Workload scoring systems in the Intensive Care and their ability to quantify the need for nursing time: A systematic literature review

2020 ◽  
Vol 101 ◽  
pp. 103408 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marga E. Hoogendoorn ◽  
Charlotte C. Margadant ◽  
Sylvia Brinkman ◽  
Jasper J. Haringman ◽  
Jan Jaap Spijkstra ◽  
...  
BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. e046794
Author(s):  
Ofran Almossawi ◽  
Amanda Friend ◽  
Luigi Palla ◽  
Richard Feltbower ◽  
Bianca De Stavola

IntroductionIn the general population, female children have been reported to have a survival advantage. For children admitted to paediatric intensive care units (PICUs), mortality has been reported to be lower in males despite the higher admission rates for males into intensive care. This apparent sex reversal in PICU mortality is not well studied. To address this, we propose to conduct a systematic literature review to summarise the available evidence. Our review will study the reported differences in mortality between males and females aged 0–17, who died in a PICU, to examine if there is a difference between the two sexes in PICU mortality, and if so, to describe the magnitude and direction of this difference.Methods and analysisStudies that directly or indirectly addressed the association between sex and mortality in children admitted to intensive care will be eligible for inclusion. Studies that directly address the association will be eligible for data extraction. The search strings were based on terms related to the population (children in intensive care), the exposure (sex) and the outcome (mortality). We used the databases MEDLINE (1946–2020), Embase (1980–2020) and Web of Science (1985–2020) as these cover relevant clinical publications. We will assess the reliability of included studies using the risk of bias in observational studies of exposures tool. We will consider a pooled effect if we have at least three studies with similar periods of follow up and adjustment variables.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval is not required for this review as it will synthesise data from existing studies. This manuscript is a part of a larger data linkage study, for which Ethical approval was granted. Dissemination will be via peer-reviewed journals and via public and patient groups.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42020203009.


Cells ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (11) ◽  
pp. 3166 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrea Palicelli ◽  
Martina Bonacini ◽  
Stefania Croci ◽  
Cristina Magi-Galluzzi ◽  
Sofia Cañete-Portillo ◽  
...  

Immunotherapy targeting the PD-1–PD-L1 axis yielded good results in treating different immunologically ‘‘hot’’ tumors. A phase II study revealed good therapeutic activity of pembrolizumab in selected prostatic carcinoma (PC)-patients. We performed a systematic literature review (PRISMA guidelines), which analyzes the immunohistochemical expression of PD-L1 in human PC samples and highlights the pre-analytical and interpretation variables. Interestingly, 29% acinar PCs, 7% ductal PCs, and 46% neuroendocrine carcinomas/tumors were PD-L1+ on immunohistochemistry. Different scoring methods or cut-off criteria were applied on variable specimen-types, evaluating tumors showing different clinic-pathologic features. The positivity rate of different PD-L1 antibody clones in tumor cells ranged from 3% (SP142) to 50% (ABM4E54), excluding the single case tested for RM-320. The most tested clone was E1L3N, followed by 22C3 (most used for pembrolizumab eligibility), SP263, SP142, and 28-8, which gave the positivity rates of 35%, 11–41% (depending on different scoring systems), 6%, 3%, and 15%, respectively. Other clones were tested in <200 cases. The PD-L1 positivity rate was usually higher in tumors than benign tissues. It was higher in non-tissue microarray specimens (41–50% vs. 15%), as PC cells frequently showed heterogenous or focal PD-L1-staining. PD-L1 was expressed by immune or stromal cells in 12% and 69% cases, respectively. Tumor heterogeneity, inter-institutional preanalytics, and inter-observer interpretation variability may account for result biases.


2019 ◽  
Vol 118 ◽  
pp. 814-825 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wagner Pietrobelli Bueno ◽  
Tarcisio Abreu Saurin ◽  
Priscila Wachs ◽  
Ricardo Kuchenbecker ◽  
Jeffrey Braithwaite

2015 ◽  
Vol 43 (1) ◽  
pp. 12-21 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marcin Szkudlarek ◽  
Lene Terslev ◽  
Richard J. Wakefield ◽  
Marina Backhaus ◽  
Peter V. Balint ◽  
...  

Objective.Bone erosions in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) have been studied in an increasing amount of research. Both earlier and present classification criteria of RA contain erosions as a significant classification component. Ultrasound (US) can detect bone changes in accessible surfaces. Therefore, the study group performed a systematic literature review of assessment of RA bone erosions with US.Methods.A systematic search of PubMed and Embase was performed. Data on the definitions of RA bone erosions, their size, scoring, relation to synovitis, comparators, and elements of the OMERACT (Outcome Measures in Rheumatology Clinical Trials) filter were collected and analyzed.Results.The selection process identified 58 original research papers. The assessed joints were most frequently metacarpophalangeal (MCP; 41 papers), proximal interphalangeal (19 papers), and metatarsophalangeal joints (MTP; 18 papers). The OMERACT definition of RA bone erosion on US was used most often (17 papers). Second and fifth MCP and fifth MTP were recommended as target joints. Conventional radiography was the most frequently used comparator (27 papers), then magnetic resonance imaging (17 papers) and computed tomography (5 papers). Reliability of assessment was presented in 20 papers and sensitivity to change in 11 papers.Conclusion.This paper presents results of a systematic literature review of bone erosion assessment in RA with US. The survey suggests that US can be a helpful adjunct to the existing methods of imaging bone erosions in RA. It analyzes definitions, scoring systems, used comparators, and elements of the OMERACT filter. It also presents recommendations for a future research agenda based on the results of the review.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document