Mobile health technologies to improve walking distance in people with intermittent claudication.

BACKGROUND: Peripheral arterial disease (PAD) is the obstruction or narrowing of the large arteries of the lower limbs, which can result in impaired oxygen supply to the muscle and other tissues during exercise, or even at rest in more severe cases. PAD is classified into five categories (Fontaine classification). It may be asymptomatic or various levels of claudication pain may be present; at a later stage, there may be ulceration or gangrene of the limb, with amputation occasionally being required. About 20% of people with PAD suffer from intermittent claudication (IC), which is muscular discomfort in the lower extremities induced by exertion and relieved by rest within 10 minutes; IC causes restriction of movement in daily life. Treatment for people with IC involves addressing lifestyle risk factors. Exercise is an important part of treatment, but supervised exercise programmes for individuals with IC have low engagement levels and high attrition rates. The use of mobile technologies has been suggested as a new way to engage people with IC in walking exercise interventions. The novelty of the intervention, low cost for the user, automation, and ease of access are some of the advantages mobile health (mhealth) technologies provide that give them the potential to be effective in boosting physical activity in adults. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of mobile health (mhealth) technologies to improve walking distance in people with intermittent claudication. SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist conducted systematic searches of the Cochrane Vascular Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL, and also searched the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP) and ClinicalTrials.gov. The most recent searches were carried out on 19 December 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in people aged 18 years or over with symptomatic PAD and a clinical diagnosis of IC. We included RCTs comparing mhealth interventions to improve walking distance versus usual care (no intervention or non-exercise advice), exercise advice, or supervised exercise programmes. We excluded people with chronic limb-threatening ischaemia (Fontaine III and IV). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were change in absolute walking distance from baseline, change in claudication distance from baseline, amputation-free survival, revascularisation-free survival. Our secondary outcomes were major adverse cardiovascular events, major adverse limb events, above-ankle amputation, quality of life, and adverse events. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence. MAIN RESULTS: We included four RCTs involving a total of 614 participants with a clinical diagnosis of IC. The duration of intervention of the four included RCTs ranged from 3 to 12 months. Participants were randomised to either mhealth or control (usual care or supervised exercise programme). All four studies had an unclear or high risk of bias in one or several domains. The most prevalent risk of bias was in the area of performance bias, which was rated high risk as it is not possible to blind participants and personnel in this type of trial. Based on GRADE criteria, we downgraded the certainty of the evidence to low, due to concerns about risk of bias, imprecision, and clinical inconsistency. Comparing mhealth with usual care, there was no clear evidence of an effect on absolute walking distance (mean difference 9.99 metres, 95% confidence interval (CI) -27.96 to 47.93; 2 studies, 503 participants; low-certainty evidence). None of the included studies reported on change in claudication walking distance, amputation-free survival, or revascularisation-free survival. Only one study reported on major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and found no clear difference between groups (risk ratio 1.37, 95% CI 0.07 to 28.17; 1 study, 305 participants; low-certainty evidence). None of the included studies reported on major adverse limb events (MALE) or above-ankle amputations. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Mobile health technologies can be used to provide lifestyle interventions for people with chronic conditions, such as IC. We identified a limited number of studies that met our inclusion criteria. We found no clear difference between mhealth and usual care in improving absolute walking distance in people with IC; however, we judged the evidence to be low certainty. Larger, well-designed RCTs are needed to provide adequate statistical power to reliably evaluate the effects of mhealth technologies on walking distance in people with IC.

Perceptions and experiences of nursing students communicating with people living with dementia: The validation, emotion, reassure, activity (VERA) communication skills framework.

BACKGROUND: There is an increased risk with advancing age that degenerative conditions such as dementia will affect a person's capacity to communicate. Thus, there is increased possibility that nursing students will be caring for this client group and will need to have the skills to communicate effectively. The Validation, Emotion, Reassure, Activity (VERA) framework is a communication tool developed for this purpose. OBJECTIVES: This pilot study explored nursing students' perceptions and experiences of communicating with people with dementia incorporating the VERA communication skills framework. METHODS: Using a descriptive qualitative approach, second year undergraduate general nursing students were eligible for inclusion if they were assigned to complete their 4-week clinical placement in the designated research site and were willing to participate. Students allocated to the designated research site (n = 6) in semester 1 received standard communication skills as part of the undergraduate programme and students allocated (n = 10) in semester 2 received 2.5 h of additional communication skills based on the VERA framework. Data were analysed using framework analysis as described by Ritchie & Spencer. RESULTS: The findings showed that students in both groups had initial reservations about communicating with people living with dementia. They employed several strategies including nonverbal techniques, distraction, reminiscence and life story work. However, students who received the VERA communication training felt more prepared to engage in these strategies because of the VERA training. CONCLUSION: With increasing numbers of people with dementia accessing health care, it is crucial that future nursing staff are equipped to meet the specific care needs of this population; which includes effective communication. The VERA framework can be useful to structure communication for nursing students. IMPLICATION FOR PRACTICE: The VERA training may be considered a useful framework for increasing undergraduate nursing students' knowledge and confidence in advance of clinical placements in older person's services. Nursing staff should continue to support students on clinical placements which involve caring for people with dementia and be cognisant of the trepidation students may have when first meeting this client group.

