Initial neurocritical care of severe traumatic brain injury: New paradigms and old challenges.

Background: Early neurocritical care aims to ameliorate secondary traumatic brain injury (TBI) and improve neural salvage. Increased engagement of neurosurgeons in neurocritical care is warranted as daily briefings between the intensivist and the neurosurgeon are considered a quality indicator for TBI care. Hence, neurosurgeons should be aware of the latest evidence in the neurocritical care of severe TBI (sTBI). Methods: We conducted a narrative literature review of bibliographic databases (PubMed and Scopus) to examine recent research of sTBI. Results: This review has several take-away messages. The concept of critical neuroworsening and its possible causes is discussed. Static thresholds of intracranial pressure (ICP) and cerebral perfusion pressure may not be optimal for all patients. The use of dynamic cerebrovascular reactivity indices such as the pressure reactivity index can facilitate individualized treatment decisions. The use of ICP monitoring to tailor treatment of intracranial hypertension (IHT) is not routinely feasible. Different guidelines have been formulated for different scenarios. Accordingly, we propose an integrated algorithm for ICP management in sTBI patients in different resource settings. Although hyperosmolar therapy and decompressive craniectomy are standard treatments for IHT, there is a lack high-quality evidence on how to use them. A discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of invasive ICP monitoring is included in the study. Addition of beta-blocker, anti-seizure, and anticoagulant medications to standardized management protocols (SMPs) should be considered with careful patient selection. Conclusion: Despite consolidated research efforts in the refinement of SMPs, there are still many unanswered questions and novel research opportunities for sTBI care.

Controversies and evidence gaps in the early management of severe traumatic brain injury: back to the ABCs.

Traumatic brain injury (TBI) accounts for around 30% of all trauma-related deaths. Over the past 40 years, TBI has remained a major cause of mortality after trauma. The primary injury caused by the injurious mechanical force leads to irreversible damage to brain tissue. The potentially preventable secondary injury can be accentuated by addressing systemic insults. Early recognition and prompt intervention are integral to achieve better outcomes. Consequently, surgeons still need to be aware of the basic yet integral emergency management strategies for severe TBI (sTBI). In this narrative review, we outlined some of the controversies in the early care of sTBI that have not been settled by the publication of the Brain Trauma Foundation's 4th edition guidelines in 2017. The topics covered included the following: mode of prehospital transport, maintaining airway patency while securing the cervical spine, achieving adequate ventilation, and optimizing circulatory physiology. We discuss fluid resuscitation and blood product transfusion as components of improving circulatory mechanics and oxygen delivery to injured brain tissue. An outline of evidence-based antiplatelet and anticoagulant reversal strategies is discussed in the review. In addition, the current evidence as well as the evidence gaps for using tranexamic acid in sTBI are briefly reviewed. A brief note on the controversial emergency surgical interventions for sTBI is included. Clinicians should be aware of the latest evidence for sTBI. Periods between different editions of guidelines can have an abundance of new literature that can influence patient care. The recent advances included in this review should be considered both for formulating future guidelines for the management of sTBI and for designing future clinical studies in domains with clinical equipoise.

Indicators of infertility and fertility care: a systematic scoping review.

