Updated Guideline on Treatment and Management of Craniosynostosis.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Mathijssen IMJ
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7769187 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Jan-Feb 01
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Updated Guideline on Treatment and Management of Craniosynostosis.
The Journal of craniofacial surgery 20210101 1
Similar Datasets
Project description:IntroductionEvidence-based recommendations are needed to guide the acute management of the bleeding trauma patient, which when implemented may improve patient outcomes.MethodsThe multidisciplinary Task Force for Advanced Bleeding Care in Trauma was formed in 2005 with the aim of developing a guideline for the management of bleeding following severe injury. This document presents an updated version of the guideline published by the group in 2007. Recommendations were formulated using a nominal group process, the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) hierarchy of evidence and based on a systematic review of published literature.ResultsKey changes encompassed in this version of the guideline include new recommendations on coagulation support and monitoring and the appropriate use of local haemostatic measures, tourniquets, calcium and desmopressin in the bleeding trauma patient. The remaining recommendations have been reevaluated and graded based on literature published since the last edition of the guideline. Consideration was also given to changes in clinical practice that have taken place during this time period as a result of both new evidence and changes in the general availability of relevant agents and technologies.ConclusionsThis guideline provides an evidence-based multidisciplinary approach to the management of critically injured bleeding trauma patients.
| S-EPMC2887168 | biostudies-literature
Project description:INTRODUCTION: Evidence-based recommendations are needed to guide the acute management of the bleeding trauma patient. When these recommendations are implemented patient outcomes may be improved. METHODS: The multidisciplinary Task Force for Advanced Bleeding Care in Trauma was formed in 2005 with the aim of developing a guideline for the management of bleeding following severe injury. This document represents an updated version of the guideline published by the group in 2007 and updated in 2010. Recommendations were formulated using a nominal group process, the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) hierarchy of evidence and based on a systematic review of published literature. RESULTS: Key changes encompassed in this version of the guideline include new recommendations on the appropriate use of vasopressors and inotropic agents, and reflect an awareness of the growing number of patients in the population at large treated with antiplatelet agents and/or oral anticoagulants. The current guideline also includes recommendations and a discussion of thromboprophylactic strategies for all patients following traumatic injury. The most significant addition is a new section that discusses the need for every institution to develop, implement and adhere to an evidence-based clinical protocol to manage traumatically injured patients. The remaining recommendations have been re-evaluated and graded based on literature published since the last edition of the guideline. Consideration was also given to changes in clinical practice that have taken place during this time period as a result of both new evidence and changes in the general availability of relevant agents and technologies. CONCLUSIONS: A comprehensive, multidisciplinary approach to trauma care and mechanisms with which to ensure that established protocols are consistently implemented will ensure a uniform and high standard of care across Europe and beyond.
| S-EPMC4056078 | biostudies-other
Project description:Caesarean section is associated with moderate-to-severe postoperative pain, which can influence postoperative recovery and patient satisfaction as well as breastfeeding success and mother-child bonding. The aim of this systematic review was to update the available literature and develop recommendations for optimal pain management after elective caesarean section under neuraxial anaesthesia. A systematic review utilising procedure-specific postoperative pain management (PROSPECT) methodology was undertaken. Randomised controlled trials published in the English language between 1 May 2014 and 22 October 2020 evaluating the effects of analgesic, anaesthetic and surgical interventions were retrieved from MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane databases. Studies evaluating pain management for emergency or unplanned operative deliveries or caesarean section performed under general anaesthesia were excluded. A total of 145 studies met the inclusion criteria. For patients undergoing elective caesarean section performed under neuraxial anaesthesia, recommendations include intrathecal morphine 50-100 µg or diamorphine 300 µg administered pre-operatively; paracetamol; non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs; and intravenous dexamethasone administered after delivery. If intrathecal opioid was not administered, single-injection local anaesthetic wound infiltration; continuous wound local anaesthetic infusion; and/or fascial plane blocks such as transversus abdominis plane or quadratus lumborum blocks are recommended. The postoperative regimen should include regular paracetamol and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs with opioids used for rescue. The surgical technique should include a Joel-Cohen incision; non-closure of the peritoneum; and abdominal binders. Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation could be used as analgesic adjunct. Some of the interventions, although effective, carry risks, and consequentially were omitted from the recommendations. Some interventions were not recommended due to insufficient, inconsistent or lack of evidence. Of note, these recommendations may not be applicable to unplanned deliveries or caesarean section performed under general anaesthesia.
