Use of magnetic resonance image-guided radiotherapy for breast cancer: a scoping review.

In recent years, we have seen the integration of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) simulators into radiotherapy centres and the emergence MR linear accelerators (MR-linac). Currently, there are limited studies to demonstrate the clinical effectiveness of MRI guided radiotherapy (MRIgRT) treatment for breast cancer patients. The objective of this scoping review was to identify and map the existing evidence surrounding the clinical implementation of MRIgRT for breast cancer patients. We also identified the challenges and knowledge gaps in the literature. The scoping review was reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) extension for Scoping Reviews reporting guidelines. Titles and abstracts were screened by two independent reviewers. Quantitative and qualitative data were extracted and summarised using thematically organised tables. Results identify that accelerated partial breast irradiation (APBI) is the most common form of treatment for MRIgRT. The presence of the magnet does not affect target coverage or violate organ at risk (OAR) constraints compared to standard radiotherapy methods. Consideration is advised for skin and chest wall (CW) due to the electron return effect (ERE) and areas such as armpit and chin due to the electron stream effect (ESE). Clinically, bolus has been used to protect and prevent unwanted dose in these areas. Overall treatment for APBI on the MR-linac is feasible.

Use of magnetic resonance imaging-guided radiotherapy for breast cancer: a scoping review protocol.

BACKGROUND: In recent years, we have seen the incorporation of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) simulators into radiotherapy centres and the emergence of the new technology of MR linacs. However, the significant health care resources associated with this advanced technology impact immediate widespread use and availability. There are currently limited studies to demonstrate the clinical effectiveness and inform decision-making on the use of MRI in radiotherapy. The objective of this scoping review is to identify and map the existing evidence surrounding the clinical implementation of MRI-guided radiotherapy in patients with breast cancer. It also aims to identify challenges and knowledge gaps in the literature. METHODS: We will perform a comprehensive search in MEDLINE and EMBASE databases from January 2010 onwards. Grey literature sources will include the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. We will include systematic reviews, randomised and non-randomised controlled studies published in English. Literature should examine the use of magnetic resonance imaging-guided radiotherapy in adults with breast cancer, regardless of cancer stage or severity. Two reviewers will independently screen all titles, abstracts and full-text reports. Data will be extracted and summarised using qualitative (e.g. content and thematic analysis) methods and presented in tables. DISCUSSION: The results from this review will consolidate the evidence surrounding MRI-guided radiotherapy for breast cancer, contributing to the development and optimisation of patient selection, simulation, planning, treatment delivery, quality assurance and research, to help improve patient outcomes, cancer care and treatment for women with breast cancer. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: The protocol is available on Open Science Framework at DOI https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/8TEV6.

Risk of bias and reporting completeness of randomised controlled trials in burn care: protocol for a systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: Burn care represents a healthcare and economic burden to patients internationally. Choice of the most clinically effective treatment strategies requires evidence which is best obtained through high-quality randomised controlled trials (RCT). The number of published RCTs of burn care is increasing. However, trial quality and reporting standards are unclear. This study will assess the risk of bias and adequacy of reporting in recent burn care RCTs using tools endorsed by the Cochrane Collaboration. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A systematic literature review will be undertaken, assessing parallel group RCTs evaluating therapeutic interventions for patients with cutaneous burns. Literature searches will use Ovid Medline, Ovid Embase, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library. Separate searches for each database will include medical subject heading and free text terms including 'burn', 'scald', 'thermal injury' and 'RCT'. Two reviewers will independently assess each study for inclusion. Risk of bias (RoB) will be assessed with the revised tool (RoB 2) and reporting completeness with the CONsolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) 2010 guidelines. We will report a narrative synthesis of all studies, including domain specific, and overall risk of bias for the primary outcome of each trial. Inter-rater agreement for RoB 2 will be reported using Fleiss's Kappa. For adherence to the CONSORT guidelines, we will generate a completeness of reporting index for the five domains. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: No ethics approval is required because published documents will be used. Findings of the study will be disseminated in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at conferences. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42018111020.

The use of tissue fiducial markers in improving the accuracy of post-prostatectomy radiotherapy.

