Dataset Information

Systematic review of methodologies used to assess mastectomy flap viability.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Accurate prediction of mastectomy skin flap viability is vital as necrosis causes significant morbidity, potentially compromising results and delaying oncological management. Traditionally assessed by clinical judgement, a more objective evaluation can be provided using intraoperative imaging modalities. This systematic review aimed to compare all intraoperative techniques for assessment of mastectomy flap viability.

Methods

A systematic literature review was performed using MEDLINE and Embase databases. Primary outcomes reported included specificity, sensitivity and predictive values of each test, and mean rates of mastectomy flap necrosis and reoperation. Secondary outcomes included cost analysis.

Results

Some 18 studies were included. Designs were prospective cohort study (8), retrospective case series (4), prospective case series (3), retrospective case-control study (1), prospective pilot trial (1) and cost analysis study (1). The studies compared indocyanine green angiography (ICGA) (16 studies) and fluorescein dye angiography (FA) (3 studies) with clinical judgement. Sensitivity and specificity were highest for ICGA (5 studies) ranging from 38 to 100 and 68 to 91 per cent respectively. Both methods overpredicted necrosis. Mean rates of flap necrosis and reoperation decreased with ICGA (7·9 and 5·5 per cent respectively) and FA (3 and 0 per cent) compared with clinical judgement (19·4 and 12·9 per cent). Two studies were designed to define numerical parameters corresponding to perfusion using intraoperative techniques. Two studies performed a cost analysis for ICGA; one claimed a cost benefit and the other advocated its use in high-risk patients only.

Conclusion

ICGA and FA are potentially useful tools for mastectomy flap assessment. However, the predictive accuracy is subject to the specific settings and model of equipment used. Current recommendations support their use in high-risk patients.

SUBMITTER: Jeon FHK

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6069344 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic catalyzed the adoption of home telemonitoring to cope with social distancing challenges. Recent research on home telemonitoring demonstrated benefits concerning the capacity, patient empowerment, and treatment commitment of health care systems. Moreover, for some diseases, it revealed significant improvement in clinical outcomes. Nevertheless, when policy makers and practitioners decide whether to scale-up a technology-based health intervention from a research study to mainstream care delivery, it is essential to assess other relevant domains, such as its feasibility to be expanded under real-world conditions. Therefore, scalability assessment is critical, and it encompasses multiple domains to ensure population-wide access to the benefits of the growing technological potential for home telemonitoring services in health care.ObjectiveThis systematic review aims to identify the domains and methods used in peer-reviewed research studies that assess the scalability of home telemonitoring-based interventions under real-world conditions.MethodsThe authors followed the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis) guidelines and used multiple databases (PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and EconLit). An integrative synthesis of the eligible studies was conducted to better explore each intervention and summarize relevant information concerning the target audience, intervention duration and setting, and type of technology. Each study design was classified based on the strength of its evidence. Lastly, the authors conducted narrative and thematic analyses to identify the domains, and qualitative and quantitative methods used to support scalability assessment.ResultsThis review evaluated 13 articles focusing on the potential of scaling up a home telemonitoring intervention. Most of the studies considered the following domains relevant for scalability assessment: problem (13), intervention (12), effectiveness (13), and costs and benefits (10). Although cost-effectiveness was the most common evaluation method, the authors identified seven additional cost analysis methods to evaluate the costs. Other domains were less considered, such as the sociopolitical context (2), workforce (4), and technological infrastructure (3). Researchers used different methodological approaches to assess the effectiveness, costs and benefits, fidelity, and acceptability.ConclusionsThis systematic review suggests that when assessing scalability, researchers select the domains specifically related to the intervention while ignoring others related to the contextual, technological, and environmental factors, which are also relevant. Additionally, studies report using different methods to evaluate the same domain, which makes comparison difficult. Future work should address research on the minimum required domains to assess the scalability of remote telemonitoring services and suggest methods that allow comparison among studies to provide better support to decision makers during large-scale implementation.

