Suicide and Suicidality in Children and Adolescents with Chronic Skin Disorders: A Systematic Review.

Suicide in young children is rare; the incidence increases towards the end of adolescence. Skin disorders confer a high prevalence of psychiatric and psycho-logical comorbidities. However, published research on suicidal behaviour in adolescents and children with skin disorders is sparse. The aim of this study was to identify the prevalence of suicidal behaviour in children and adolescents under 18 years of age with chronic skin disorders and associated contributing risk factors. MEDLINE, PsycINFO, EMBASE, CINAHL and Cochrane databases were searched from inception to October 2020 for suicide or suicide attempts in patients under 18 years old with chronic skin disorders. The study protocol was logged on PROSPERO (CRD42020083528). Returned texts were reviewed independently by 2 authors. Bias was assessed according to Joanna Briggs Institute criteria. Five studies met the inclusion criteria; 4 cross-sectional surveys and 1 retrospective matched-cohort study. A total of 31,641 patients with acne, atopic dermatitis, body dysmorphic disorder or psoriasis were identified. Prevalence of suicidal ideation was 0.45% (psoriasis) to 67% (body dysmorphic disorder). The prevalence of suicidal attempts ranged from 0.08% (psoriasis) to 21.9% (acne). Patients with acne or atopic dermatitis had significantly increased odds ratio for suicidal attempts. Meta-analysis could not be performed owing to the heterogeneity and sparsity of data. Suicidal risk in skin disorders amongst adolescents and children under the age of 18 years old is broad and complex. The suicidal risk remained after adjusting for depression, suggestive of an alternative mechanism.

Identifying mental health needs of children and youth with skin disease: A systematic review of screening and assessment tools.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: (1) To identify patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) which have been used to screen and assess mental health symptoms in studies of youth with skin disease. (2) To critically appraise their evidence base in this population. METHODS: A systematic literature search was conducted within PubMed and PsycINFO combining search terms for pediatric populations, dermatology, screening and assessment tools, and psychological and psychiatric conditions, to identify PROMs which screened or assessed for mental health symptoms in youth with skin disease. PROMs which had undergone validation within this population were assessed for quality and evidence base using the COSMIN risk of bias tool. RESULTS: One hundred eleven PROMs which assess mental health symptoms in studies of youth with skin disease were identified. These included generic mental health scales which are extensively validated in different populations. Only one PROM, the "Skin Picking Scale-Revised" has undergone specific validation in youth with skin disease. This showed poor quality of evidence for content validity and therefore cannot be recommended. CONCLUSION: There is an urgent need to identify mental health problems early and treat proactively to improve outcomes in youth with skin disease. This review highlights the current lack of consensus around the best way to assess our patients. It is likely that existing generic mental health methods and PROMS will be appropriate for our needs. More work is required to examine the utility, feasibility, and acceptability of existing generic, validated mental health screening tools in youth with skin disease.

A Systematic Review of Treatment Interventions for Metacarpal Shaft Fractures in Adults.

Metacarpal shaft fractures are common hand injuries that predominantly affect younger patients. There is wide variability in their treatment with no consensus on best practice. We performed a systematic review to assess the breadth and quality of available evidence supporting different treatment modalities for metacarpal shaft fractures of the finger digits in adults. A comprehensive search was conducted across multiple databases, in line with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. A total of 1600 records were identified; 7 studies fulfilled eligibility criteria and were included. No randomized controlled trials directly comparing surgery with nonsurgical treatment were found. One retrospective study compared nonsurgical with surgical treatment, whereas 6 compared surgical or nonsurgical treatments. Considerable heterogeneity between studies along with a high or critical risk of bias restricts direct comparison and conclusions. There is a lack of high-quality evidence to guide treatment, supporting the need for well-designed, multicenter trials to identify the most effective and cost-efficient treatment for metacarpal shaft fractures in adults.

Safety of topical corticosteroids in atopic eczema: an umbrella review.