The experiences and perceptions of young people and older people living with dementia of participating in intergenerational programmes: A qualitative evidence synthesis.

BACKGROUND: Intergenerational programmes are formal activities bringing different generations together and have been identified as a way to help people living with dementia to stay socially connected. While there is some evidence from individual studies as to their benefits, there is no overall coherent account as to the perceptions and experiences of participants who engage in such programmes. This review synthesises qualitative evidence of the experiences and perceptions of young people and older people living with dementia of participating in such programmes. METHODS: We searched EBSCO CINAHL, OVID Medline, Embase, Ovid PsycINFO, the Web of Science, Epistemonikos and grey literature sources. We used thematic synthesis to analyse and synthesise the evidence in to four themes, with 11 key findings. We assessed our confidence in each of these findings using the GRADE-CERQual (Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research) approach. FINDINGS: Our review highlights the potential enjoyment for young people and older people living with dementia when participating in Intergenerational programmes, despite some initial trepidation. These programmes provide an opportunity to establish and develop relationships and for young people to learn about dementia, ageing and how to interact with older people living with dementia. However, it is important to have staff facilitators present to provide reassurance to both groups. It is also important to take the personal preferences of participants into account and to be considerate of noise levels and other aspects of programme delivery that may inhibit engagement. CONCLUSION: This is the first qualitative evidence synthesis specifically exploring Intergenerational programmes aimed at older people living with dementia. We provide insights into the perspectives of those who have participated in Intergenerational programmes. It is important to consider these views, together with other evidence of effectiveness, when planning Intergenerational programmes. While our review is limited by a small number of studies from only a few countries, we have moderate to high confidence in our findings. Further research into the development of Intergenerational programmes specifically tailored for people living with dementia is needed. The findings also provide guidance for people planning to deliver or design future Intergenerational programmes.

The effectiveness of interventions to reduce adverse outcomes among older adults following Emergency Department discharge: umbrella review.

BACKGROUND: Population ageing is increasing rapidly worldwide. Older adults are frequent users of health care services including the Emergency Department (ED) and experience a number of adverse outcomes following an ED visit. Adverse outcomes include functional decline, unplanned hospital admission and an ED revisit. Given these adverse outcomes a number of interventions have been examined to improve the outcomes of older adults following presentation to the ED. The aim of this umbrella review was to evaluate the effectiveness of ED interventions in reducing adverse outcomes in older adults discharged from the ED. METHODS: Systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials investigating ED interventions for older adults presenting to the ED exploring clinical, patient experience and healthcare utilisation outcomes were included. A comprehensive search strategy was employed in eleven databases and the PROSPERO register up until June 2020. Grey literature was also searched. Quality was assessed using the A MeaSurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews 2 tool. Overlap between systematic reviews was assessed using a matrix of evidence table. An algorithm to assign the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation to assess the strength of evidence was applied for all outcomes. RESULTS: Nine systematic reviews including 29 randomised controlled trials were included. Interventions comprised of solely ED-based or transitional interventions. The specific interventions delivered were highly variable. There was high overlap and low methodological quality of the trials informing the systematic reviews. There is low quality evidence to support ED interventions in reducing functional decline, improving patient experience and improving quality of life. The quality of evidence of the effectiveness of ED interventions to reduce mortality and ED revisits varied from very low to moderate. Results were presented narratively and summary of evidence tables created. CONCLUSION: Older adults are the most important emerging group in healthcare for several economic, social and political reasons. The existing evidence for the effectiveness of ED interventions for older adults is limited. This umbrella review highlights the challenge of synthesising evidence due to significant heterogeneity in methods, intervention content and reporting of outcomes. Higher quality intervention studies in line with current geriatric medicine research guidelines are recommended, rather than the publication of further systematic reviews. TRIAL REGISTRATION: UMBRELLA REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO ( CRD42020145315 ).

Endovascular versus conventional open surgical repair for thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms.

