Poor concordance between definitions of type III arch and implications for risk prediction and assessment for carotid artery stenting.

OBJECTIVE: The type III arch configuration has been inconsistently reported as a stroke risk factor during carotid artery stenting. However, at least three different methods for the definition of type III arch can be identified in the literature, related to the level of the origin of the innominate artery (IA). According to Casserly's definition, a type III arch presents with an origin of the IA below the horizontal plane of the inner curvature. According to Madhwal's definition, a type III arch has a distance greater than twice the diameter of the left common carotid artery between the highest point of the arch and the origin of the IA. According to MacDonald's definition, a type III arch presents with a distance of ≥2 cm between the highest point of the arch and the origin of the IA. Our aim was to assess the level of concordance between these different methods. METHODS: Anonymized thoracic computed tomography scans of 100 healthy patients were reviewed. Two of us independently stratified the selected cases as a type I to III arch, according to the three considered definitions. The interobserver level of concordance for each type III arch classification and level of concordance among the three definitions were assessed. RESULTS: The 100 selected patients (64% male) were 76 ± 7 years old. For each definition, the interobserver repeatability was almost perfect for all three (Madhwal, κ = 0.81; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.71-0.99; MacDonald, κ = 0.82; 95% CI, 0.72-0.92; Casserly, κ = 0.84; 95% CI, 0.74-0.93). The level of concordance among the different definitions was very low (Madhwal vs MacDonald, 85% [P = .002]; 33% for type III arch; Madhwal vs Casserly, 60% [P < .0001]; 12% for type III arch; MacDonald vs Casserly, 75% [P < .0001]; 12% for type III arch). CONCLUSIONS: The three definitions of the type III arch have a very low level of concordance, which might account for the varying clinical relevance of this configuration. Our findings have relevant implications for risk prediction for carotid artery stenting based on the presence of a type III arch, for comparisons of the results from different studies, and for comparisons of different datasets from multicenter trials.

Health literacy in type 2 diabetes patients: a systematic review of systematic reviews.

Aim To summarize, critically review, and interpret the evidence related to the systematic reviews on health literacy (HL) amongst type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Methods The methodology for this study consisted of a systematic review of systematic reviews, using the PRISMA statement and flowchart to select studies, and searching on PubMed, CINAHL, Scopus, and Cochrane. The search covered the period between January 2006 and June 2016. Results From the 115 identified record by the queries, only six systematic reviews were included, following a quality evaluation using AMSTAR. The included systematic reviews content was analyzed by the independent work of two authors, using a narrative synthesis approach. The findings of this study (i.e., main themes) are areas of consensus and gaps in knowledge. Areas of consensus are HL definition, HL measurement tools, and the relationship between T2DM patient knowledge (or literacy) and his/her HL. The gaps in knowledge were the assessment of the relations between HL and health outcomes and self-efficacy, the gender differences, the effectiveness of interventions to improve HL, the cost-effectiveness study of interventions to improve HL, and the understanding of the influence of organizational environment on HL. Conclusion This review provides a current state of knowledge to address clinical practice and research proposals. HL could be useful to personalize patients' follow-up and it should be routinely assessed in its three dimensions (i.e. functional, interactive and critical) to enhance patients' ability to cope with clinical recommendations. Future research should be mainly aimed to test the effectiveness of evidence-based interventions to improve HL amongst T2DM patients.