PURPOSE: The aim of this retrospective study was to investigate the use of a radiopaque tissue fiducial marker (TFM) in the treatment of prostate cancer patients who undergo post-prostatectomy radiotherapy (PPRT). TFM safety, its role and benefit in quantifying the set-up uncertainties in patients undergoing PPRT image-guided radiotherapy were assessed. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 45 consecutive PPRT patients underwent transperineal implantation of TFM at the level of vesicourethral anastomosis in the retrovesical tissue prior to intensity-modulated radiotherapy. Prostate bed motion was calculated by measuring the position of the TFM relative to the pelvic bony anatomy on daily cone-beam computed tomography. The stability and visibility of the TFM were assessed in the initial 10 patients. RESULTS: No postoperative complications were recorded. A total of 3,500 images were analysed. The calculated prostate bed motion for bony landmark matching relative to TFM were 2.25 mm in the left-right, 5.89 mm in the superior-inferior, and 6.59 mm in the anterior-posterior directions. A significant 36% reduction in the mean volume of rectum receiving 70 Gy (rV70) was achieved for a uniform planning target volume (PTV) margin of 7 mm compared with the Australian and New Zealand Faculty of Radiation Oncology Genito-Urinary Group recommended PTV margin of 10 mm. CONCLUSION: The use of TFM was safe and can potentially eliminate set-up errors associated with bony landmark matching, thereby allowing for tighter PTV margins and a consequent favourable reduction in dose delivered to the bladder and rectum, with potential improvements in toxicities.

Improving rectal dosimetry for patients with intermediate and high-risk prostate cancer undergoing combined high-dose-rate brachytherapy and external beam radiotherapy with hydrogel space.

PURPOSE: To report on rectal dosimetric and toxicity outcomes of intermediate and high-risk prostate cancer patients undergoing combined high-dose-rate (HDR) brachytherapy and external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) with or without hydrogel spacer (HS) insertion. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A total of 97 patients were analyzed in this study, with 32 patients (33%) who had HS insertion compared with a preceding group of 65 patients (67%) without HS. HS safety, the dosimetric effects on organs at risk (rectal, urethral, penile bulb, and bladder) as well as gastrointestinal (GI) and genitourinary toxicity were evaluated and compared between the two groups. RESULTS: The median prostate-rectal separation achieved with HS was 10 mm (range, 5-14 mm). There were no post-operative complications following HS insertion. Patients with HS had significantly lower radiation dose to the rectum across all rectal dose volumes from rV30 to rV80, whether in absolute volume (cc) or as percentage of contoured OAR (p < 0.001). There was also significantly less acute > grade 1 GI toxicity (12.5% vs. 30.8%, p = 0.05) and a trend towards less late grade 1 GI toxicity (0% vs. 7.7%; p = 0.11) in the HS group compared to the non-HS group. CONCLUSIONS: Insertion of HS in prostate cancer patients receiving combined HDR and EBRT is safe and has resulted in a significant radiation dose reduction to the rectum, resulting in significantly less acute GI toxicity and a trend towards less late GI toxicity.

High dose rate brachytherapy boost for prostate cancer: Biochemical control and the impact of transurethral resection of the prostate and hydrogel spacer insertion on toxicity outcomes.

INTRODUCTION: To examine the long-term outcomes of high dose rate brachytherapy boost (HDR-BT) combined with external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) for intermediate and high-risk prostate cancer patients. METHODS: Data from 95 patients who underwent combined EBRT (50.4 Gy) and HDR-BT to the prostate between 2010 and 2017 were retrospectively analysed. Biochemical progression free survival (bPFS), local recurrence free survival (LRFS), metastatic free survival (MFS) and overall survival (OS) were estimated using Kaplan-Meier method. Regression analysis was conducted to identify important predictors of outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 24 patients received an initial HDR-BT dose of 18 Gy in three fractions, with the remaining 71 patients receiving 16 Gy in two fractions as per departmental protocol changes. Most patients (88%) received androgen deprivation therapy. A transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) was performed in 14 patients and hydrogel spacers (HS) were used in 30 patients. Median follow-up was 58 months. The 5-year bPFS, LRFS, MFS and OS were 92%, 100%, 92% and 88%. Univariate regression revealed no statistical association between patient characteristics and time to relapse (all P > 0.1). Late > grade 2 genitourinary (GU) toxicity was 6.3%. The use of HS or prior TURP had no impact on late GU toxicity. Late Grade 1 gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity was 5.3%. CONCLUSION: The combined HDR-BT with EBRT resulted in excellent bPFS. The cumulative risk of late GU and GI toxicity was low and can be further improved with preventative strategies such as a pre-emptive TURP and/or HS insertion.