BACKGROUND: Thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms (TAAAs) are a life-threatening condition which remain difficult to treat. Endovascular and open surgical repair (OSR) provide treatment options for patients, however, due to the lack of clinical trials comparing these, the optimum treatment option is unknown. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and safety of endovascular repair versus conventional OSR for the treatment of TAAAs. SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist searched the Cochrane Vascular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and AMED databases and World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov trials registers to 26 April 2021. We also searched references of relevant articles retrieved from the electronic search for additional citations. SELECTION CRITERIA: We considered all published and unpublished randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs) comparing endovascular repair to OSR for TAAAs for inclusion in the review. The main outcomes of interest were prevention of aneurysm rupture (participants without aneurysm rupture up to 5 years from intervention), aneurysm-related mortality (30 days and 12 months), all-cause mortality, spinal cord ischaemia (paraplegia, paraparesis), visceral arterial branch compromise causing mesenteric ischaemia or renal failure, and rate of reintervention. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened all titles and abstracts identified from the searches to identify those that met the inclusion criteria. We planned to undertake data collection, risk of bias assessment, and analysis in accordance with Cochrane recommendations. We planned to assess the certainty of the evidence using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: No RCTs or CCTs met the inclusion criteria for this review. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Due to the lack of RCTs or CCTs, we were unable to determine the safety and effectiveness of endovascular compared to OSR in patients with TAAAs and are unable to provide any evidence on the optimal surgical intervention for this cohort of patients. High-quality RCTs or CCTs addressing this objective are necessary, however conducting such studies will be logistically and ethically challenging for this life-threatening disease.

Mental stress in health care professionals during COVID-19 outbreak.

BACKGROUND: In December 2019, an outbreak of novel corona virus pneumonia occurred in Wuhan City, China, and spread throughout the whole of country in a short period. Figures from China's National Health Commission show that more than 3300 health care workers have been infected as of early March. In Italy, 20% of responding health care professionals was infected, and some have died. Health care professionals are exposed to different types of stress both physical and psychological in response to this serious infectious public health event. RESEARCH AIMS: The aim of this study is to measure the degree of mental stress among front line health care workers dealing with COVID-19 patients. METHODS: We conducted the study through online survey questionnaire after obtaining the ethics approval from the Research Ethics Committee of Galway University Hospital in Ireland (Ref: C.A. 2355). All personal information of the medical staff involved in the survey has been kept confidential. RESULTS: Three hundred nine health care members (209 male and 97 female) have agreed to participate in our survey from different hospitals and different specialties all over the world. Overall PSS Score: mean 19.42 (Standard Deviation ± 5.876, range 1-33). Frontline health care workers working in University Hospitals and tertiary referral centres had lower levels of stress compared to those working in peripheral hospitals (P = 0.007, Kruskal Wallis). CONCLUSION: The COVID-19 pandemic is one of the most stressful events that a health care worker may face during his life time. Most of the participants in the survey developed a moderate degree of stress.

Endovascular versus open surgical repair for complicated chronic Type B aortic dissection.

BACKGROUND: Type B aortic dissection can lead to serious and life-threatening complications such as aortic rupture, stroke, renal failure, and paraplegia, all of which require intervention. Traditionally, these complications have been treated with open surgery. Recently however, endovascular repair has been proposed as an alternative. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and safety of thoracic aortic endovascular repair versus open surgical repair for treatment of complicated chronic Type B aortic dissection (CBAD). SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist searched the Cochrane Vascular Specialised Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and AMED databases, as well as the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov trials registers, to 2 August 2021. We searched references of relevant articles retrieved through the electronic search for additional citations. SELECTION CRITERIA: We considered all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs) assessing the effects of thoracic aortic endovascular repair (TEVAR) versus open surgical repair (OSR) for treatment of complicated chronic Type B aortic dissection (CBAD). Outcomes of interest were mortality (all-cause, dissection-related), neurological sequelae (stroke, spinal cord ischaemia/paresis-paralysis, vertebral insufficiency), morphological outcomes (false lumen thrombosis, progression of dissection, aortic diameters), acute renal failure, ischaemic symptoms (visceral ischaemia, limb ischaemia), re-intervention, and health-related quality of life. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened all titles and abstracts identified by the searches to identify those that met the inclusion criteria. From title and abstract screening, we did not identify any trials (RCTs or CCTs) that required full-text assessment. We planned to undertake data collection and analysis in accordance with recommendations described in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. We planned to assess the certainty of evidence using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: We did not identify any trials (RCTs or CCTs) that met the inclusion criteria for this review. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Due to lack of RCTs or CCTs investigating the effectiveness and safety of TEVAR compared to OSR for patients with complicated CBAD, we are unable to provide any evidence to inform decision-making on the optimal intervention for these patients. High-quality RCTs or CCTs addressing this objective are necessary. However, conducting such studies will be challenging for this life-threatening disease.

Surgical and radiological interventions for treating symptomatic extracranial cervical artery dissection.

