Decompression alone versus decompression with instrumented fusion in the treatment of lumbar degenerative spondylolisthesis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised trials.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the efficacy of adding instrumented spinal fusion to decompression to treat degenerative spondylolisthesis (DS). DESIGN: Systematic review with meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, Embase, Emcare, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, Scopus, ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global, ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform from inception to May 2022. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR STUDY SELECTION: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing decompression with instrumented fusion to decompression alone in patients with DS. Two reviewers independently screened the studies, assessed the risk of bias and extracted data. We provide the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation assessment of the certainty of evidence (COE). RESULTS: We identified 4514 records and included four trials with 523 participants. At a 2-year follow-up, adding fusion to decompression likely results in trivial difference in the Oswestry Disability Index (range 0-100, with higher values indicating greater impairment) with mean difference (MD) 0.86 (95% CI -4.53 to 6.26; moderate COE). Similar results were observed for back and leg pain measured on a scale of 0 to 100, with higher values indicating more severe pain. There was a slightly increased improvement in back pain (2-year follow-up) in the group without fusion shown by MD -5·92 points (95% CI -11.00 to -0.84; moderate COE). There was a trivial difference in leg pain between the groups, slightly favouring the one without fusion, with MD -1.25 points (95% CI -6.71 to 4.21; moderate COE). Our findings at 2-year follow-up suggest that omitting fusion may increase the reoperation rate slightly (OR 1.23; 0.70 to 2.17; low COE). CONCLUSIONS: Evidence suggests no benefits of adding instrumented fusion to decompression for treating DS. Isolated decompression seems sufficient for most patients. Further RCTs assessing spondylolisthesis stability are needed to determine which patients would benefit from fusion. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42022308267.

A Reporting Tool for Adapted Guidelines in Health Care: The RIGHT-Ad@pt Checklist.

BACKGROUND: Adaptation of existing guidelines can be an efficient way to develop contextualized recommendations. Transparent reporting of the adaptation approach can support the transparency and usability of the adapted guidelines. OBJECTIVE: To develop an extension of the RIGHT (Reporting Items for practice Guidelines in HealThcare) statement for the reporting of adapted guidelines (including recommendations that have been adopted, adapted, or developed de novo), the RIGHT-Ad@pt checklist. DESIGN: A multistep process was followed to develop the checklist: establishing a working group, generating an initial checklist, optimizing the checklist (through an initial assessment of adapted guidelines, semistructured interviews, a Delphi consensus survey, an external review, and a final assessment of adapted guidelines), and approval of the final checklist by the working group. SETTING: International collaboration. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 119 professionals participated in the development process. MEASUREMENTS: Participants' consensus on items in the checklist. RESULTS: The RIGHT-Ad@pt checklist contains 34 items grouped in 7 sections: basic information (7 items); scope (6 items); rigor of development (10 items); recommendations (4 items); external review and quality assurance (2 items); funding, declaration, and management of interest (2 items); and other information (3 items). A user guide with explanations and real-world examples for each item was developed to provide a better user experience. LIMITATION: The RIGHT-Ad@pt checklist requires further validation in real-life use. CONCLUSION: The RIGHT-Ad@pt checklist has been developed to improve the reporting of adapted guidelines, focusing on the standardization, rigor, and transparency of the process and the clarity and explicitness of adapted recommendations. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: None.

Challenges in prospective observational studies evaluating pressure ulcer costs: how to price the items correctly.