Project description:BACKGROUND:A strong need exists for a validated tool that clearly defines peer review report quality in biomedical research, as it will allow evaluating interventions aimed at improving the peer review process in well-performed trials. We aim to identify and describe existing tools for assessing the quality of peer review reports in biomedical research. METHODS:We conducted a methodological systematic review by searching PubMed, EMBASE (via Ovid) and The Cochrane Methodology Register (via The Cochrane Library) as well as Google® for all reports in English describing a tool for assessing the quality of a peer review report in biomedical research. Data extraction was performed in duplicate using a standardized data extraction form. We extracted information on the structure, development and validation of each tool. We also identified quality components across tools using a systematic multi-step approach and we investigated quality domain similarities among tools by performing hierarchical, complete-linkage clustering analysis. RESULTS:We identified a total number of 24 tools: 23 scales and 1 checklist. Six tools consisted of a single item and 18 had several items ranging from 4 to 26. None of the tools reported a definition of 'quality'. Only 1 tool described the scale development and 10 provided measures of validity and reliability. Five tools were used as an outcome in a randomized controlled trial (RCT). Moreover, we classified the quality components of the 18 tools with more than one item into 9 main quality domains and 11 subdomains. The tools contained from two to seven quality domains. Some domains and subdomains were considered in most tools such as the detailed/thorough (11/18) nature of reviewer's comments. Others were rarely considered, such as whether or not the reviewer made comments on the statistical methods (1/18). CONCLUSION:Several tools are available to assess the quality of peer review reports; however, the development and validation process is questionable and the concepts evaluated by these tools vary widely. The results from this study and from further investigations will inform the development of a new tool for assessing the quality of peer review reports in biomedical research.

Project description:The use of dietary pattern assessment methods has increased over time. However, data from individual studies can be difficult to compare and synthesize when the dietary pattern assessment methods, and the dietary patterns that are identified are not described sufficiently. The aims of this systematic review were to analyze the application and reporting of dietary pattern assessment methods, and the reporting of the dietary patterns that were analyzed with health outcomes. Three electronic databases were searched (Medline, Embase, and Global Health). Cohort and nested case control studies published in English between January 1980 and March 2019 that examined associations between dietary patterns and health outcomes (including cardiovascular disease, cancer, diabetes and metabolic syndrome, and body weight) in apparently healthy, community dwelling adults (aged over 18 years) or children (aged 2–18 years) were eligible for inclusion. A narrative synthesis was conducted and descriptive statistics were used to summarize the application and reporting of each dietary pattern assessment method, and the reporting of the identified dietary patterns. Analysis of associations between dietary patterns and health outcomes was beyond the scope of this review. Of the included studies (n = 410), 62.7% used index-based methods, 30.5% used factor analysis or principal component analysis, 6.3% used reduced rank regression, and 5.6% used cluster analysis. Some studies (4.6%) used more than one method. There was considerable variation in the application and reporting of dietary pattern assessment methods. For example, the application of Mediterranean diet indices varied in terms of the nature of dietary components (foods only or foods and nutrients) and the rationale behind the cut-off points (absolute and/or data driven). In some cases, important methodological details were omitted. The level of detail used to describe the dietary patterns also varied, and food and nutrient profiles were often not reported. To ensure dietary patterns evidence can be synthesized and translated into dietary guidelines, standardized approaches for the application and reporting of dietary pattern assessment methods and the reporting of the identified dietary patterns would be beneficial.

Project description:IMPORTANCE:Studies of interventions to reduce low-value care are increasingly common. However, little is known about how the effects of such interventions are measured. OBJECTIVE:To characterize measures used to assess interventions to reduce low-value care. EVIDENCE REVIEW:We searched PubMed and Web of Science to identify studies published between 2010 and 2016 that examined the effects of interventions to reduce low-value care. We also searched ClinicalTrials.gov to identify ongoing studies. We extracted data on characteristics of studies, interventions, and measures. We then developed a framework to classify measures into the following categories: utilization (e.g., number of tests ordered), outcome (e.g., mortality), appropriateness (e.g., overuse of antibiotics), patient-reported (e.g., satisfaction), provider-reported (e.g., satisfaction), patient-provider interaction (e.g., informed decision-making elements), value, and cost. We also determined whether each measure was designed to assess unintended consequences. FINDINGS:A total of 1805 studies were identified, of which 101 published and 16 ongoing studies were included. Of published studies (N?=?101), 68% included at least one measure of utilization, 41% of an outcome, 52% of appropriateness, 36% of cost, 8% patient-reported, and 3% provider-reported. Funded studies were more likely to use patient-reported measures (17% vs 0%). Of ongoing studies (registered trials) (N?=?16), 69% included at least one measure of utilization, 75% of an outcome, 50% of appropriateness, 19% of cost, 50% patient-reported, 13% provider-reported, and 6% patient-provider interaction. Of published studies, 34% included at least one measure of an unintended consequence as compared to 63% of ongoing studies. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE:Most published studies focused on reductions in utilization rather than on clinically meaningful measures (e.g., improvements in appropriateness, patient-reported outcomes) or unintended consequences. Investigators should systematically incorporate more clinically meaningful measures into their study designs, and sponsors should develop standardized guidance for the evaluation of interventions to reduce low-value care.