OBJECTIVE: An umbrella review summarising all safety data from systematic reviews of topical corticosteroids (TCS) in adults and children with atopic eczema. METHODS: Embase, MEDLINE, PubMed, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and the Centre of Evidence Based Dermatology map of eczema systematic reviews were searched until 7 November 2018 and Epistemonikos until 2 March 2021. Reviews were included if they assessed the safety of TCS in atopic eczema and searched >1 database using a reproducible search strategy. Review quality was assessed using version 2 of 'A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews' (AMSTAR 2 tool). RESULTS: 38 systematic reviews included, 34 low/critically low quality. Treatment and follow-up were usually short (2-4 weeks). KEY FINDINGS: TCS versus emollient/vehicle: No meta-analyses identified for skin-thinning. Two 2-week randomised controlled trials (RCTs) found no significant increased risk with very potent TCS (0/196 TCS vs 0/33 vehicle in children and 6/109 TCS vs 2/50 vehicle, age unknown). Biochemical adrenal suppression (cortisol) was 3.8% (95% CI 2.4% to 5.8%) in a meta-analysis of 11 uncontrolled observational studies (any potency TCS, 522 children). Effects reversed when treatment ceased.TCS versus topical calcineurin inhibitors: Meta-analysis showed higher relative risk of skin thinning with TCS (4.86, 95% CI 1.06 to 22.28, n=4128, four RCTs, including one 5-year RCT). Eight cases in 2068 participants, 7 using potent TCS. No evidence of growth suppression.Once daily versus more frequent TCS: No meta-analyses identified. No skin-thinning in one RCT (3 weeks potent TCS, n=94) or biochemical adrenal suppression in two RCTs (up to 2 weeks very potent/moderate TCS, n=129).TCS twice/week to prevent flares ('weekend therapy') versus vehicle: No meta-analyses identified. No evidence of skin thinning in five RCTs. One RCT found biochemical adrenal suppression (2/44 children, potent TCS). CONCLUSIONS: W e found no evidence of harm when TCS were used intermittently 'as required' to treat flares or 'weekend therapy' to prevent flares. However, long-term safety data were limited. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42018079409.

Common hand and wrist conditions: creation of UK research priorities defined by a James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership.

OBJECTIVE: Prioritisation of important treatment uncertainties for 'Common Conditions Affecting the Hand and Wrist' via a UK-based James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership. SETTING: This process was funded by a national charitable organisation and based in the UK. PARTICIPANTS: Anyone with experience of common conditions affecting the adult hand and wrist, including patients, carers and healthcare professionals. All treatment modalities delivered by a hand specialist, including therapists, surgeons or other allied professionals, were considered. INTERVENTIONS: Established James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership methods were employed.Electronic and paper questionnaires identified potential uncertainties. These were subsequently confirmed using relevant, up-to-date systematic reviews. A final list of top 10 research uncertainties was developed via a face-to-face workshop with representation from patients and clinicians. Impact of research was sought by surveying hand clinicians electronically. OUTCOME MEASURES: The survey responses and prioritisation-both survey and workshop based. RESULTS: There were 889 individually submitted questions from the initial survey, refined to 59 uncertainties across 32 themes. Eight additional uncertainties were added from published literature before prioritisation by 261 participants and the workshop allowed the final top 10 list to be finalised. The top 10 has so far contributed to the award of over £3.8 million of competitively awarded funding. CONCLUSIONS: The Common Conditions in the Hand and Wrist Priority Setting Partnership identified important research questions and has allowed research funders to identify grant applications which are important to both patients and clinicians.

Developing a core outcome set for hand fractures and joint injuries in adults: a systematic review.

This study identifies the treatment outcome domains used in recently published studies on the treatment of hand fractures and joint injuries with the aim to inform development of a core outcome set. Seven databases were searched from January 2014 to March 2019 for randomized and quasi-randomized studies and large prospective observational studies. We identified 1777 verbatim outcomes in 160 eligible studies. From the verbatim outcomes we distinguished 639 unique outcomes, which we categorized into 74 outcome domains based on the World Health Organization International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health framework. The primary outcome was appropriately identified in only 65% (72/110) of randomized and quasi-randomized controlled trials. Of the 72 studies with a primary outcome identified, 74% (53/72) had an appropriate power calculation. The vast heterogeneity in outcome selection across studies highlights the need for a core outcome set of what outcomes to measure in future clinical research on hand fractures and joint injuries.

Quality and Reporting Completeness of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses in Dermatology.