BACKGROUND: Cervical artery dissection (CeAD) is a pathological bleed or tear, or both, in the wall of the carotid or vertebral arteries as they course through the neck, and is a leading cause of stroke in young people. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of surgical and radiological interventions versus best medical treatment alone for treating symptomatic cervical artery dissection. SEARCH METHODS: We performed comprehensive searches of the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register (last searched March 2020), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), 2020, Issue 4, in the Cochrane Library (searched March 2020), MEDLINE (1946 to March 2020) and Embase (1974 to March 2020). We searched relevant ongoing trials and research registers (searched March 2020), checked references in all relevant papers for additional eligible studies, and contacted authors and researchers in the field. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs) of either surgical or endovascular intervention for the management of symptomatic CeAD were eligible for inclusion. Only studies with anticoagulants or antiplatelet treatment as the control group were included. Two review authors planned to independently extract data. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Primary outcomes were ipsilateral stroke and disability. Secondary outcomes were death, any stroke, or transient ischaemic attack, residual stenosis (> 50%), recurrence of cervical dissection, expanding pseudoaneurysm, or major bleeding. We analysed the studies according to the first choice of treatment. We planned to assess for risk of bias and apply GRADE criteria for any included studies. MAIN RESULTS: We did not find any completed RCTs or CCTs undertaken in this area of research. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: No RCTs or CCTs compared either surgery or endovascular therapy with control. Thus, there is no available evidence to support their use for the treatment of extracranial cervical artery dissection in addition to antithrombotic therapy in people who continue to have neurological symptoms when treated with antithrombotic therapy alone.

Systematic review of the effectiveness of carotid surgery and endovascular carotid stenting versus best medical treatment in managing symptomatic acute carotid artery dissection.

Cervical artery dissection (CeAD) with an intramural haematoma can lead to stroke risk, especially in young patients. We performed comprehensive searches of the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register, the CENTRAL, MEDLINE and EMBASE to review the effectiveness of surgical and endovascular interventions versus best medical treatment alone for symptomatic CeAD. Furthermore, we aim to elaborate on the phenotypic individual disease manifestations of spontaneous Cervical Artery Dissection (sCAD) and how they translate into stroke and risk of dissection recurrence. Primary outcomes were ipsilateral stroke and disability. Secondary outcomes were death, any stroke, or transient ischaemic attack, residual stenosis >50%, recurrence of CeAD, expanding pseudo-aneurysm or major bleeding. Our search yielded no randomised controlled trials and/or controlled clinical trials (CCTs) comparing either carotid surgery or endovascular therapy with optimal medical management; thus there was no evidence to support the use of any specific method for management of extracranial CeAD in patients who fail antithrombotic therapy. However, despite the absence of controlled studies to compare surgery or endovascular therapy in patients who fail antithrombotic therapy, carotid surgery in young patients can be justified as a personalized precision approach given the high morbidity and mortality in this age group.

Hybrid repair versus conventional open repair for aortic arch dissection.

BACKGROUND: A dissection of the aorta is a separation or tear of the intima from the media. This tear allows blood to flow not only through the original aortic flow channel (known as the true lumen), but also through a second channel between the intima and media (known as the false lumen). Aortic dissection is a life-threatening condition which can be rapidly fatal. There is debate on the optimal surgical approach for aortic arch dissection. People with ascending aortic dissection have poor rates of survival. Currently open surgical repair is regarded as the standard treatment for aortic arch dissection. We intend to review the role of hybrid and open repair in aortic arch dissection. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and safety of a hybrid technique of treatment over conventional open repair in the management of aortic arch dissection. SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist searched the Cochrane Vascular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and AMED databases and World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov trials registers to 8 February 2021. We also undertook reference checking for additional studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and clinical controlled trials (CCTs), which compared the effects of hybrid repair techniques versus open surgical repair of aortic arch dissection. Outcomes of interest were dissection-related mortality and all-cause mortality, neurological deficit, cardiac injury, respiratory compromise, renal ischaemia, false lumen thrombosis (defined by partial or complete thrombosis) and mesenteric ischaemia. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened all records identified by the literature searches to identify those that met our inclusion criteria. We planned to undertake data collection and analysis in accordance with recommendations described in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. We planned to assess the certainty of the evidence using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: We identified one ongoing study and two unpublished studies that met the inclusion criteria for the review. Due to a lack of study data, we could not compare the outcomes of hybrid repair to conventional open repair for aortic arch dissection. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review revealed one ongoing RCT and two unpublished RCTs evaluating hybrid versus conventional open repair for aortic arch surgery. Observational data suggest that hybrid repair for aortic arch dissection could potentially be favourable, but conclusions can not be drawn from these studies, which are highly selective, and are based on the clinical status of the patient, the presence of comorbidities and the skills of the operators. However, a conclusion about its definitive benefit over conventional open surgical repair cannot be made from this review without published RCTs or CCTs. Future RCTs or CCTs need to have adequate sample sizes and follow-up, and assess clinically-relevant outcomes, in order to determine the optimal treatment for people with aortic arch dissection. It must be noted that this may not be feasible, due to the reasons mentioned.