STUDY QUESTION: What is the scope of literature regarding infertility and fertility care indicators in terms of types and dimensions of these indicators? SUMMARY ANSWER: Most available infertility and fertility care indicators are outcomes indicators of effectiveness and efficiency dimensions. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: The use of appropriate, relevant and valid indicators of infertility and fertility care is critical for monitoring access, equity and utilization. STUDY DESIGN SIZE DURATION: A systematic scoping review was conducted. We searched MEDLINE, Pubmed, JSTOR, CINAHL, Web of Science and Scopus electronic databases from inception to May 2022 without imposing language or date restrictions. We searched gray literature and online libraries of relevant organizations. We hand-searched the list of relevant references. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS SETTING METHODS: This scoping systematic review followed the framework of Arksey and O'Malley and the Joanna Briggs Institute guidelines. Records identified by the search were independently screened and data were extracted. We performed conceptual synthesis by grouping the reported indicators by typology and dimensions. Structured tabulation and graphical synthesis were used along with narrative commentary. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: We included 46 reports from 88 countries. The reporting of infertility and fertility care indicators was voluntary in 63 countries (72%) and compulsory in 25 countries (28%). Reporting for cycles or deliveries was based on individual cycles in 56 countries (64%) and on cumulative cycles in 32 countries (36%). Most indicators were utilized as outcome indicators with fewer being process indicators or structural indicators. For the dimension of indicators, most indicators were utilized as effectiveness and efficiency indicators with fewer utilized as indicators of safety, patient-centeredness, equity and timeliness. LIMITATIONS REASONS FOR CAUTION: Most indicators fall into the domain of assisted reproductive technology and are reported by fertility clinics. Indicators of safety, patient-centeredness, equity and timeliness as well as non-clinical indicators are almost invisible. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: A wide range of indicators of infertility and fertility care exist in literature. Most indicators were effectiveness and efficiency indicators, while indicators of safety, patient-centeredness, equity and timeliness remain almost invisible. The scope of the current indicators indicates a predominant focus on clinical metrics, with substantial invisibility of non-clinical indicators and indicators outside the ART domain. These gaps need to be considered in further work of identifying a core set of indicators. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: This work received funding from the UNDP-UNFPA-UNICEF-WHO-World Bank Special Programme of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction (HRP), a cosponsored program executed by the World Health Organization (WHO). The authors had no competing interests. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Open Science Framework vsu42.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy of HPV tests for the screening of cervical cancer in low-resource settings.

BACKGROUND: HPV tests for the screening of cervical cancer in low-income countries (LICs) might improve early detection and preventive efforts. OBJECTIVES: To determine the diagnostic accuracy of HPV tests for detecting cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or worse (CIN 2+) in LICs. SEARCH STRATEGY: The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, and CINAHL databases were searched on June 1, 2020. References of relevant studies were hand-searched. SELECTION CRITERIA: Diagnostic test accuracy studies were included if women had an HPV test for cervical cancer screening, followed by verification with colposcopy and colposcopy-directed biopsy. The primary target was CIN2+. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently screened studies, extracted data, and assessed methodological quality. Bivariate diagnostic random-effects meta-analysis was used. MAIN RESULTS: Eleven studies including 82 556 women were eligible, most of which were at low risk of bias. The pooled diagnostic odds ratio of hybrid capture test of samples collected from the cervix by healthcare providers for detecting CIN2+ and CIN3+ was 42.0 (95% confidence interval [CI] 20.7-76.3) and 97.1 (95% CI 35.3-215.0), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence indicates that hybrid capture tests can be used for screening of cervical cancer in LICs. Future studies are warranted for self-sampling and for low-cost HPV tests.

A systematic scoping review of COVID-19 during pregnancy and childbirth.

BACKGROUND: Clinical presentation and outcomes of COVID-19 infection during pregnancy remain limited and fragmented. OBJECTIVES: To summarize the existing literature on COVID-19 infection during pregnancy and childbirth, particularly concerning clinical presentation and outcomes. SEARCH STRATEGY: A systematic search of LitCovid, EBSCO MEDLINE, CENTRAL, CINAHL, Web of Science, and Scopus electronic databases. The references of relevant studies were also searched. SELECTION CRITERIA: Identified titles and abstracts were screened to select original reports and cross-checked for overlap of cases. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: A descriptive summary organized by aspects of clinical presentations (symptoms, imaging, and laboratory) and outcomes (maternal and perinatal). MAIN RESULTS: We identified 33 studies reporting 385 pregnant women with COVID-19 infection: 368 (95.6%) mild; 14 (3.6%) severe; and 3 (0.8%) critical. Seventeen women were admitted to intensive care, including six who were mechanically ventilated and one maternal mortality. A total of 252 women gave birth, comprising 175 (69.4%) cesarean and 77 (30.6%) vaginal births. Outcomes for 256 newborns included four RT-PCR positive neonates, two stillbirths, and one neonatal death. CONCLUSION: COVID-19 infection during pregnancy probably has a clinical presentation and severity resembling that in non-pregnant adults. It is probably not associated with poor maternal or perinatal outcomes.