We sought to assess the quality of dermatological systematic reviews (SRs) and identify factors that predict high methodological quality. We searched for all SRs published in 2017 using PubMed, Epistemonikos, and the Cochrane Database of SRs. We included studies identified as SRs or meta-analysis in the title or abstract and dealing with a dermatological topic. Study selection and data extraction were carried out and Preferred Reporting Items for SRs and Meta-Analyses and rating by A MeaSurement Tool to Assess SRs 2 were used independently by two authors. On the basis of A MeaSurement Tool to Assess SRs 2, confidence in SRs results was classified as high, moderate, low, or very low. We included 732 studies. We described a random sample of 140. The overall rating of confidence in the results according to a tool called A MeaSurement Tool to Assess SRs 2 was high or moderate for nine reviews (6%). A total of 20 reviews (15%) had a registered protocol. Independent factors associated with moderate or high rating of A MeaSurement Tool to Assess SRs 2 were publication in a journal where Preferred Reporting Items for SRs and Meta-Analyses was mandatory (OR [95% confidence interval] = 27.0 [1.4-528]) and journal impact factor (OR of 1.9 [1.3-3]) for each increase in one more point. The observation that 90% of published dermatology SRs are of very low quality is alarming. Review registration in the International Prospective Register of SRs and full reporting according to Preferred Items for SRs and Meta-Analyses should be mandatory for publication. This study is registered in the International Prospective Register of SRs (CRD42018093856).

Outcomes reported in trials of childhood fractures: a systematic review.

AIMS: To analyze outcomes reported in trials of childhood fractures. METHODS: OVID MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane CENTRAL databases were searched on the eighth August 2019. A manual search of trial registries, bibliographic review and internet search was used to identify additional studies. 11,476 studies were screened following PRISMA guidelines. 100 trials were included in the analysis. Data extraction was completed by two researchers for each trial. Study quality was not evaluated. Outcomes reported by trials were mapped onto domains in the World Health Organization (WHO) International Classification of Function framework. RESULTS: In all, 525 outcomes were identified representing 52 WHO domains. Four domains were reported in more than 50% of trials: structure of upper/lower limb, sensation of pain, mobility of joint function, and health services, systems and policies. The Activities Scale for Kids performance (ASK-p) score was the most common outcome score reported in 6/72 upper limb and 4/28 lower limb trials. CONCLUSION: There is a diverse range of outcomes reported in trials of childhood fractures covering all areas in the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) framework. There were three common upper limb and three common lower limb outcomes. In the absence of a core outcome set, we recommend that upper limb trials report pain, range of movement and radiograph appearance of the arm and lower limb trials report pain, radiograph appearance of the leg and healthcare costs to improve consistency of reporting in future trials.Cite this article: Bone Joint Open 2020;1-5:167-174.

Quality of patient-reported outcomes used for quality of life, physical function, and functional capacity in trials of childhood fractures.

AIMS: This study evaluates the quality of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) reported in childhood fracture trials and recommends outcome measures to assess and report physical function, functional capacity, and quality of life using the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) standards. METHODS: A Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA)-compliant systematic review of OVID Medline, Embase, and Cochrane CENTRAL was performed to identify all PROMs reported in trials. A search of OVID Medline, Embase, and PsycINFO was performed to identify all PROMs with validation studies in childhood fractures. Development studies were identified through hand-searching. Data extraction was undertaken by two reviewers. Study quality and risk of bias was evaluated by COSMIN guidelines and recorded on standardized checklists. RESULTS: Searches yielded 13,672 studies, which were screened to identify 124 trials and two validation studies. Review of the 124 trials identified 16 reported PROMs, of which two had validation studies. The development papers were retrieved for all PROMs. The quality of the original development studies was adequate for Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Mobility and Upper Extremity and doubtful for the EuroQol Five Dimension Youth questionnaire (EQ-5D-Y). All other PROMs were found to have inadequate development studies. No content validity studies were identified. Reviewer-rated content validity was acceptable for six PROMs: Activity Scale for Kids (ASK), Childhood Health Assessment Questionnaire, PROMIS Upper Extremity, PROMIS Mobility, EQ-5D-Y, and Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory (PedsQL4.0). The Modified Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH) questionnaire was shown to have indeterminate reliability and convergence validity in one study and PROMIS Upper Extremity had insufficient convergence validity in one study. CONCLUSION: There is insufficient evidence to recommend strongly the use of any single PROM to assess and report physical function or quality of life following childhood fractures. There is a need to conduct validation studies for PROMs. In the absence of these studies, we cautiously recommend the use of the PROMIS or ASK-P for physical function and the PedsQL4.0 or EQ-5D-Y for quality of life. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(12):1599-1607.

Critically Appraised Topics (CATs) in Veterinary Medicine: Applying Evidence in Clinical Practice.