Hybrid repair versus conventional open repair for thoracic aortic arch aneurysms.

BACKGROUND: Thoracic aortic arch aneurysms (TAAs) can be a life-threatening condition due to the potential risk of rupture. Treatment is recommended when the risk of rupture is greater than the risk of surgical complications. Depending on the cause, size and growth rate of the TAA, treatment may vary from close observation to emergency surgery. Aneurysms of the thoracic aorta can be managed by a number of surgical techniques. Open surgical repair (OSR) of aneurysms involves either partial or total replacement of the aorta, which is dependent on the extent of the diseased segment of the aorta. During OSR, the aneurysm is replaced with a synthetic graft. Hybrid repair (HR) involves a combination of open surgery with endovascular aortic stent graft placement. Hybrid repair requires varying degrees of invasiveness, depending on the number of supra-aortic branches that require debranching. The hybrid technique that combines supra-aortic vascular debranching with stent grafting of the aortic arch has been introduced as a therapeutic alternative. However, the short- and long-term outcomes of HR remain unclear, due to technical difficulties and complications as a result of the angulation of the aortic arch as well as handling of the arch during surgery. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and safety of HR versus conventional OSR for the treatment of TAAs. SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist searched the Cochrane Vascular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and AMED databases and World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov trials registers to 22 March 2021. We also searched references of relevant articles retrieved from the electronic search for additional citations. SELECTION CRITERIA: We considered for inclusion in the review all published and unpublished randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs) comparing HR to OSR for TAAs. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened all titles and abstracts obtained from the literature search to identify those that met the inclusion criteria. We retrieved the full text of studies deemed as potentially relevant by at least one review author. The same review authors screened the full-text articles independently for inclusion or exclusion. MAIN RESULTS: No RCTs or CCTs met the inclusion criteria for this review. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Due to the lack of RCTs or CCTs, we were unable to determine the safety and effectiveness of HR compared to OSR in people with TAAs, and we are unable to provide high-certainty evidence on the optimal surgical intervention for this cohort of patients. High-quality RCTs or CCTs are necessary, addressing the objective of this review.

Interventions for the management of obesity in people with bipolar disorder.

BACKGROUND: Bipolar disorder is one of the most common serious mental illnesses, affecting approximately 60 million people worldwide. Characterised by extreme alterations in mood, cognition, and behaviour, bipolar disorder can have a significant negative impact on the functioning and quality of life of the affected individual. Compared with the general population, the prevalence of comorbid obesity is significantly higher in bipolar disorder. Approximately 68% of treatment seeking bipolar patients are overweight or obese. Clinicians are aware that obesity has the potential to contribute to other physical health conditions in people with bipolar disorder, including diabetes, hypertension, metabolic syndrome, cardiovascular disease, and coronary heart disease. Cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of premature death in bipolar disorder, happening a decade or more earlier than in the general population. Contributing factors include illness-related factors (mood-related factors, i.e. mania or depression), treatment-related factors (weight implications and other side effects of medications), and lifestyle factors (physical inactivity, poor diet, smoking, substance abuse). Approaches to the management of obesity in individuals with bipolar disorder are diverse and include non-pharmacological interventions (i.e. dietary, exercise, behavioural, or multi-component), pharmacological interventions (i.e. weight loss drugs or medication switching), and bariatric surgery. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of interventions for the management of obesity in people with bipolar disorder. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Common Mental Disorders Controlled Trials Register (CCMDCTR) and the Cochrane Central Register for Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) to February 2019. We ran additional searches via Ovid databases including MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycInfo to May 2020. We searched the World Health Organization (WHO) trials portal (International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP)) and ClinicalTrials.gov. We also checked the reference lists of all papers brought to full-text stage and all relevant systematic reviews. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), randomised at the level of the individual or cluster, and cross-over designs of interventions for management of obesity, in which at least 80% of study participants had a clinical diagnosis of bipolar disorder and comorbid obesity (body mass index (BMI) ≥ 30 kg/m²), were eligible for inclusion. No exclusions were based on type of bipolar disorder, stage of illness, age, or gender. We included non-pharmacological interventions comprising dietary, exercise, behavioural, and multi-component interventions; pharmacological interventions consisting of weight loss medications and medication switching interventions; and surgical interventions such as gastric bypass, gastric bands, biliopancreatic diversion, and vertical banded gastroplasty. Comparators included the following approaches: dietary intervention versus inactive comparator; exercise intervention versus inactive comparator; behavioural intervention versus inactive comparator; multi-component lifestyle intervention versus inactive comparator; medication switching intervention versus inactive comparator; weight loss medication intervention versus inactive comparator; and surgical intervention versus inactive comparator. Primary outcomes of interest were changes in body mass, patient-reported adverse events, and quality of life. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Four review authors were involved in the process of selecting studies. Two review authors independently screened the titles and abstracts of studies identified in the search. Studies brought to the full-text stage were then screened by another two review authors working independently. However, none of the full-text studies met the inclusion criteria. Had we included studies, we would have assessed their methodological quality by using the criteria recommended in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. We intended to combine dichotomous data using risk ratios (RRs), and continuous data using mean differences (MDs). For each outcome, we intended to calculate overall effect size with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). MAIN RESULTS: None of the studies that were screened met the inclusion criteria. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: None of the studies that were assessed met the inclusion criteria of this review. Therefore we were unable to determine the effectiveness of interventions for the management of obesity in individuals with bipolar disorder. Given the extent and impact of the problem and the absence of evidence, this review highlights the need for research in this area. We suggest the need for RCTs that will focus only on populations with bipolar disorder and comorbid obesity. We identified several ongoing studies that may be included in the update of this review.

