Mind over Matter: Using Technology to Improve Wellness.

Wellness-the balance of mental, emotional, spiritual, and physical health for the overall health benefit of the individual-is a growing concern, particularly for professionals in the medical field. Although wellness is usually viewed in opposition to technology, more digital devices and mobile applications are emerging to support wellness for health consumers. This wellness technology seeks to improve the overall health of the user through increasing calm and decreasing stress. This column will explain what wellness technology is, concerns over its widespread application, examples of wellness devices on the market currently, and an overview of where it is being applied in libraries.

A Review of Two-Factor Authentication: Suggested Security Effort Moves to Mandatory.

Two-factor authentication has been available to technology consumers for a long time, and a few years ago businesses and institutions began implementing optional two-factor authentication to improve digital security. Now more universities and hospitals are moving from optional to mandatory two-factor authentication, and employees used to two-factor authentication for their personal digital life must adjust to using two-factor authentication in their work flow. This column will review some of the ongoing and emergent aspects of two-factor authentication to enhance security in an ever-changing digital landscape.

The (Un)Common Instructor: A New Role for Medical Librarians Beyond Information Literacy.

University common reading programs provide a shared experience as students transition into college life and develop critical thinking skills. Typically in such programs, all students in an incoming class read and discuss the same book. Conversely, the University of Florida Honors Program's (un)common reads facilitates the same skills development through multiple small sections, each focusing on a different book and each with flexible and innovative assignments and activities. Health Science Center librarians have taught in these (un)common reads since the spring semester 2010-2011. This article describes librarian involvement in this program as well as the ensuing benefits for students, librarians, and the university at large.

Cefazolin Versus Anti-Staphylococcal Penicillins for the Treatment of Patients with Methicillin-Susceptible Staphylococcus aureus Infection: A Meta-Analysis with Trial Sequential Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus (MSSA) is a common cause of infection in humans. Beta-lactam antibiotics are the preferred agents, with anti-staphylococcal penicillins (ASPs) or the first-generation cephalosporin, cefazolin, favored by clinicians. Recent studies comparing the two strategies suggest similar outcomes between the agents. The purpose of this meta-analysis was to explore differences between cefazolin and ASPs for the treatment of MSSA infections. METHODS: We performed a meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis (TSA) of observational or cohort studies using a random-effects model. Two blinded reviewers independently assessed studies for inclusion, risk of bias, and data extraction. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes included clinical failure, infection recurrence, and antibiotic discontinuation due to adverse events. Subgroup analyses were conducted for the primary outcome by type of ASP, studies with a high percentage of deep-seated infections, and studies of low to moderate risk of bias. RESULTS: After performing a comprehensive search of the literature, and screening for study inclusion, 19 studies (13,390 patients) were included in the final meta-analysis. Fifteen of the 19 studies (79%) were judged as having a low or moderate risk of bias. Use of cefazolin was associated with lower all-cause mortality [odds ratio (OR) 0.71, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.56-0.91, p = 0.006, I2 = 28%], clinical failure (OR 0.55, 95% CI 0.41-0.74, p < 0.001, I2 = 0%), and antibiotic discontinuation due to adverse events (OR 0.25, 95% CI 0.16-0.39, p < 0.001, I2 = 23%). Infection recurrence was higher in the cefazolin patients (OR 1.41, 95% CI 1.04-1.93, p = 0.03, I2 = 0%). CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis demonstrated that the use of cefazolin was associated with significant reductions in all-cause mortality, clinical failure, and discontinuation due to adverse events, but was associated with an increased risk of infection recurrence. FUNDING: University of Florida Open Access Publishing Fund funded the Rapid Service Fees. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (study ID: CRD42018106442).

Minimally invasive interval cytoreductive surgery in ovarian cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis.

The introduction of minimally invasive surgery in other gynecologic cancers has shown benefits with similar oncologic outcomes. However, the biology and complexity of surgery for ovarian cancer may preclude this approach for ovarian cancer patients. Our objective is to assess feasibility to achieve complete cytoreductive surgery after neoadjuvant chemotherapy for stage IIIC-IV ovarian cancer patients via minimally invasive surgery. Our data sources include PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Biosis, Clinicaltrials.gov, and the Cochrane Library. Meta-analysis was performed using the random-effects model with DerSimonian and Laird estimator for the amount of heterogeneity to estimate the pooled outcomes. A funnel plot and Egger's regression test were used to test publication bias. The Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale was used to assess the quality of the studies. There were 6 studies (3 prospective, 3 retrospective) that met the criteria for meta-analysis with a total of 3231 patients, 567 were in the minimally invasive group and 2664 in the laparotomy group. Both groups were similar in stage and serous histology. Complete cytoreductive surgery was achieved in 74.50% (95% CI 40.41-97.65%) and 53.10% (95% CI 4.88-97.75%) of patients in the minimally invasive and laparotomy groups, respectively. There was no statistical significant difference between these 2 pooled proportions (p = 0.52). Three studies compared minimally invasive surgery vs laparotomy. No significant difference was observed between the 2 groups in obtaining complete cytoreductive surgery [OR = 0.90 (95% CI 0.70-1.16; p = 0.43)]. A symmetrical funnel plot indicated no publication bias. The pooled proportion for grade > 2 postoperative complications was not significant among the laparoscopy group [3.11% (95% CI 0.00-10.24%; p = 0.15)]. Complete cytoreductive surgery appears feasible and safe with minimally invasive surgery in selected advanced ovarian cancer patients after neoadjuvant chemotherapy.