Non-clinical interventions for reducing unnecessary caesarean section.

BACKGROUND: Caesarean section rates are increasing globally. The factors contributing to this increase are complex, and identifying interventions to address them is challenging. Non-clinical interventions are applied independently of a clinical encounter between a health provider and a patient. Such interventions may target women, health professionals or organisations. They address the determinants of caesarean births and could have a role in reducing unnecessary caesarean sections. This review was first published in 2011. This review update will inform a new WHO guideline, and the scope of the update was informed by WHO's Guideline Development Group for this guideline. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of non-clinical interventions intended to reduce unnecessary caesarean section. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and two trials registers in March 2018. We also searched websites of relevant organisations and reference lists of related reviews. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised trials, non-randomised trials, controlled before-after studies, interrupted time series studies and repeated measures studies were eligible for inclusion. The primary outcome measures were: caesarean section, spontaneous vaginal birth and instrumental birth. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We followed standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane. We narratively described results of individual studies (drawing summarised evidence from single studies assessing distinct interventions). MAIN RESULTS: We included 29 studies in this review (19 randomised trials, 1 controlled before-after study and 9 interrupted time series studies). Most of the studies (20 studies) were conducted in high-income countries and none took place in low-income countries. The studies enrolled a mixed population of pregnant women, including nulliparous women, multiparous women, women with a fear of childbirth, women with high levels of anxiety and women having undergone a previous caesarean section.Overall, we found low-, moderate- or high-certainty evidence that the following interventions have a beneficial effect on at least one primary outcome measure and no moderate- or high-certainty evidence of adverse effects.Interventions targeted at women or familiesChildbirth training workshops for mothers alone may reduce caesarean section (risk ratio (RR) 0.55, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.33 to 0.89) and may increase spontaneous vaginal birth (RR 2.25, 95% CI 1.16 to 4.36). Childbirth training workshops for couples may reduce caesarean section (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.94) and may increase spontaneous vaginal birth (RR 2.13, 95% CI 1.09 to 4.16). We judged this one study with 60 participants to have low-certainty evidence for the outcomes above.Nurse-led applied relaxation training programmes (RR 0.22, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.43; 104 participants, low-certainty evidence) and psychosocial couple-based prevention programmes (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.90; 147 participants, low-certainty evidence) may reduce caesarean section. Psychoeducation may increase spontaneous vaginal birth (RR 1.33, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.61; 371 participants, low-certainty evidence). The control group received routine maternity care in all studies.There were insufficient data on the effect of the four interventions on maternal and neonatal mortality or morbidity.Interventions targeted at healthcare professionalsImplementation of clinical practice guidelines combined with mandatory second opinion for caesarean section indication slightly reduces the risk of overall caesarean section (mean difference in rate change -1.9%, 95% CI -3.8 to -0.1; 149,223 participants). Implementation of clinical practice guidelines combined with audit and feedback also slightly reduces the risk of caesarean section (risk difference (RD) -1.8%, 95% CI -3.8 to -0.2; 105,351 participants). Physician education by local opinion leader (obstetrician-gynaecologist) reduced the risk of elective caesarean section to 53.7% from 66.8% (opinion leader education: 53.7%, 95% CI 46.5 to 61.0%; control: 66.8%, 95% CI 61.7 to 72.0%; 2496 participants). Healthcare professionals in the control groups received routine care in the studies. There was little or no difference in maternal and neonatal mortality or morbidity between study groups. We judged the certainty of evidence to be high.Interventions targeted at healthcare organisations or facilitiesCollaborative midwifery-labourist care (in which the obstetrician provides in-house labour and delivery coverage, 24 hours a day, without competing clinical duties), versus a private practice model of care, may reduce the primary caesarean section rate. In one interrupted time series study, the caesarean section rate decreased by 7% in the year after the intervention, and by 1.7% per year thereafter (1722 participants); the vaginal birth rate after caesarean section increased from 13.3% before to 22.4% after the intervention (684 participants). Maternal and neonatal mortality were not reported. We judged the certainty of evidence to be low.We studied the following interventions, and they either made little or no difference to caesarean section rates or had uncertain effects.Moderate-certainty evidence suggests little or no difference in caesarean section rates between usual care and: antenatal education programmes for physiologic childbirth; antenatal education on natural childbirth preparation with training in breathing and relaxation techniques; computer-based decision aids; individualised prenatal education and support programmes (versus written information in pamphlet).Low-certainty evidence suggests little or no difference in caesarean section rates between usual care and: psychoeducation; pelvic floor muscle training exercises with telephone follow-up (versus pelvic floor muscle training without telephone follow-up); intensive group therapy (cognitive behavioural therapy and childbirth psychotherapy); education of public health nurses on childbirth classes; role play (versus standard education using lectures); interactive decision aids (versus educational brochures); labourist model of obstetric care (versus traditional model of obstetric care).We are very uncertain as to the effect of other interventions identified on caesarean section rates as the certainty of the evidence is very low. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We evaluated a wide range of non-clinical interventions to reduce unnecessary caesarean section, mostly in high-income settings. Few interventions with moderate- or high-certainty evidence, mainly targeting healthcare professionals (implementation of guidelines combined with mandatory second opinion, implementation of guidelines combined with audit and feedback, physician education by local opinion leader) have been shown to safely reduce caesarean section rates. There are uncertainties in existing evidence related to very-low or low-certainty evidence, applicability of interventions and lack of studies, particularly around interventions targeted at women or families and healthcare organisations or facilities.

