| 1. |
- Glasbey, JC, et al.
(författare)
-
- 2021
-
swepub:Mat__t
|
|
| 2. |
- Kabir, Misha, et al.
(författare)
-
DECIDE: Delphi Expert Consensus Statement on Inflammatory Bowel Disease Dysplasia Shared Management Decision-Making
- 2023
-
Ingår i: Journal of Crohn's & Colitis. - : OXFORD UNIV PRESS. - 1873-9946 .- 1876-4479. ; 17:10, s. 1652-1671
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background and Aims Inflammatory bowel disease colitis-associated dysplasia is managed with either enhanced surveillance and endoscopic resection or prophylactic surgery. The rate of progression to cancer after a dysplasia diagnosis remains uncertain in many cases and patients have high thresholds for accepting proctocolectomy. Individualised discussion of management options is encouraged to take place between patients and their multidisciplinary teams for best outcomes. We aimed to develop a toolkit to support a structured, multidisciplinary and shared decision-making approach to discussions about dysplasia management options between clinicians and their patients. Methods Evidence from systematic literature reviews, mixed-methods studies conducted with key stakeholders, and decision-making expert recommendations were consolidated to draft consensus statements by the DECIDE steering group. These were then subjected to an international, multidisciplinary modified electronic Delphi process until an a priori threshold of 80% agreement was achieved to establish consensus for each statement. Results In all, 31 members [15 gastroenterologists, 14 colorectal surgeons and two nurse specialists] from nine countries formed the Delphi panel. We present the 18 consensus statements generated after two iterative rounds of anonymous voting. Conclusions By consolidating evidence for best practice using literature review and key stakeholder and decision-making expert consultation, we have developed international consensus recommendations to support health care professionals counselling patients on the management of high cancer risk colitis-associated dysplasia. The final toolkit includes clinician and patient decision aids to facilitate shared decision-making.
|
|
| 3. |
- Pande, Rupaly, et al.
(författare)
-
Can trainees safely perform pancreatoenteric anastomosis? A systematic review, meta-analysis, and risk-adjusted analysis of postoperative pancreatic fistula
- 2022
-
Ingår i: Surgery (United States). - : Elsevier BV. - 0039-6060. ; 172:1, s. 319-328
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: The complexity of pancreaticoduodenectomy and fear of morbidity, particularly postoperative pancreatic fistula, can be a barrier to surgical trainees gaining operative experience. This meta-analysis sought to compare the postoperative pancreatic fistula rate after pancreatoenteric anastomosis by trainees or established surgeons. Methods: A systematic review of the literature was performed using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, with differences in postoperative pancreatic fistula rates after pancreatoenteric anastomosis between trainee-led versus consultant/attending surgeons pooled using meta-analysis. Variation in rates of postoperative pancreatic fistula was further explored using risk-adjusted outcomes using published risk scores and cumulative sum control chart analysis in a retrospective cohort. Results: Across 14 cohorts included in the meta-analysis, trainees tended toward a lower but nonsignificant rate of all postoperative pancreatic fistula (odds ratio: 0.77, P =.45) and clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula (odds ratio: 0.69, P =.37). However, there was evidence of case selection, with trainees being less likely to operate on patients with a pancreatic duct width <3 mm (odds ratio: 0.45, P =.05). Similarly, analysis of a retrospective cohort (N = 756 cases) found patients operated by trainees to have significantly lower predicted all postoperative pancreatic fistula (median: 20 vs 26%, P <.001) and clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula (7 vs 9%, P =.020) rates than consultant/attending surgeons, based on preoperative risk scores. After adjusting for this on multivariable analysis, the risks of all postoperative pancreatic fistula (odds ratio: 1.18, P =.604) and clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula (odds ratio: 0.85, P =.693) remained similar after pancreatoenteric anastomosis by trainees or consultant/attending surgeons. Conclusion: Pancreatoenteric anastomosis, when performed by trainees, is associated with acceptable outcomes. There is evidence of case selection among patients undergoing surgery by trainees; hence, risk adjustment provides a critical tool for the objective evaluation of performance.
|
|
| 4. |
- Pande, Rupaly, et al.