Study within a trial protocol: Same-day consent vs. delayed consent in a randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Randomized trials are designed to evaluate the effects of health care interventions. The recruitment process in a randomized trial can be challenging. Poor recruitment can have a negative impact on the allocated budget and estimated completion date of the study and may result in an underpowered research that will not adequately answer the original research question. AIM: We aim to perform a Study Within A Trial (SWAT) to evaluate the impact of same-day consent or delayed consent on recruitment and retention in the host trial. METHODS: This SWAT is designed as an observational study. However, the host trial is a randomized controlled trial evaluating the effectiveness of an intensive lifestyle modification program in patients with peripheral arterial disease. For this trial and SWAT, same-day consent is defined as the patient giving consent on the same day, after the investigator has fully explained the predesigned information leaflet for the host trial. Delayed consent is defined as the patient feeling they still need further time to consider their decision to participate or not. SWAT REGISTRATION: The SWAT was registered on the Northern Ireland Network for Trials Methodology Research.

Aspirin and other non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for the prevention of dementia.

BACKGROUND: Dementia is a worldwide concern. Its global prevalence is increasing. At present, there is no medication licensed to prevent or delay the onset of dementia. Inflammation has been suggested as a key factor in dementia pathogenesis. Therefore, medications with anti-inflammatory properties could be beneficial for dementia prevention. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness and adverse effects of aspirin and other non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) for the primary or secondary prevention of dementia. SEARCH METHODS: We searched ALOIS, the specialised register of the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group up to 9 January 2020. ALOIS contains records of clinical trials identified from monthly searches of several major healthcare databases, trial registries and grey literature sources. We ran additional searches across MEDLINE (OvidSP), Embase (OvidSP) and six other databases to ensure that the searches were as comprehensive and up-to-date as possible. We also reviewed citations of reference lists of included studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs) comparing aspirin or other NSAIDs with placebo for the primary or secondary prevention of dementia. We included trials with cognitively healthy participants (primary prevention) or participants with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or cognitive complaints (secondary prevention). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures according to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. We rated the strength of evidence for each outcome using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: We included four RCTs with 23,187 participants. Because of the diversity of these trials, we did not combine data to give summary estimates, but presented a narrative description of the evidence. We identified one trial (19,114 participants) comparing low-dose aspirin (100 mg once daily) to placebo. Participants were aged 70 years or older with no history of dementia, cardiovascular disease or physical disability. Interim analysis indicated no significant treatment effect and the trial was terminated slightly early after a median of 4.7 years' follow-up. There was no evidence of a difference in incidence of dementia between aspirin and placebo groups (risk ratio (RR) 0.98, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.15; high-certainty evidence). Participants allocated aspirin had higher rates of major bleeding (RR 1.37, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.60, high-certainty evidence) and slightly higher mortality (RR 1.14, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.28; high-certainty evidence). There was no evidence of a difference in activities of daily living between groups (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.02; high-certainty evidence). We identified three trials comparing non-aspirin NSAIDs to placebo. All three trials were terminated early due to adverse events associated with NSAIDs reported in other trials. One trial (2528 participants) investigated the cyclo-oxygenase-2 (COX-2) inhibitor celecoxib (200 mg twice daily) and the non-selective NSAID naproxen (220 mg twice daily) for preventing dementia in cognitively healthy older adults with a family history of Alzheimer's disease (AD). Median follow-up was 734 days. Combining both NSAID treatment arms, there was no evidence of a difference in the incidence of AD between participants allocated NSAIDs and those allocated placebo (RR 1.91, 95% CI 0.89 to 4.10; moderate-certainty evidence). There was also no evidence of a difference in rates of myocardial infarction (RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.61 to 2.40), stroke (RR 1.82, 95% CI 0.76 to 4.37) or mortality (RR 1.37, 95% CI 0.78 to 2.43) between treatment groups (all moderate-certainty evidence). One trial (88 participants) assessed the effectiveness of celecoxib (200 mg or 400 mg daily) in delaying cognitive decline