An analysis of retractions of dental publications.

OBJECTIVES: To comprehensively report on the characteristics of retracted publications in the field of dentistry. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE (via PubMed), PubMed Central, Web of Science and Google Scholar databases for dental retracted articles from database inception to 02 July 2018. In addition, we scanned the search engine Google Scholar, and the website, Retraction Watch (www.retractionwatch.com), for retracted dental articles. Two researchers independently screened titles, abstracts and full text of search results. Descriptive data was collected on each retracted article including reason for retraction, study type, journal impact factor, and time between publication and retraction. Regression models were used to evaluate the association between journal impact factor and retraction characteristics. RESULTS: A total of 138 retractions of dental articles were included. Reasons for retraction were misconduct (N = 100, 72.5%), with the most frequently reported misconduct being overlap/plagiarism and innacurate/falsified conducting and reporting (N = 53, 38.4%). In vitro (N = 39, 28.3%), case reports (N = 29, 21%) and narrative reviews (N = 19, 13.8%) were study design most frequently identified in retracted articles. The median time between article publication and date of retraction notice was 1 year (interquartile-range [IQR] = 0-2 years). More than half of the retracted articles (n = 82, 59.4%) were cited post-retraction. A retracted article reporting a randomized controlled trial was more likely to appear in journal with higher impact factor than a retracted case report (mean difference [MD] = 2.2; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.2,3.1. Articles retracted after 2012 were likely to appear in journals with a lower impact factor (MD=-1.3; 95%CI=-1.8, 0.8). CONCLUSIONS: Research misconduct is the main reason for retraction of dental articles. A substantial proportion of these articles were still being cited after their retraction. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: This report of dental retraction articles informs that more transparency is needed with data reporting in dentistry to improve writing practices in dentistry. A more complete report of retractions and their causes would provide more accurate information to inform researchers and editors to avoid or reduce future cases of retractions. More complete and accurate reporting would increase the overall trust in dental research.

