Treatments for hyperemesis gravidarum: A systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: Hyperemesis gravidarum affects 0.3%-3% of pregnant women each year and is the leading cause of hospitalization in early pregnancy. Previous systematic reviews of available treatments have found a lack of consistent evidence, and few studies of high quality. Since 2016, no systematic review has been conducted and an up-to date review is requested. In a recent James Lind Alliance collaboration, it was clear that research on effective treatments is a high priority for both patients and clinicians. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Searches without time limits were performed in the AMED, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, Medline, PsycINFO, and Scopus databases until June 26, 2023. Studies published before October 1, 2014 were identified from the review by O'Donnell et al., 2016. Selection criteria were randomized clinical trials and non-randomized studies of interventions comparing treatment of hyperemesis gravidarum with another treatment or placebo. Outcome variables included were: degree of nausea; vomiting; inability to tolerate oral fluids or food; hospital treatment; health-related quality of life, small-for-gestational-age infant; and preterm birth. Abstracts and full texts were screened, and risk of bias of the studies was assessed independently by two authors. Synthesis without meta-analysis was performed, and certainty of evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach. PROSPERO (CRD42022303150). RESULTS: Twenty treatments were included in 25 studies with low or moderate risk of bias. The certainty of evidence was very low for all treatments except for acupressure in addition to standard care, which showed a possible moderate decrease in nausea and vomiting, with low certainty of evidence. CONCLUSIONS: Several scientific knowledge gaps were identified. Studies on treatments for hyperemesis gravidarum are few, and the certainty of evidence for different treatments is either low or very low. To establish more robust evidence, it is essential to use validated scoring systems, the recently established diagnostic criteria, clear descriptions and measurements of core outcomes and to perform larger studies.

How old are you? A systematic review investigating the relationship between age and mandibular third molar maturity.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: Radiographic evaluation of the maturity of mandibular third molars is a common method used for age estimation of adolescents and young adults. The aim of this systematic review was to examine the scientific base for the relationship between a fully matured mandibular third molar based on Demirjian's method and chronological age, in order to assess whether an individual is above or below the age of 18 years. METHODS: The literature search was conducted in six databases until February 2022 for studies reporting data evaluating the tooth maturity using Demirjian´s method (specifically stage H) within populations ranging from 8 to 30 years (chronological age). Two reviewers screened the titles and abstracts identified through the search strategy independently. All studies of potential relevance according to the inclusion criteria were obtained in full text, after which they were assessed for inclusion by two independent reviewers. Any disagreement was resolved by a discussion. Two reviewers independently evaluated the risk of bias using the assessment tool QUADAS-2 and extracted the data from the studies with low or moderate risk of bias. Logistic regression was used to estimate the relationship between chronological age and proportion of subjects with a fully matured mandibular third molar (Demirjian´s tooth stage H). RESULTS: A total of 15 studies with low or moderate risk of bias were included in the review. The studies were conducted in 13 countries and the chronological age of the investigated participants ranged from 3 to 27 years and the number of participants ranged between 208 and 5,769. Ten of the studies presented the results as mean age per Demirjian´s tooth stage H, but only five studies showed the distribution of developmental stages according to validated age. The proportion of subjects with a mandibular tooth in Demirjian´s tooth stage H at 18 years ranged from 0% to 22% among males and 0 to 16% in females. Since the studies were too heterogenous to perform a meta-analysis or a meaningful narrative review, we decided to refrain from a GRADE assessment. CONCLUSION: The identified literature does not provide scientific evidence for the relationship between Demirjian´s stage H of a mandibular third molar and chronologic age in order to assess if an individual is under or above the age of 18 years.

Magnetic resonance imaging of the knee for chronological age estimation-a systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: Radiographs of the hand and teeth are frequently used for medical age assessment, as skeletal and dental maturation correlates with chronological age. These methods have been criticized for their lack of precision, and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the knee has been proposed as a more accurate method. The aim of this systematic review is to explore the scientific and statistical evidence for medical age estimation based on skeletal maturation as assessed by MRI of the knee. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic review was conducted that included studies published before April 2021 on living individuals between 8 and 30 years old, with presumptively healthy knees for whom the ossification stages had been evaluated using MRI. The correlation between "mature knee" and chronological age and the risk of misclassifying a child as an adult and vice versa was calculated. RESULTS: We found a considerable heterogeneity in the published studies -in terms of study population, MRI protocols, and grading systems used. There is a wide variation in the correlation between maturation stage and chronological age. CONCLUSION: Data from published literature is deemed too heterogenous to support the use of MRI of the knee for chronological age determination. Further, it is not possible to assess the sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value, or positive predictive value for the ability of MRI to determine whether a person is over or under 18 years old. KEY POINTS: • There is an insufficient scientific basis for the use of magnetic resonance imaging of the knee in age determination by skeleton. • It is not possible to assess the predictive value of MRI of the knee to determine whether a person is over or under 18 years of age.