and patients agreed on most aspects of the decision aid, but some health professionals had differing views on non-surgical management, risk of harms, treatment protocols and evidence on benefits and harms. CONCLUSION: Our patient decision aid is an acceptable tool to help children and adolescents choose an appropriate management option following ACL rupture with their parents and health professionals. A clinical trial evaluating the potential benefit of this tool for children and adolescents considering ACL reconstruction is warranted.

Development of the Reporting Infographics and Visual Abstracts of Comparative studies (RIVA-C) checklist and guide.

People often use infographics (also called visual or graphical abstracts) as a substitute for reading the full text of an article. This is a concern because most infographics do not present sufficient information to interpret the research appropriately and guide wise health decisions. The Reporting Infographics and Visual Abstracts of Comparative studies (RIVA-C) checklist and guide aims to improve the completeness with which research findings of comparative studies are communicated and avoid research findings being misinterpreted if readers do not refer to the full text. The primary audience for the RIVA-C checklist and guide is developers of infographics that summarise comparative studies of health and medical interventions. The need for the RIVA-C checklist and guide was identified by a survey of how people use infographics. Possible checklist items were informed by a systematic review of how infographics report research. We then conducted a two-round, modified Delphi survey of 92 infographic developers/designers, researchers, health professionals and other key stakeholders. The final checklist includes 10 items. Accompanying explanation and both text and graphical examples linked to the items were developed and pilot tested over a 6-month period. The RIVA-C checklist and guide was designed to facilitate the creation of clear, transparent and sufficiently detailed infographics which summarise comparative studies of health and medical interventions. Accurate infographics can ensure research findings are communicated appropriately and not misinterpreted. By capturing the perspectives of a wide range of end users (eg, authors, informatics editors, journal editors, consumers), we are hopeful of rapid endorsement and implementation of RIVA-C.