Surveying Retracted Studies and Notices Within the Field of Radiation Oncology.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to characterize retracted studies within the field of radiation oncology. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Computerized searches were performed in Ovid MEDLINE, PubMed, Ovid EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library up to May 2017 looking for retracted studies using the terms "retraction note," "retracted note," "withdrawn" and "radiotherapy," and "radiation oncology." Additional studies were identified by hand-searching 10 discipline-specific journals. Two authors independently screened papers and then extracted author demographics, journal characteristics, and retraction-specific variables. RESULTS: Of the 58 studies identified, the most common reasons for retraction were misconduct (43%), methodological error (21%), authorship issues (5%), unknown causes (5%), and journal (administrative) errors (3%). A total of 13 systematic reviews or protocols (22%) were withdrawn from the Cochrane Library for being out-of-date or redundant. All but one retracted study and retraction notice were available in portable document format. Of the 57 retrieved papers, 79% were identified as retracted via in-text notations or watermarks. Overall median time to retraction was 44 months (interquartile range, 11-98 months). However, 42 studies (72%) were still cited after retraction notices were published. CONCLUSIONS: A retracted study within the field of radiation oncology remains a relatively uncommon event. Although promising, our data suggest that the majority of these retracted articles continue to be cited as valid research. As such, there is still a need for clinicians to remain vigilant with their academic rigor and good clinical research practices. There is an urgent need for publication houses to foster universal publishing standards along with discipline-specific retraction guidelines.

Prospective analysis of hydrogel spacer for patients with prostate cancer undergoing radiotherapy.

OBJECTIVE: To report on the dosimetric benefits and late toxicity outcomes after injection of hydrogel spacer (HS) between the prostate and rectum for patients treated with prostate radiotherapy (RT). PATIENTS AND METHODS: In all, 76 patients with a clinical stage of T1-T3a prostate cancer underwent general anaesthesia for fiducial marker insertion plus injection of the HS into the perirectal space before intensity-modulated RT (IMRT) or volumetric-modulated arc RT (VMAT). HS safety, dosimetric benefits, and the immediate- to long-term effects of gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity were assessed. RESULTS: There were no postoperative complications reported. The mean (range) prostate size was 66.0 (25.0-187.0) mm. Rectal dose volume parameters were observed and the volume of rectum receiving 70 Gy (rV70 ), 75 Gy (rV75 ) and 78 Gy (rV78 ) was 7.8%, 3.6% and 0.4%, respectively. In all, 21% of patients (16/76) developed acute Grade 1 GI toxicities, but all were resolved completely by 3 months after treatment; whilst, 3% of patients (2/76) developed late Grade 1 GI toxicities. No patients had acute or late Grade ≥2 GI toxicities. CONCLUSION: Injection of HS resulted in a reduction of irradiated rectal dose volumes along with minimal GI toxicities, irrespective of prostate size.

Appraisal of systematic reviews on the management of peri-implant diseases with two methodological tools.

AIM: This study aimed to evaluate and compare the performance of two methodological instruments to appraise systematic reviews and to identify potential disagreements of systematic review authors regarding risk of bias (RoB) evaluation of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) included in systematic reviews on peri-implant diseases. MATERIAL/METHODS: We searched Medline, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, PubMed Central, and Google Scholar for systematic reviews on peri-implant diseases published before July 11, 2017. Two authors independently evaluated the RoB and methodological quality of the systematic reviews by applying the Risk of Bias in Systematic Reviews (ROBIS) tool and Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) checklist, respectively. We assessed the RoB scores of the same RCTs published in different systematic reviews. RESULTS: Of the 32 systematic reviews identified, 23 reviews addressed the clinical topic of peri-implantitis. A high RoB was detected for most systematic reviews (n=25) using ROBIS, whilst five systematic reviews displayed low methodological quality by AMSTAR. Almost 30% of the RoB comparisons (for the same RCTs) had different RoB ratings across systematic reviews. CONCLUSIONS: The ROBIS tool appears to provide more conservative results than AMSTAR checklist. Considerable disagreement was found among systematic review authors rating the same RCT included in different systematic reviews.

Chemical burns: Diphoterine untangled.