in participants aged 40 to 81 years with mild age-related memory loss but normal memory performance scores. Mean duration of follow-up was 17.6 months in the celecoxib group and 18.1 months in the placebo group. There was no evidence of a difference between groups in test scores in any of six cognitive domains. Participants allocated celecoxib experienced more gastrointestinal adverse events than those allocated placebo (RR 2.66, 95% CI 1.05 to 6.75; low-certainty evidence). One trial (1457 participants) assessed the effectiveness of the COX-2 inhibitor rofecoxib (25 mg once daily) in delaying or preventing a diagnosis of AD in participants with MCI. Median duration of study participation was 115 weeks in the rofecoxib group and 130 weeks in the placebo group. There was a higher incidence of AD in the rofecoxib than the placebo group (RR 1.32, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.72; moderate-certainty evidence). There was no evidence of a difference between groups in cardiovascular adverse events (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.66; moderate-certainty evidence) or mortality (RR 1.62, 95% CI 0.85 to 3.05; moderate-certainty evidence). Participants allocated rofecoxib had more upper gastrointestinal adverse events (RR 3.53, 95% CI 1.17 to 10.68; moderate-certainty evidence). Reported annual mean difference scores showed no evidence of a difference between groups in activities of daily living (year 1: no data available; year 2: 0.0, 95% CI -0.1 to 0.2; year 3: 0.1, 95% CI -0.1 to 0.3; year 4: 0.1, 95% CI -0.1 to 0.4; moderate-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is no evidence to support the use of low-dose aspirin or other NSAIDs of any class (celecoxib, rofecoxib or naproxen) for the prevention of dementia, but there was evidence of harm. Although there were limitations in the available evidence, it seems unlikely that there is any need for further trials of low-dose aspirin for dementia prevention. If future studies of NSAIDs for dementia prevention are planned, they will need to be cognisant of the safety concerns arising from the existing studies.

A telephone reminder to enhance adherence to interventions in cardiovascular randomized trials: A protocol for a study within a trial (SWAT).

The impact of reduced adherence in randomized clinical trials is well documented in the literature. Nonadherence can negatively affect the trial sample size and estimation of the treatment effect. This protocol aims to evaluate the effects of a telephone call reminder on the adherence rates of participants to interventions in a cardiovascular randomized trial. This is a study within a trial (SWAT). The host trial is evaluating the effectiveness of a multidisciplinary 16-wk cardiovascular disease prevention program on risk factor profile among patients with carotid artery stenosis. Simultaneously, this SWAT will evaluate the effectiveness of telephone call reminders on the participants' adherence to the host trial intervention. The primary outcome is adherence to the protocol of the host trial. Secondary outcomes are level of adherence, number of dropouts, and time to drop out from the host trial.

Effectiveness of interventions to reduce adverse outcomes among older adults following emergency department discharge: Protocol for an overview of systematic reviews.

Background: Older adults are frequent users of Emergency departments (ED) and this trend will continue due to population ageing and the associated increase in healthcare needs. Older adults are vulnerable to adverse outcomes following ED discharge. A number of heterogeneous interventions have been developed and implemented to improve clinical outcomes among this cohort. A growing number of systematic reviews have synthesised evidence regarding ED interventions using varying methodologies. This overview aims to synthesise the totality of evidence in order to evaluate the effectiveness of interventions to reduce adverse outcomes in older adults discharged from the ED. Methods: To identify relevant reviews, the following databases will be searched: Cochrane Database of Systematic reviews, Joanna Briggs Institute Database of Systematic Reviews and Implementation Reports, Databases of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, PubMed, MEDLINE, Epistemonikos, Ageline, Embase, PEDro, Scopus, CINAHL and the PROSPERO register. The search for grey literature will include Open Grey and Grey Literature Reports. Systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials will be analysed to assess the effect of ED interventions on clinical and process outcomes in older adults. Methodological quality of the reviews will be assessed using the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews 2 tool. The review will be reported in accordance to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement. Summary of findings will include a hierarchical rank of interventions based on estimates of effects and the quality of evidence. Discussion: This overview is required given the number of systematic reviews published regarding the effectiveness of various ED interventions for older adults at risk of adverse outcomes following discharge from the ED. There is a need to examine the totality of evidence using rigorous analytic techniques to inform best care and potentially develop a hierarchy of treatment options. PROSPERO registration: CRD42020145315 (28/04/2020).