| S-EPMC8048441 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is the cause of a rapidly spreading illness, coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), affecting more than seventeen million people around the world. Diagnosis and treatment guidelines for clinicians caring for patients are needed. In the early stage, we have issued "A rapid advice guideline for the diagnosis and treatment of 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) infected pneumonia (standard version)"; now there are many direct evidences emerged and may change some of previous recommendations and it is ripe for develop an evidence-based guideline. We formed a working group of clinical experts and methodologists. The steering group members proposed 29 questions that are relevant to the management of COVID-19 covering the following areas: chemoprophylaxis, diagnosis, treatments, and discharge management. We searched the literature for direct evidence on the management of COVID-19, and assessed its certainty generated recommendations using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Recommendations were either strong or weak, or in the form of ungraded consensus-based statement. Finally, we issued 34 statements. Among them, 6 were strong recommendations for, 14 were weak recommendations for, 3 were weak recommendations against and 11 were ungraded consensus-based statement. They covered topics of chemoprophylaxis (including agents and Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) agents), diagnosis (including clinical manifestations, reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), respiratory tract specimens, IgM and IgG antibody tests, chest computed tomography, chest x-ray, and CT features of asymptomatic infections), treatments (including lopinavir-ritonavir, umifenovir, favipiravir, interferon, remdesivir, combination of antiviral drugs, hydroxychloroquine/chloroquine, interleukin-6 inhibitors, interleukin-1 inhibitors, glucocorticoid, qingfei paidu decoction, lianhua qingwen granules/capsules, convalescent plasma, lung transplantation, invasive or noninvasive ventilation, and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO)), and discharge management (including discharge criteria and management plan in patients whose RT-PCR retesting shows SARS-CoV-2 positive after discharge). We also created two figures of these recommendations for the implementation purpose. We hope these recommendations can help support healthcare workers caring for COVID-19 patients.
| S-EPMC7472403 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundGuidelines aim to support evidence-informed practice but are inconsistently used without implementation strategies. Our prior scoping review revealed that guideline implementation interventions were not selected and tailored based on processes known to enhance guideline uptake and impact. The purpose of this study was to update the prior scoping review.MethodsWe searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, AMED, CINAHL, Scopus, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for studies published from 2014 to January 2021 that evaluated guideline implementation interventions. We screened studies in triplicate and extracted data in duplicate. We reported study and intervention characteristics and studies that achieved impact with summary statistics.ResultsWe included 118 studies that implemented guidelines on 16 clinical topics. With regard to implementation planning, 21% of studies referred to theories or frameworks, 50% pre-identified implementation barriers, and 36% engaged stakeholders in selecting or tailoring interventions. Studies that employed frameworks (n=25) most often used the theoretical domains framework (28%) or social cognitive theory (28%). Those that pre-identified barriers (n=59) most often consulted literature (60%). Those that engaged stakeholders (n=42) most often consulted healthcare professionals (79%). Common interventions included educating professionals about guidelines (44%) and information systems/technology (41%). Most studies employed multi-faceted interventions (75%). A total of 97 (82%) studies achieved impact (improvements in one or more reported outcomes) including 10 (40% of 25) studies that employed frameworks, 28 (47.45% of 59) studies that pre-identified barriers, 22 (52.38% of 42) studies that engaged stakeholders, and 21 (70% of 30) studies that employed single interventions.ConclusionsCompared to our prior review, this review found that more studies used processes to select and tailor interventions, and a wider array of types of interventions across the Mazza taxonomy. Given that most studies achieved impact, this might reinforce the need for implementation planning. However, even studies that did not plan implementation achieved impact. Similarly, even single interventions achieved impact. Thus, a future systematic review based on this data is warranted to establish if the use of frameworks, barrier identification, stakeholder engagement, and multi-faceted interventions are associated with impact.Trial registrationThe protocol was registered with Open Science Framework ( https://osf.io/4nxpr ) and published in JBI Evidence Synthesis.
| S-EPMC9308215 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Diagnosis and therapy of esophageal carcinoma is challenging and requires a multidisciplinary approach. The purpose of the updated German guideline "Diagnosis and Treatment of Squamous Cell Carcinoma and Adenocarcinoma of the Esophagus-version 3.1" is to provide practical and evidence-based advice for the management of patients with esophageal cancer. Recommendations were developed by a multidisciplinary expert panel based on an extensive and systematic evaluation of the published medical literature and the application of well-established methodologies (e.g. Oxford evidence grading scheme, grading of recommendations). Accurate diagnostic evaluation of the primary tumor as well as lymph node and distant metastases is required in order to guide patients to a stage-appropriate therapy after the initial diagnosis of esophageal cancer. In high-grade intraepithelial neoplasia or mucosal carcinoma endoscopic resection shall be performed. Whether endoscopic resection is the definitive therapeutic measure depends on the histopathological evaluation of the resection specimen. Esophagectomy should be performed minimally invasive or in combination with open procedures (hybrid technique). Because the prognosis in locally advanced esophageal carcinoma is poor with surgery alone, multimodality therapy is recommended. In locally advanced adenocarcinomas of the esophagus or esophagogastric junction, perioperative chemotherapy or preoperative radiochemotherapy should be administered. In locally advanced squamous cell carcinomas of the esophagus, preoperative radiochemotherapy followed by complete resection or definitive radiochemotherapy without surgery should be performed. In the case of residual tumor in the resection specimen after neoadjuvant radiochemotherapy and R0 resection of squamous cell carcinoma or adenocarcinoma, adjuvant immunotherapy with nivolumab should be given. Systemic palliative treatment options (chemotherapy, chemotherapy plus immunotherapy, immunotherapy alone) in unresectable or metastastic esophageal cancer depend on histology and are stratified according to PD-L1 and/or Her2 expression.