OBJECTIVE: Diphoterine is a hypertonic, amphoteric, polyvalent and chelating decontamination solution used in the treatment of cutaneous and ocular chemical burns. Due to infrequent use by emergency physicians along with the small number of available studies, its debate in the literature as to its efficacy and safety remains inconclusive. METHODS: A structured literature search was performed in MEDLINE, EMBASE BIOLOGICAL ABSTRACTS and TOXNET to June 2016 for original English-language studies reporting on the safety and effectiveness of Diphoterine. Methodological and reporting quality of pre-clinical animal studies was assessed using the Systematic Review Centre for Laboratory Animal Experimentation (SYRCLE) risk of bias tool and Animal Research: Reporting of In Vivo Experiments (ARRIVE) guidelines. Clinical studies were assessed using Chambers' criteria. RESULTS: 13 studies (seven in the pre-clinical, five in the clinical setting and one mixed) met the study inclusion criteria. Pre-clinical studies showed a faster resolution of pH and reduced tissue necrosis with Diphoterine. Clinical studies showed reduced tissue necrosis/severity of symptoms, faster pH resolution and a reduction in pain when using Diphoterine. No adverse events were attributable to Diphoterine. Reporting and methodology of the studies was poor or showed a high risk of bias. CONCLUSIONS: Diphoterine appears to be safe to use and is probably superior to other rinsing solutions. However, immediate decontamination is imperative and if Diphoterine is not available a different rinsing solution should be used. The methodology of the published literature for Diphoterine is generally poor and future publications should use the frameworks given as templates.

A survey of prevalence of narrative and systematic reviews in five major medical journals.

BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews may provide less biased evidence than narrative reviews because they observe a strict methodology, similarly to primary studies. Hence, for clinical research questions, systematic reviews should be the study design of choice. It would be important to evaluate the prevalence and characteristics of narrative and systematic reviews published in prominent medical journals. Researchers and clinicians give great value to articles published in such scientific journals. This study sought to evaluate the prevalence and characteristics of narrative and systematic reviews in the five highest-ranked general medical journals and investigate the associations among type of review, number of citations, and impact factor (IF). METHODS: We surveyed the five highest-ranked medical journals (The New England Journal of Medicine, The Lancet, The Journal of the American Medical Association, The BMJ, and Annals of Internal Medicine) for narrative and systematic reviews published between June 2015 and June 2016. We independently selected and extracted the data from the reviews by strictly following the pre-determined eligibility criteria (Systematic and narrative reviews that focused on the management of diseases). We conducted regression analyses to investigate the associations among review type, number of citations, and IF. We also descriptively reported narrative reviews containing some methodology that might be reproducible. RESULTS: Two hundred seventy-five reviews were included: 75 (27%) systematic; 126 (46%) narrative with some methodology reported, and 74 (27%) narrative reviews. In comparison to systematic reviews, narrative reviews were more frequently published in journals with higher IF (risk ratio [RR] = 1.114 (95% CI 1.080 to 1.149). Systematic reviews received more citations than narrative reviews (group formed by narrative and narrative with some methodology reported (RR = 0.985 95% CI 0.978 to 0.991). CONCLUSIONS: Non-systematic evidence is the most prevalent type of evidence in reviews published in the five highest-ranked general medical journals. Narrative reviews were more frequently published in journals with higher IF. We recommend that journals limit their space for narrative information, and to address clinical research questions, these journals consider publishing systematic evidence exclusively.

Interventions for managing skeletal muscle spasticity following traumatic brain injury.