OBJECTIVE: Pressure ulcers (PUs) are a significant healthcare problem with a negative impact on patients' quality of life and incurring substantial healthcare expenses. Our study aimed to analyse the costs of treating PUs in hospitalised patients in the Czech Republic, in the context of current treatment procedures and price levels, and to pilot-test the detailed methodology developed. METHOD: A prospective, observational, non-interventional study was conducted at the Clinic of Anesthesiology, Resuscitation and Intensive Medicine, the Internal Medicine Department and the Surgical Department of the University Hospital Ostrava. The study included all hospitalised patients with a PU from March-May 2021. Data were collected using the hospital information system. A bottom-up, person-based approach to cost analysis was used, based on a comprehensive cost structure using accurate patient-specific consumption records. RESULTS: The length of hospitalisations ranged from 1-31 (mean: 12.7) days. The average cost of PU treatment per hospitalisation was calculated at €1579. The average daily cost of PU treatment was €179, including antibiotic therapy (ATB) and €112 without ATB. Most of the costs were associated with ATB (38.6%) and caregivers' time (35.9%). Based on the results, a predictive model was developed to estimate the cost of treating a hospitalised patient with a PU, which could be used in future research to assess the costs of treating these patients. CONCLUSION: We have faced many challenges in the methodology of preparation of cost analysis (e.g., how to count amorphous topical agents and sprays, how to properly identify PUs, how to price the positioning aids and mattresses, and how to relate the ATB treatment to the PU). This analysis provides important input for developing a comprehensive and more accurate methodology for monitoring PU costs in hospitalised patients, applicable in clinical practice for inpatient healthcare providers.

Impact of imatinib treatment on renal function in chronic myeloid leukaemia patients.

BACKGROUND: Recently, multiple epidemiological studies have linked imatinib with the alteration of renal function in chronic myeloid leukaemia (CML) patients. This meta-analysis aimed to summarize the impact of imatinib use on renal function in CML patients. METHODS: A systematic search was conducted on MEDLINE and Embase to identify articles assessing the impact of imatinib exposure on renal function in CML patients. The risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale (NOS). Two authors independently performed literature-screening, risk of bias and data extraction. The risk of renal dysfunction (chronic kidney disease or acute kidney injury) among imatinib users was computed as the primary outcome of interest. The certainty of findings was assessed using the grading of recommendations assessment, development and evaluation (GRADE) criteria. RESULTS: A total of nine articles qualified for inclusion in the systematic review, of which four articles were eligible for meta-analysis. Based on the scoring on NOS, majority of the included studies were found to be of moderate risk of bias. Majority of the studies (n = 6) reported significantly (p < .05) decrease in estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) after imatinib treatment. The risk of developing renal dysfunction (chronic kidney disease or acute kidney injury) was found to be significantly higher in imatinib users as compared to other tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) users with a pooled relative risk of 2.70 (95% CI: 1.49-4.91). Sensitivity analysis also revealed a consistently high risk of renal dysfunction with imatinib use. GRADE criteria revealed low certainty of evidence. CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis found an increased risk of renal dysfunction in imatinib users compared to other TKI users.

How the COVID-19 pandemic influences the prevalence of pressure injuries in the Czech Republic: A nationwide analysis of a health registry in 2020.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 significantly influences the overall patient status and, in severe symptomatology, the ability to move and the low oxygenation of the tissue for the ventilated patient in Intensive Care Units (ICU). There is a higher risk for Pressure injuries (PIs) development. OBJECTIVES: The nationwide analyses of the National health register aimed to compare the prevalence of PIs reported before the pandemic COVID-19 started and during the pandemic in 2020. METHOD: A retrospective, nationwide cross-sectional analysis of data regarding the STROBE checklist collected by the National Health Information System (NHIS), focusing on the PIs reporting based on the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-10) diagnoses L89.0-L89.9 for PIs in 2020. The data from the pandemic period of COVID-19 in 2020 were compared to the prevalence of PI cases in the period 2010-2019 in the Czech Republic in all hospitalized patients. RESULTS: The total number of admissions for L89 in 2020 was 14,441, of which 1509 (10.4%) also had COVID-19. In the ICU were 4386 admissions, 12.1% of which also had COVID-19. A higher proportion of PIs is observed in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 than in patients without COVID-19 (2.62% vs 0.81%, respectively 1.05% vs 0.46% when standardized to the 2013 ESP = European Standard Population). In patients hospitalized in ICU, 3.68% with COVID-19 had PIs vs 1.42% without COVID-19 had PIs (1.97% vs 0.81% using the 2013 ESP). CONCLUSION: The national health registers analyses have proven that the prevalence of PIs was higher among patients hospitalized with the SARS-CoV-2 infection.

A ten-year follow-up of the prevalence of pressure injuries in the Czech Republic: Analysis of the National Registry.