Critically appraised topics (CATs) are evidence syntheses that provide veterinary professionals with information to rapidly address clinical questions and support the practice of evidence-based veterinary medicine (EBVM). They also have an important role to play in both undergraduate and post-registration education of veterinary professionals, in research and knowledge gap identification, literature scoping, preparing research grants and informing policy. CATs are not without limitations, the primary one relating to the rapid approach used which may lead to selection bias or restrict information identified or retrieved. Furthermore, the narrow focus of CATs may limit applicability of the evidence findings beyond a specific clinical scenario, and infrequently updated CATs may become redundant. Despite these limitations, CATs are fundamental to EBVM in the veterinary profession. Using the example of a dog with osteoarthritis, the five steps involved in creating and applying a CAT to clinical practice are outlined, with an emphasis on clinical relevance and practicalities. Finally, potential future developments for CATs and their role in EBVM, and the education of veterinary professionals are discussed. This review is focused on critically appraised topics (CATs) as a form of evidence synthesis in veterinary medicine. It aims to be a primary guide for veterinarians, from students to clinicians, and for veterinary nurses and technicians (hereafter collectively called veterinary professionals). Additionally, this review provides further information for those with some experience of CATs who would like to better understand the historic context and process, including further detail on more advanced concepts. This more detailed information will appear in pop-out boxes with a double-lined surround to distinguish it from the information core to producing and interpreting CATs, and from the boxes with a single line surround which contain additional resources relevant to the different parts of the review.

Dorsal bridge plating versus. Transarticular screw fixation for lisfranc injuries: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Lisfranc injuries are relatively uncommon but carry devastating consequences if left untreated. Although many surgical techniques have been proposed for best operative management, there is an ongoing debate over which procedure is superior. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing the outcomes of transarticular screw fixation and dorsal bridge plating in management of Lisfranc injuries. Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) were searched to identify randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies comparing the outcomes between screw and dorsal plate fixation. The pooled outcome data were calculated by random and fixed effect models. One prospective cohort and three retrospective studies were identified with a total of 210 patients with mean follow up of 40.6 months. All papers were analysed for quality using the modified Newcastle Ottawa score. The results show that dorsal bridge plating is associated with better American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society score (AOFAS) compared with transarticular screw fixation (OR - 0.71, 95% CI -1.31 to -0.10, p = 0.02). Dorsal plating may also be associated with fewer cases of arthritis, although this was not significant (OR 2.46, 95% CI 0.89 to 6.80, p = 0.08). We found no significant differences between the groups in terms of Foot Function Index (FFI), post traumatic arthritis and failure of hardware material. Although our results suggest dorsal bridge plating may provide superior functional outcomes, there is a scarcity of literature with little robustness to make definitive conclusions. High quality randomised trials are required.

Treatment interventions for hand fractures and joint injuries: a scoping review of randomized controlled trials.

The aim of this study was to identify and assess all existing randomized studies on treatment interventions for hand fractures and joint injuries, to inform practice and plan future research. PubMed, Cochrane CENTRAL, MEDLINE and Embase were searched. We identified 78 randomized controlled trials published over 35 years, covering seven anatomical areas of the hand. We report on sources of bias, sample size, follow-up length and retention, outcome measures and reporting. In terms of interventions studied, the trials were extremely heterogeneous, so it is difficult to draw conclusions on individual treatments. The published randomized controlled clinical trial evidence for hand fractures and joint injuries is narrow in scope and of generally low methodological quality. Mapping provides a useful resource and stepping-stone for planning further research. There is a need for high-quality, collaborative research to guide management of a wider range of common hand injuries.

Open Versus Arthroscopic Repair of 1B Ulnar-Sided Triangular Fibrocartilage Complex Tears: A Systematic Review.

Background: Peripheral 1B tears of the triangular fibrocartilage complex (TFCC) can result in distal radioulnar joint (DRUJ) instability. In the context of associated DRUJ instability, combined evidence supports successful outcomes for peripheral tear repair. Methods: The aim of this systematic review (SR) was to compare the surgical treatment of 1B TFCC tears via arthroscopic versus open methods of repair. The primary outcome measure was restored DRUJ stability. The secondary outcome measures included patient-reported outcomes and clinical outcome measures. An electronic database search of Ovid Embase, PubMed, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials was performed to cover a 20-year period. Two authors independently screened records for eligibility and extracted data. Results: Only 3 studies met the strict inclusion criteria, highlighting the poor evidence base for TFCC 1B repairs. Hence, a "secondary analysis" group was developed with modified inclusion criteria which included a further 7 studies for analysis. Pooled data from the primary and secondary analysis groups demonstrated that postoperative DRUJ stability was achieved following open repair in 84% (76/90) of cases and following arthroscopic repair in 86% (129/150) of cases. Conclusions: This SR demonstrates a current lack of high-quality evidence required to draw firm conclusions on the merits of arthroscopic versus open repair of 1B TFCC tears. There is no scientific evidence to suggest superiority of one technique over the other, albeit some surgeons and authors may express a strong personal view.

