Knowledge Gaps among Patients and Providers in HPV-Related Oropharyngeal Cancer: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the level of knowledge of human papillomavirus (HPV) and HPV-associated oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma (OPSCC) among the general population and health care providers. DATA SOURCES: Systematic search was performed on December 20, 2018, using MEDLINE (1966 to December 2018), EMBASE (1975 to December 2018), Web of Science (1900 to December 2018), and CENTRAL (1996 to December 2018) databases. English-language literature involving human subjects was used, and studies were limited to case series, case-control, cohort, and randomized controlled trial designs. REVIEW METHODS: Studies were included if they assessed knowledge of HPV and HPV-associated OPSCC. The primary outcome measure was the knowledge of HPV-associated OPSCC among the general population and with health care providers. Meta-analysis of proportions was attempted using random-effects model. The PRISMA guidelines were used for accuracy of reporting. RESULTS: Thirty-two studies were included with 17,288 participants. There was a high degree of heterogeneity preventing completion of a meta-analysis. Knowledge of HPV and HPV-associated OPSCC varied between the general population and health care providers. The proportion of the general population and health care providers with knowledge of HPV ranged from 16% to 75% and 21% to 84%, respectively. Knowledge of HPV-associated OPSCC was greater in health care providers and ranged from 22% to 100% compared with the general population, which ranged from 7% to 57%. CONCLUSION: There is a knowledge gap of HPV-associated OPSCC for both the general population and health care providers. Additional education may not only increase awareness but may also result in prevention and earlier detection.

Prehospital tourniquet use in penetrating extremity trauma: Decreased blood transfusions and limb complications.

BACKGROUND: Despite increasing popularity of prehospital tourniquet use in civilians, few studies have evaluated the efficacy and safety of tourniquet use. Furthermore, previous studies in civilian populations have focused on blunt trauma patients. The objective of this study was to determine if prehospital tourniquet use in patients with major penetrating trauma is associated with differences in outcomes compared to a matched control group. METHODS: An 8-year retrospective analysis of adult patients with penetrating major extremity trauma amenable to tourniquet use (major vascular trauma, traumatic amputation and near-amputation) was performed at a Level I trauma center. Patients with prehospital tourniquet placement (TQ) were identified and compared to a matched group of patients without tourniquets (N-TQ). Univariate analysis was used to compare outcomes in the groups. RESULTS: A total of 204 patients were matched with 127 (62.3%) in the prehospital TQ group. No differences in patient demographics or injury severity existed between the two groups. Average time from tourniquet application to arrival in the emergency department (ED) was 22.5 ± 1.3 minutes. Patients in the TQ group had higher average systolic blood pressure on arrival in the ED (120 ± 2 vs. 112 ± 2, p = 0.003). The TQ group required less total PRBCs (2.0 ± 0.1 vs. 9.3 ± 0.6, p < 0.001) and FFP (1.4 ± 0.08 vs. 6.2 ± 0.4, p < 0.001). Tourniquets were not associated with nerve palsy (p = 0.330) or secondary infection (p = 0.43). Fasciotomy was significantly higher in the N-TQ group (12.6% vs. 31.4%, p < 0.0001) as was limb amputation (0.8% vs. 9.1%, p = 0.005). CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated that prehospital tourniquets could be safely used to control bleeding in major extremity penetrating trauma with no increased risk of major complications. Prehospital tourniquet use was also associated with increased systolic blood pressure on arrival to the ED, decreased blood product utilization and decreased incidence of limb related complications, which may lead to improved long-term outcomes and increased survival in trauma patients. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, level IV.