The study aims to follow up on the analysis of Pressure injuries (PIs) prevalence conducted between 2007 and 2014 and after the new methodological requirements for PIs surveillance establishment at the national level. A retrospective, nationwide cross-sectional analysis of data regarding the STROBE checklist was collected by the National Health Information System (NHIS). The International Classification of Diseases (ICD-10) diagnoses L89.0-L89.9 for PIs were used in the period 2010-2019. A total of 264 442 records of patients with diagnoses of L89.0-L89.9 were identified from 2010 to 2019 (26 444 patients per year on average). The numbers are increasing every year, and there is a 40% increase between 2010 and 2019. When comparing recorded PIs, the percentage of PIs occurrence in category I decreased, and the number of PIs in category IV increased in the second analysed period. Still, in absolute numbers, there is an increase across all categories. The age of patients with recorded PIs also rose slightly in the second analysed period. We have proven the PIs prevalence increase in an ageing population.

Psychological distress and academic self-perception among international medical students: the role of peer social support.

BACKGROUND: Psychological distress among medical students is commonly observed during medical education and is generally related to poor academic self-perception. We evaluated the role of peer social support at medical schools in the association between psychological distress and academic self-perception. METHODS: An online survey was conducted in a medical degree program for 138 international students educated in English in the Czech Republic. The Medical Student Well-Being Index was used to define the students' psychological distress. Perceived peer social support was investigated with the Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support. Poor academic self-perception was defined as the lowest 30% of a subscale score of the Dundee Ready Education Environment Measure. Analyses evaluated the presence of additive interactions between psychological distress and peer social support on poor academic self-perception, adjusted for possible confounders. RESULTS: Both psychological distress and low peer social support were negatively associated with poor academic self-perception, adjusted for local language proficiency and social support from family. Students with psychological distress and low peer social support had an odds ratio of 11.0 (95% confidence interval (CI): 2.1-56.6) for poor academic self-perception as compared with those without distress who had high peer social support. The presence of an additive interaction was confirmed in that the joint association was four times as large as what would have been expected to be on summing the individual risks of psychological distress and low peer social support (synergy index = 4.5, 95% CI: 1.3-14.9). CONCLUSIONS: Psychological distress and low peer social support may synergistically increase the probability of poor academic self-perception among international medical students. Promoting peer social relationships at medical school may interrupt the vicious cycle of psychological distress and poor academic performance.

Common tool structures and approaches to risk of bias assessment: implications for systematic reviewers.

There are numerous tools available to assess the risk of bias in individual studies in a systematic review. These tools have different structures, including scales and checklists, which may or may not separate their items by domains. There are also various approaches and guides for the process, scoring, and interpretation of risk of bias assessments, such as value judgments, quality scores, and relative ranks. The objective of this commentary, which is part of the JBI Series on Risk of Bias, is to discuss some of the distinctions among different tool structures and approaches to risk of bias assessment and the implications of these approaches for systematic reviewers.

Introducing multidisciplinary ward rounds in Malawi: a best practice implementation project.

INTRODUCTION: The Royal College of Physicians (RCP) and the Royal College of Nursing (RCN) in the United Kingdom advocate the use of structured multidisciplinary team (MDT) ward rounds since they can enable safe, effective, improved care and enhanced staff satisfaction. OBJECTIVES: This project sought to implement best practices for MDT ward rounds in a male medical ward in a hospital in Malawi. METHODS: The project was conducted in line with the JBI Evidence Implementation Framework. A baseline audit of MDT ward rounds was conducted with six staff members. Audit criteria consisted of ten best practices, as recommended by JBI, the RCP, and the RCN. Stakeholder meetings were held to review the baseline audit results and highlight areas of non-compliance. JBI's Getting Research into Practice (GRiP) tool was used to identify barriers to compliance with best practices, and a follow-up audit was conducted to determine changes in practice. RESULTS: The results only showed improvement for one criterion, which rose from 33% to 100% (n=6) where nurses attended the ward round. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated some challenges in evidence implementation projects and how these can, in part, be overcome. While the results only demonstrated improvement for one criterion, this paper shows how audits can be used to promote best practice, which in this case resulted in nurses being more involved in ward rounds, improvements in MDT communication, enhanced nurse inclusion in decision-making and, consequently, patient care. SPANISH ABSTRACT: http://links.lww.com/IJEBH/A233.