Registration and Outcome-Reporting Bias in Randomized Controlled Trials of Distal Radial Fracture Treatment.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of the present study was to systematically evaluate the completeness of trial registration and the extent of outcome-reporting bias in modern randomized controlled trials (RCTs) relating to the treatment of distal radial fracture. METHODS: With use of 4 databases (PubMed, Cochrane CENTRAL, Embase, and PEDro), this systematic review identified all RCTs of distal radial fracture treatment published from January 1, 2010, to December 31, 2015. We independently determined the registration status of these trials in a public trial registry and compared the characteristics of registered and non-registered trials. We assessed the quality and consistency of primary outcome measure (POM) reporting between the registration data and the final published studies. RESULTS: Ninety studies met the inclusion criteria. Of those, only 28 (31%) were registered, and only 3 (3%) were "appropriately registered" (i.e., prospectively registered and identifying and fully describing the POM). Registered trials had larger sample sizes and were more likely to be multicenter, to report funding sources, and to be published in higher-impact-factor journals. Sixteen (18%) of the 90 registered RCTs named a POM in the registry; 7 (44%) of those 16 registered RCTs stated a different POM, an additional POM, or no POM at all in the final publication than was stated in the registry data. Additionally, 13 (81%) of those 16 registered RCTs had discrepancies in the time point reported for the POM. CONCLUSIONS: In an attempt to address publication and outcome-reporting bias, prospective trial registration in a public registry has been deemed a condition for publication by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) since 2005. This study shows poor registration rates as well as inconsistencies in the reporting of POMs of recent trials relating to the treatment of distal radial fracture, one of the most common and most investigated injuries in orthopaedic practice. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The problems of registration and outcome-reporting bias in RCTs are important to highlight and address, and to find a solution will require the cooperation of researchers, reviewers, and journal editors. Increasing the transparency and consistency of reporting will help to increase the quality of research, which can impact patient care through evidence-based guidelines.

Classifying atopic dermatitis: protocol for a systematic review of subtypes (phenotypes) and associated characteristics.

INTRODUCTION: Atopic dermatitis is a complex disease with differing clinical presentations. Many attempts have been made to identify uniform subtypes, or phenotypes, of atopic dermatitis in order to identify different aetiologies, improve diagnosis, estimate more accurate clinical prognoses, inform treatment andmanagement or predict treatment efficacy andeffectiveness. However, no consensus yet exists on exactly what defines these phenotypes or how many there are and whether they are genuine or statistical artefacts. This review aims to identify previously reported phenotypes of atopic dermatitis, the features used to define them and any characteristics or clinical outcomes significantly associated with them. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will search Ovid Embase, Ovid MEDLINE and Web of Science from inception to the latest available date at the time of the search for studies attempting to classify atopic dermatitis in humans using any cross-sectional or longitudinal epidemiological or interventional design. Primary outcomes are atopic dermatitis phenotypes, features used to define them and characteristics associated with them in subsequent analyses. A secondary outcome is the methodological approach used to derive them. Two reviewers will independently screen titles and abstracts for inclusion, extract data and assess study quality. We will present the results of this review descriptively and with frequencies where possible. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval is not required for this study as it is a systematic review. We will report results from this systematic review in a peer-reviewed journal. The main value of this study will be to inform further research. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42018087500.

Quantitative Outcomes of a One Health approach to Study Global Health Challenges.

Having gained momentum in the last decade, the One Health initiative promotes a holistic approach to address complex global health issues. Before recommending its adoption to stakeholders, however, it is paramount to first compile quantitative evidence of the benefit of such an approach. The aim of this scoping review was to identify and summarize primary research that describes monetary and non-monetary outcomes following adoption of a One Health approach. An extensive literature search yielded a total of 42,167 references, of which 85 were included in the final analysis. The top two biotic health issues addressed in these studies were rabies and malaria; the top abiotic health issue was air pollution. Most studies described collaborations between human and animal (n = 42), or human and environmental disciplines (n = 41); commonly reported interventions included vector control and animal vaccination. Monetary outcomes were commonly expressed as cost-benefit or cost-utility ratios; non-monetary outcomes were described using disease frequency or disease burden measurements. The majority of the studies reported positive or partially positive outcomes. This paper illustrates the variety of health challenges that can be addressed using a One Health approach, and provides tangible quantitative measures that can be used to evaluate future implementations of the One Health approach.