RESUMEN
Occupational contact dermatitis (OCD) is an eczematous local inflammatory skin irritation caused by repeated use of hand sanitizer and other chemical substances. Occupational irritant contact dermatitis (OICD) and occupational allergic contact dermatitis (OACD) are the two variants of CD that cannot be identified clinically. Hand dermatitis (HD) is typically assessed as a clinical consequence because it affects the hands most frequently at work as per epidemiological studies on OCD. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 standards were followed when conducting this umbrella review. We used the search terms "Occupational Contact Dermatitis AND COVID-19" to search for the most pertinent papers in full text on the databases PubMed/MedLine, ScienceDirect, and PubMed Central (PMC). Additionally, the reference section of the papers was used to find more articles. A total of 11,646 results were found, and eight papers remained after applying the inclusion criteria (full-text papers, English language, studies published in the previous 10 years, involving humans, and only systematic reviews). After completing the title and abstract screening, we obtained five papers. Next, the full-text screening and AMSTAR quality check were completed, yielding the same five papers. After searching ScienceDirect, five papers that met the inclusion criteria were included, and six papers were selected from the references, yielding a total of 11 papers. The causes of occupational dermatitis from protective face masks are discussed in this review. We anticipate an increase in the incidence of occupational dermatitis linked to face mask use given that a large segment of healthcare workers (HCWs) wear protective face masks. To understand the prevalence and available therapies for mask-related occupational dermatitis, further well-designed research is required.
RESUMEN
Ketamine has been repeatedly demonstrated to be an effective treatment in the management of patients with treatment-resistant depression (TRD). An important question is whether it is equally or more effective than the current gold standard of electroconvulsive therapy (ECT), as the adverse effects of ECT can lead to memory loss and neurocognitive deficits. A literature search was conducted for trials that directly compared the efficacy and adverse effects of ketamine and ECT via PubMed and Google Scholar. A total of 56 articles were identified with six included in this review. The studies included differed significantly in their quality and with differing levels of potential for bias. Ketamine has a more immediate effect when compared to ECT, but the antidepressant effects are shorter-lasting. Cognitive deficits were less pronounced in patients undergoing ketamine therapy. Many studies had a small number of participants and varied widely in the type of ECT used. Allocation bias seems likely in nonrandomized studies. Follow-up times were also short in some studies. The existing literature does not provide sufficient evidence to support the usage of ketamine over that of ECT for TRD, as remission rates were significantly higher over extended periods in ECT groups. Cognitive adverse effects were more pronounced in patients undergoing ECT. More high-quality randomized controlled trials (RCTs) directly comparing these two treatment modalities are required before drawing any firm conclusions.
RESUMEN
Surgical rhinoplasty (SR), commonly known as nose job, is a widely practiced cosmetic surgery globally, aimed at addressing diverse aesthetic and functional concerns related to the nose. In recent years, non-surgical rhinoplasty (NSR) has gained popularity due to advanced techniques involving hyaluronic acid (HA) dermal fillers, offering advantages such as affordability, reduced side effects, and faster results. However, concerns persist about the suitability of dermal fillers for nasal anatomy and potential complications, prompting this comprehensive review. This study systematically evaluated the techniques, fillers, safety, and patient satisfaction associated with NSR, with the intent of providing valuable insights for clinicians and patients considering NSR or SR for improved aesthetic outcomes. The literature search, following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) criteria, yielded 16 relevant studies from an initial pool of 1002 articles. These studies covered various aspects of NSR, including techniques, complications, limitations, and positive results. In conclusion, NSR appears to be a quick and safe option for addressing minor nose shape issues, particularly through the use of HA fillers, but further discussion and standardization are necessary to address risks and limitations. A randomized controlled trial (RCT) using photographic evidence could significantly propel the progress of this evolving treatment. RCTs offer an optimal method to assess NSR's adverse effects and overall outcomes by allowing controlled comparisons between treatment and control groups. This approach minimizes biases and generates reliable statistical data, which is critical for evaluating safety, efficacy, and potential risks, thereby guiding informed clinical decisions.