BACKGROUND: Skeletal muscle spasticity is a major physical complication resulting from traumatic brain injury (TBI), which can lead to muscle contracture, joint stiffness, reduced range of movement, broken skin and pain. Treatments for spasticity include a range of pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions, often used in combination. Management of spasticity following TBI varies from other clinical populations because of the added complexity of behavioural and cognitive issues associated with TBI. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of interventions for managing skeletal muscle spasticity in people with TBI. SEARCH METHODS: In June 2017, we searched key databases including the Cochrane Injuries Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid) and others, in addition to clinical trials registries and the reference lists of included studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cross-over RCTs evaluating any intervention for the management of spasticity in TBI. Only studies where at least 50% of participants had a TBI (or for whom separate data for participants with TBI were available) were included. The primary outcomes were spasticity and adverse effects. Secondary outcome measures were classified according to the World Health Organization International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health including body functions (sensory, pain, neuromusculoskeletal and movement-related functions) and activities and participation (general tasks and demands; mobility; self-care; domestic life; major life areas; community, social and civic life). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Data were synthesised narratively; meta-analysis was precluded due to the paucity and heterogeneity of data. MAIN RESULTS: We included nine studies in this review which involved 134 participants with TBI. Only five studies reported between-group differences, yielding outcome data for 105 participants with TBI. These five studies assessed the effects of a range of pharmacological (baclofen, botulinum toxin A) and non-pharmacological (casting, physiotherapy, splints, tilt table standing and electrical stimulation) interventions, often in combination. The studies which tested the effect of baclofen and tizanidine did not report their results adequately. Where outcome data were available, spasticity and adverse events were reported, in addition to some secondary outcome measures.Of the five studies with results, three were funded by governments, charities or health services and two were funded by a pharmaceutical or medical technology company. The four studies without useable results were funded by pharmaceutical or medical technology companies.It was difficult to draw conclusions about the effectiveness of these interventions due to poor reporting, small study size and the fact that participants with TBI were usually only a proportion of the overall total. Meta-analysis was not feasible due to the paucity of data and heterogeneity of interventions and comparator groups. Some studies concluded that the intervention they tested had beneficial effects on spasticity, and others found no difference between certain treatments. The most common adverse event was minor skin damage in people who received casting. We believe it would be misleading to provide any further description of study results given the quality of the evidence was very low for all outcomes. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The very low quality and limited amount of evidence about the management of spasticity in people with TBI means that we are uncertain about the effectiveness or harms of these interventions. Well-designed and adequately powered studies using functional outcome measures to test the interventions used in clinical practice are needed.

Risk Factors for Ocular Burn Injuries Requiring Surgery.

The surgical management of severe ocular burns is challenging and often associated with variable long-term outcome. The aims of this study were to analyze the clinical course of these injuries and determine the factors associated with the need for surgery. A retrospective medical records review was conducted for patients admitted to the Victorian Adult Burns Services, with ocular burns, from January 2000 to January 2010. One hundred and twenty-nine patients were admitted with ocular burns, of which 17 (13.2%) required surgery. The most common indication for surgery was ectropion (n = 9) and the most frequent procedure was full-thickness skin grafts to the eyelids (n = 10). Almost all patients managed surgically developed late ocular complications, the most frequent being visual loss and recurrent ectropion (n = 7 each). Patients undergoing surgery had a longer length of hospital stay (median [interquartile range] 40 [12-90] vs 12 [4-29.5] days; P = .004) and larger TBSA burned (median [interquartile range] 20 [10-60] vs 8 [4-20]; P = .011). Factors associated with the need for surgery included flame burns, periorbital edema, visual loss on presentation, increasing severity of eyelid and facial burns, severe corneal injury, as well as lagophthalmos, ectropion, and microbial keratitis (P < .05). Although only a minority required surgery, these patients often require multiple procedures and develop long-term ocular morbidity.

Factors predicting health status and recovery of hand function after hand burns in the second year after hospital discharge.