| S-EPMC11017771 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo determine adherence to the 2017 American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery (AAO-HNS) guidelines for the management and treatment of benign paroxysmal positional vertigo (BPPV) in primary care (PC) and compare whether key recommendations differed by sex, race, or insurance status.Study designRetrospective chart review.SettingTwenty-six clinic locations within a single healthcare system.MethodsCharts of 458 patients diagnosed with BPPV in PC between 2018 and 2022 were reviewed. Encounters where the diagnosis of BPPV was made were identified. From the clinical encounter note, demographics, symptomatology, management, and treatment were extracted. Nonparametric analyses were used to identify whether AAO-HNS guidelines differed regarding sex, race, or insurance status.ResultsOf 458 patients, 249 (54.4%) did not receive a diagnostic exam, and only 4 (0.9%) patients received imaging. Regarding treatment, only 51 (11.1%) received the Epley maneuver, with 263 (57.4%) receiving vestibular suppressant medication and 12.4% receiving a referral to a specialist. In regard to sex, race, or insurance status, there was no significant difference in receiving a Dix-Hallpike diagnostic maneuver, Epley maneuver, vestibular suppressant medication, imaging, or referral to a specialist.ConclusionOur data suggest that there continue to be gaps in the adherence to AAO-HNS guidelines; however, these gaps did not differ by sex, race, or insurance status. Care should be taken to increase the use of diagnostic and treatment maneuvers but decrease the use of vestibular-suppressant medications for the treatment of BPPV in PC.
| S-EPMC10782547 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Classical galactosemia (CG) is an inborn error of galactose metabolism. Evidence-based guidelines for the treatment and follow-up of CG are currently lacking, and treatment and follow-up have been demonstrated to vary worldwide. To provide patients around the world the same state-of-the-art in care, members of The Galactosemia Network (GalNet) developed an evidence-based and internationally applicable guideline for the diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up of CG. The guideline was developed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system. A systematic review of the literature was performed, after key questions were formulated during an initial GalNet meeting. The first author and one of the working group experts conducted data-extraction. All experts were involved in data-extraction. Quality of the body of evidence was evaluated and recommendations were formulated. Whenever possible recommendations were evidence-based, if not they were based on expert opinion. Consensus was reached by multiple conference calls, consensus rounds via e-mail and a final consensus meeting. Recommendations addressing diagnosis, dietary treatment, biochemical monitoring, and follow-up of clinical complications were formulated. For all recommendations but one, full consensus was reached. A 93 % consensus was reached on the recommendation addressing age at start of bone density screening. During the development of this guideline, gaps of knowledge were identified in most fields of interest, foremost in the fields of treatment and follow-up.
| S-EPMC5306419 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Hyperosmolar Hyperglycaemic State (HHS) is a medical emergency associated with high mortality. It occurs less frequently than diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA), affects those with pre-existing/new type 2 diabetes mellitus and increasingly affecting children/younger adults. Mixed DKA/HHS may occur. The JBDS HHS care pathway consists of 3 themes (clinical assessment and monitoring, interventions, assessments and prevention of harm) and 5 phases of therapy (0-60 min, 1-6, 6-12, 12-24 and 24-72 h). Clinical features of HHS include marked hypovolaemia, osmolality ≥320 mOsm/kg using [(2×Na+ ) + glucose+urea], marked hyperglycaemia ≥30 mmol/L, without significant ketonaemia (≤3.0 mmol/L), without significant acidosis (pH >7.3) and bicarbonate ≥15 mmol/L. Aims of the therapy are to improve clinical status/replace fluid losses by 24 h, gradual decline in osmolality (3.0-8.0 mOsm/kg/h to minimise the risk of neurological complications), blood glucose 10-15 mmol/L in the first 24 h, prevent hypoglycaemia/hypokalaemia and prevent harm (VTE, osmotic demyelination, fluid overload, foot ulceration). Underlying precipitants must be identified and treated. Interventions include: (1) intravenous (IV) 0.9% sodium chloride to restore circulating volume (fluid losses 100-220 ml/kg, caution in elderly), (2) fixed rate intravenous insulin infusion (FRIII) should be commenced once osmolality stops falling with fluid replacement unless there is ketonaemia (FRIII should be commenced at the same time as IV fluids). (3) glucose infusion (5% or 10%) should be started once glucose <14 mmol/L and (4) potassium replacement according to potassium levels. HHS resolution criteria are: osmolality <300 mOsm/kg, hypovolaemia corrected (urine output ≥0.5 ml/kg/h), cognitive status returned to pre-morbid state and blood glucose <15 mmol/L.
| S-EPMC10107355 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC8005924 | biostudies-literature