(författare)
-
External validation of postoperative pancreatic fistula prediction scores in pancreatoduodenectomy : a systematic review and meta-analysis
- 2022
-
Ingår i: HPB. - : Elsevier BV. - 1365-182X. ; 24:3, s. 287-298
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: Multiple risk scores claim to predict the probability of postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) after pancreatoduodenectomy. It is unclear which scores have undergone external validation and are the most accurate. The aim of this study was to identify risk scores for POPF, and assess the clinical validity of these scores. Methods: Areas under receiving operator characteristic curve (AUROCs) were extracted from studies that performed external validation of POPF risk scores. These were pooled for each risk score, using intercept-only random-effects meta-regression models. Results: Systematic review identified 34 risk scores, of which six had been subjected to external validation, and so included in the meta-analysis, (Tokyo (N=2 validation studies), Birmingham (N=5), FRS (N=19), a-FRS (N=12), m-FRS (N=3) and ua-FRS (N=3) scores). Overall predictive accuracies were similar for all six scores, with pooled AUROCs of 0.61, 0.70, 0.71, 0.70, 0.70 and 0.72, respectively. Considerably heterogeneity was observed, with I2 statistics ranging from 52.1-88.6%. Conclusion: Most risk scores lack external validation; where this was performed, risk scores were found to have limited predictive accuracy. Consensus is needed for which score to use in clinical practice. Due to the limited predictive accuracy, future studies to derive a more accurate risk score are warranted.
|
|
| 5. |
|
|
| 6. |
|
|
| 7. |
- Thomas, HS, et al.
(författare)
-
- 2019
-
swepub:Mat__t
|
|
| 8. |
|
|
| 9. |
- Beard, David J., et al.
(författare)
-
Considerations and methods for placebo controls in surgical trials (ASPIRE guidelines)
- 2020
-
Ingår i: The Lancet. - 0140-6736. ; 395:10226, s. 828-838
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- Placebo comparisons are increasingly being considered for randomised trials assessing the efficacy of surgical interventions. The aim of this Review is to provide a summary of knowledge on placebo controls in surgical trials. A placebo control is a complex type of comparison group in the surgical setting and, although powerful, presents many challenges. This Review outlines what a placebo control entails and present understanding of this tool in the context of surgery. We consider when placebo controls in surgery are acceptable (and when they are desirable) in terms of ethical arguments and regulatory requirements, how a placebo control should be designed, how to identify and mitigate risk for participants in these trials, and how such trials should be done and interpreted. Use of placebo controls is justified in randomised controlled trials of surgical interventions provided there is a strong scientific and ethical rationale. Surgical placebos might be most appropriate when there is poor evidence for the efficacy of the procedure and a justified concern that results of a trial would be associated with high risk of bias, particularly because of the placebo effect. Feasibility work is recommended to optimise the design and implementation of randomised controlled trials. This Review forms an outline for best practice and provides guidance, in the form of the Applying Surgical Placebo in Randomised Evaluations (known as ASPIRE) checklist, for those considering the use of a placebo control in a surgical randomised controlled trial.
|
|
| 10. |
- Beard, David J., et al.
(författare)
-
Placebo comparator group selection and use in surgical trials : The aspire project including expert workshop
- 2021
-
Ingår i: Health Technology Assessment. - 1366-5278. ; 25:53
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: The use of placebo comparisons for randomised trials assessing the efficacy of surgical interventions is increasingly being considered. However, a placebo control is a complex type of comparison group in the surgical setting and, although powerful, presents many challenges. Objectives: To provide a summary of knowledge on placebo controls in surgical trials and to summarise any recommendations for designers, evaluators and funders of placebo-controlled surgical trials. Design: To carry out a state-of-the-art workshop and produce a corresponding report involving key stakeholders throughout. Setting: A workshop to discuss and summarise the existing knowledge and to develop the new guidelines. Results: To assess what a placebo control entails and to assess the understanding of this tool in the context of surgery is considered, along with when placebo controls in surgery are acceptable (and when they are desirable). We have considered ethics arguments and regulatory requirements, how a placebo control should be designed, how to identify and mitigate risk for participants in these trials, and how such trials should be carried out and interpreted. The use of placebo controls is justified in randomised controlled trials of surgical interventions provided that there is a strong scientific and ethics rationale. Surgical placebos might be most appropriate when there is poor evidence for the efficacy of the procedure and a justified concern that results of a trial would be associated with a high risk of bias, particularly because of the placebo effect. Conclusions: The use of placebo controls is justified in randomised controlled trials of surgical interventions provided that there is a strong scientific and ethics rationale. Feasibility work is recommended to optimise the design and implementation of randomised controlled trials. An outline for best practice was produced in the form of the Applying Surgical Placebo in Randomised Evaluations (ASPIRE) guidelines for those considering the use of a placebo control in a surgical randomised controlled trial. Limitations: Although the workshop participants involved international members, the majority of participants were from the UK. Therefore, although every attempt was made to make the recommendations applicable to all health systems, the guidelines may, unconsciously, be particularly applicable to clinical practice in the UK NHS. Future work: Future work should evaluate the use of the ASPIRE guidelines in making decisions about the use of a placebo-controlled surgical trial. In addition, further work is required on the appropriate nomenclature to adopt in this space.
|
|