INTRODUCTION: Hands are the most commonly burnt body part given humans' innate response to guard their face from injury, and are known to have detrimental functional and psychological consequences. Conflicting evidence exists regarding the impact of hand burns on long-term health status and global functioning. The objective of this study was to identify patient and clinical characteristics that predict health status and hand function of people at 12-24 months after hand burn. METHODS: The Burns Specific Health Scale-Brief (BSHS-B) and the Brief Michigan Hand Outcome Questionnaire (Brief MHQ) were administered to community-dwelling adults who were between one and two years after admission to a statewide burns service for burns including one or both hands. Demographic, injury, and treatment data were collected to identify which factors predict health status and hand function in the second year after admission. Linear regression analyses adjusted for total burn surface area and burn depth were conducted to identify important predictors or outcomes. RESULTS: The sample (n=41) was 80.5% male, with a mean age of 44.5 years and total body surface area (TBSA) of 8.4%. Psychiatric illness (regression coefficient -56.6, confidence interval (95% CI) -76.70, -36.49) and female gender (-20.3; 95% CI -0.77, -40.29) were key predictors of poorer global health status on the BSHS-B. Females also scored worse on body image (-5.35; 95% CI -1.83, -8.87) and work (-4.13; 95% CI -0.64, -7.62) domains of BSHS-B. The need for reconstructive or secondary surgery (-38.84; 95% CI -58.04, -19.65) and female gender (-16.30; 95% CI -4.03, -28.57) were important predictors of poorer hand function. CONCLUSION: Women and those with a history of psychiatric illness are particularly vulnerable to poorer outcomes in health status and/or hand function after burns, and may benefit from more intensive rehabilitation support and long-term follow-up.

Poor methodological quality and reporting standards of systematic reviews in burn care management.

The methodological and reporting quality of burn-specific systematic reviews has not been established. The aim of this study was to evaluate the methodological quality of systematic reviews in burn care management. Computerised searches were performed in Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid EMBASE and The Cochrane Library through to February 2016 for systematic reviews relevant to burn care using medical subject and free-text terms such as 'burn', 'systematic review' or 'meta-analysis'. Additional studies were identified by hand-searching five discipline-specific journals. Two authors independently screened papers, extracted and evaluated methodological quality using the 11-item A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) tool and reporting quality using the 27-item Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklist. Characteristics of systematic reviews associated with methodological and reporting quality were identified. Descriptive statistics and linear regression identified features associated with improved methodological quality. A total of 60 systematic reviews met the inclusion criteria. Six of the 11 AMSTAR items reporting on 'a priori' design, duplicate study selection, grey literature, included/excluded studies, publication bias and conflict of interest were reported in less than 50% of the systematic reviews. Of the 27 items listed for PRISMA, 13 items reporting on introduction, methods, results and the discussion were addressed in less than 50% of systematic reviews. Multivariable analyses showed that systematic reviews associated with higher methodological or reporting quality incorporated a meta-analysis (AMSTAR regression coefficient 2.1; 95% CI: 1.1, 3.1; PRISMA regression coefficient 6·3; 95% CI: 3·8, 8·7) were published in the Cochrane library (AMSTAR regression coefficient 2·9; 95% CI: 1·6, 4·2; PRISMA regression coefficient 6·1; 95% CI: 3·1, 9·2) and included a randomised control trial (AMSTAR regression coefficient 1·4; 95%CI: 0·4, 2·4; PRISMA regression coefficient 3·4; 95% CI: 0·9, 5·8). The methodological and reporting quality of systematic reviews in burn care requires further improvement with stricter adherence by authors to the PRISMA checklist and AMSTAR tool.

Retrospective review of a tertiary adult burn centre's experience with modified Meek grafting.

BACKGROUND: Autologous split skin grafting is the gold standard in treating patients with massive burns. However, the limited availability of donor sites remains a problem. The aim of this study is to present our experience with the modified Meek technique of grafting, outcomes achieved and recommendations for optimized outcomes. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed patient records from our tertiary referral burn centre and the Bi-National Burns Registry to identify all patients who had modified Meek grafting between 2010 and 2013. Patient records were reviewed individually and information regarding patient demographics, mechanism of injury and surgical management was recorded. Outcome measures including graft take rate, requirement for further surgery and complications were also recorded. RESULTS: Eleven patients had modified Meek grafting procedures. The average age of patients was 46 years old (range 23 - 64). The average total body surface area (TBSA) burnt was 56.75 % (range 20-80 %). On average, 87 % of the grafted areas healed well and did not require regrafting. In the regrafted areas, infection was the leading cause of graft failure. CONCLUSIONS: Modified Meek grafting is a useful method of skin expansion. Similar to any other grafting technique, infection needs to be sought and treated promptly. It is recommended for larger burns where donor sites are not adequate or where it is desirable to limit their extent.