RESUMEN
Introduction: Reporting of aromatherapy-focused research often lacks sufficient quality and detail for replication and subsequent application of results. To our knowledge currently, no quality appraisal tool exists for aromatherapy research reporting. To address this gap, the Aromatic Research Quality Appraisal Taskforce (ARQAT) composed of aromatherapy professionals with varied expert backgrounds came together. Presented here is the Transparent Reporting for Essential oil and Aroma Therapeutic Studies (TREATS) checklist, which is a result of this collaborative effort. Methods: Creation of TREATS followed a three-stage process, including determination of interest/need, development, and dissemination. The shortcomings of existing aromatherapy research reporting quality were evaluated and responses to address these shortcomings were used to create checklist items that were then grouped into sections. Items for each section were brain-stormed with reference to the aromatherapy literature and ARQAT's expert knowledge, and the development of each section followed an iterative process until agreement was reached. An explanatory document was also created to assist more accurate use of the tool; it and the checklist were reviewed by a group of aromatherapy experts. Results: The TREATS checklist with 38 items in four sections was developed along with the explanatory document. The ARQAT and a global group of aromatherapy experts reviewed the TREATS. Their results and comments assisted development of the current version. The TREATS identifies key components of research involving essential oils, their application, and olfactory considerations that ARQAT considers the minimum necessary for high-quality aromatherapy research. Conclusion: The TREATS, explanatory document, and associated website (www.arqat.org) contribute to thorough aromatherapy research critique. The TREATS checklist aids appraisal of quality and can be used with any study design. It lays the foundation for the future development of aromatic research reporting guidelines.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Patients with failed endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) are conventionally offered percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD). While PTBD is effective, it is associated with catheter-related complications, pain, and poor quality of life. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) is a minimally invasive endoscopic option increasingly offered as an alternative to PTBD. We compare outcomes of EUS-BD and PTBD in patients with biliary obstruction at a single tertiary care center. METHODS: A retrospective review was performed in patients with biliary obstruction who underwent EUS-BD or PTBD after failed ERCP from June 2010 through December 2014 at a single tertiary care center. Patient demographics, procedural data, and clinical outcomes were documented for each group. The aim was to compare efficacy and safety of EUS-BD and PTBD and evaluate predictors of success. RESULTS: A total of 60 patients were included (mean age 67.5 years, 65 % male). Forty-seven underwent EUS-BD, and thirteen underwent PTBD. Technical success rates of PTBD and EUS-BD were similar (91.6 vs. 93.3 %, p = 1.0). PTBD patients underwent significantly more re-interventions than EUS-BD patients (mean 4.9 versus 1.3, p < 0.0001), had more late (>24-h) adverse events (53.8 % vs. 6.6 %, p = 0.001) and experienced more pain (4.1 vs. 1.9, p = 0.016) post-procedure. In univariate analysis, clinical success was lower in the PTBD group (25 vs. 62.2 %, p = 0.03). In multivariable logistic regression analysis, EUS-BD was the sole predictor of clinical success and long-term resolution (OR 21.8, p = 0.009). CONCLUSION: Despite similar technical success rates compared to PTBD, EUS-BD results in a lower need for re-intervention, decreased rate of late adverse events, and lower pain scores, and is the sole predictor for clinical success and long-term resolution. EUS-BD should be the treatment of choice after a failed ERCP.