Updates to Surgical Treatment of Female Stress Urinary Incontinence (SUI): AUA/SUFU Guideline (2023).

PURPOSE: The purpose of this guideline is to provide a clinical structure with which to approach the diagnosis, counseling, and treatment of female patients with stress urinary incontinence (SUI). MATERIALS/METHODS: The primary source of evidence for the 2017 version of the SUI guideline was the systematic literature review conducted by the ECRI Institute. The initial search spanned literature from January 2005 to December 2015, with an additional updated abstract search through September 2016. The current amendment represents the first update to the 2017 iteration and includes updated literature published through February 2022. RESULTS: This guideline has been amended to reflect changes in and additions to the literature since 2017. The Panel maintained that the differentiation between index and non-index patients remained important. The index patient is a healthy female with minimal or no prolapse who desires surgical therapy for treatment of pure SUI or stress-predominant mixed urinary incontinence. Non-index patients have factors that may affect their treatment options and outcomes, such as high grade prolapse (grade 3 or 4), urgency-predominant mixed incontinence, neurogenic lower urinary tract dysfunction, incomplete bladder emptying, dysfunctional voiding, SUI following anti-incontinence treatment, mesh complications, high body mass index, or advanced age. CONCLUSION: While gains have been made in the field to support new methods for the diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up of patients with SUI, the field continues to expand. As such, future reviews of this guideline will take place to stay in keeping with the highest levels of patient care.

Effectiveness of indoor allergen reduction in asthma management: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: This review will inform updated National Asthma Education and Prevention Program clinical practice guidelines. OBJECTIVE: We sought to evaluate the effectiveness of allergen reduction interventions on asthma outcomes. METHODS: We systematically searched the "gray literature" and 5 bibliographic databases. Eligible studies included systematic reviews, randomized controlled trials, and nonrandomized interventional studies. Risk of bias was assessed by using the Cochrane Risk of Bias instrument and the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. The evidence base was assessed by using the approach of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality's Evidence-based Practice Center program. RESULTS: Fifty-nine randomized and 8 nonrandomized trials addressed 8 interventions: acaricide, air purification, carpet removal, high-efficiency particulate air filtration (HEPA) vacuums, mattress covers, mold removal, pest control, and pet removal. Thirty-seven studies evaluated single-component interventions, and 30 studies assessed multicomponent interventions. Heterogeneity precluded meta-analysis. For most interventions and outcomes, the evidence base was inconclusive or showed no effect. No interventions were associated with improvement in validated asthma control measures or pulmonary physiology. Exacerbations were diminished in multicomponent studies that included HEPA vacuums or pest control (moderate strength of evidence [SOE] for both). Quality of life improved in studies of air purifiers (SOE: low) and in multicomponent studies that included HEPA vacuums (SOE: moderate) or pest control (SOE: low). CONCLUSIONS: Single interventions were generally not associated with improvement in asthma measures, with most strategies showing inconclusive results or no effect. Multicomponent interventions improved various outcomes, but no combination of specific interventions appears to be more effective. The evidence was often inconclusive because of a lack of studies. Further research is needed comparing the effect of indoor allergen reduction interventions on validated asthma measures, with sufficient population sizes to detect clinically meaningful differences.

Cleaning Hospital Room Surfaces to Prevent Health Care-Associated Infections: A Technical Brief.

The cleaning of hard surfaces in hospital rooms is critical for reducing health care-associated infections. This review describes the evidence examining current methods of cleaning, disinfecting, and monitoring cleanliness of patient rooms, as well as contextual factors that may affect implementation and effectiveness. Key informants were interviewed, and a systematic search for publications since 1990 was done with the use of several bibliographic and gray literature resources. Studies examining surface contamination, colonization, or infection with Clostridium difficile, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, or vancomycin-resistant enterococci were included. Eighty studies were identified-76 primary studies and 4 systematic reviews. Forty-nine studies examined cleaning methods, 14 evaluated monitoring strategies, and 17 addressed challenges or facilitators to implementation. Only 5 studies were randomized, controlled trials, and surface contamination was the most commonly assessed outcome. Comparative effectiveness studies of disinfecting methods and monitoring strategies were uncommon. Future research should evaluate and compare newly emerging strategies, such as self-disinfecting coatings for disinfecting and adenosine triphosphate and ultraviolet/fluorescent surface markers for monitoring. Studies should also assess patient-centered outcomes, such as infection, when possible. Other challenges include identifying high-touch surfaces that confer the greatest risk for pathogen transmission; developing standard thresholds for defining cleanliness; and using methods to adjust for confounders, such as hand hygiene, when examining the effect of disinfecting methods.