Telling a 'good or white lie': The views of people living with dementia and their carers.

OBJECTIVE: A common symptom of cognitive decline in people living with dementia, or people with memory problems, the cause of which has not yet been diagnosed, is the person repeatedly asking for loved ones who are deceased or making statements that are incorrect. Carers are then faced with a dilemma, do they avoid and distract or 'correct' the person and tell the 'truth', or tell a lie. This paper explores the concept of lying from the perspective of people living with dementia in the community and their informal/unpaid carers. METHODS: A descriptive qualitative study utilising focus groups to collect the data was conducted. Three focus group's with a purposive sample of people with memory problems (n = 14) and three focus group's with informal/unpaid carers (n = 18) were undertaken. Qualitative content analysis was used to analyse the data. RESULTS: All participants considered that blatant lying with the intention to deceive and do harm is not acceptable. However, telling a 'good lie' or 'white lie' to alleviate distress was in certain circumstances considered acceptable. The intention behind the 'lie' in their view had to be to do good, and the informal/unpaid carer telling the lie had to really 'know the person' and be cognisant of family preferences. Some informal/unpaid carers acknowledged that it may be acceptable for health care professionals to tell a 'good lie' or 'small lie' in certain circumstances. However, health professionals need to 'know the person' and need to consider informal/family caregivers' wishes. CONCLUSION: Lying was only considered acceptable in the context of knowing the person and when done with the intention not to harm or deceive, undertaken with empathy, and only for the purpose of mitigating the person living with dementia's distress.

A clinical review of early outcomes from contemporary flow modulation versus open, fenestrated and branch technologies in the management of thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm.

Traditional therapeutic options for complex thoracoabdominal aneurysm include open repair, hybrid repair or endovascular repair (involving fenestrated or branched endografts). The Streamliner Multilayer Flow Modulator has been available for treatment of thoracoabdominal aneurysms since 2010. Its design permits blood flow to perfuse through the mesh in a modus that preserves collateral branch patency, while modulating turbulent to laminar flow within the device. The flow then stagnates over time within the surrounding aneurysm sac. Significant complications, including paraplegia, renal failure and cerebrovascular accident, are much lower with Streamliner Multilayer Flow Modulator treatment. Application of the Streamliner Multilayer Flow Modulator to complex aortic pathologies presents a novel solution to an, as of yet, unmet clinical need, and has resulted in promising clinical outcomes when compared to existing solutions. The Streamliner Multilayer Flow Modulator offers potential for treatment of thoracoabdominal aortic pathologies in patients and is not just confined to those with complexity that dictates no other management options. While current literature illustrates that there is a decreased risk of mortality and associated complications when this new disruptive technology is utilised, there is still a need for prospective, long-term clinical trials, as well as comparative trials to accurately assess outcomes of Streamliner Multilayer Flow Modulator treatment that are both precise and reproducible. This article is a review of current clinical literature regarding contemporary flow modulating technology compared with open, branched and fenestrated managements, presenting early outcomes.

Empowering patients to self-manage in the context of incontinence.

Chronic diseases cause complex challenges and difficulties for patients, families and health professionals. With the increasing prevalence of chronic diseases, long-term treatment interventions may be required. Health professionals must empower patients to adhere to therapies and develop self-management strategies. The aetiology of bladder and bowel dysfunctions is multi-dimensional with some individuals who present with chronic disease being predisposed to urinary or faecal incontinence. This article will discuss the concepts of compliance, adherence and concordance approaches in the management of bladder and bowel dysfunction, focusing on the concept of self-management approaches to enhance patients' adherence to treatment regimens and maximise therapeutic outcomes.

Articulating the strategies for maximising the inclusion of people with dementia in qualitative research studies.

It is essential to understand the experience of living with dementia from the perspective of the person with dementia so that services can be appropriately constructed. This review paper, drawing on prior work, identifies key strategies for the meaningful inclusion of persons with dementia within qualitative research studies, it examines the articulation of these strategies and shares how these strategies were operationalised within one national research study in Ireland. Strategies within the literature were categorised and then synthesized into a guide consisting of four main areas; gaining COnsent, maximizing Responses, Telling the story, and Ending on a high (CORTE). The CORTE guideline was used to as a tool for analysing relevant research reports. CORTE is a synthesized account of grouped strategies that could be used to maximize the meaningful involvement of persons with dementia and can also provide a guide for reporting the strategies used so that researchers can learn from each other.