| 1. |
- den Bakker, C. M., et al.
(författare)
-
Prognostic factors for return to work and work disability among colorectal cancer survivors; A systematic review
- 2018
-
Ingår i: PLoS ONE. - : Public Library of Science (PLoS). - 1932-6203. ; 13:8
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background Colorectal cancer is diagnosed progressively in employed patients due to screening programs and increasing retirement age. The objective of this study was to identify prognostic factors for return to work and work disability in patients with colorectal cancer. The research protocol was published at PROSPERO with registration number CRD42017049757. A systematic review of cohort and case-control studies in colorectal cancer patients above 18 years, who were employed when diagnosed, and who had a surgical resection with curative intent were included. The primary outcome was return to work or work disability. Potentially prognostic factors were included in the analysis if they were measured in at least three studies. Risk of bias was assessed according to the QUality In Prognosis Studies tool. A qualitative synthesis analysis was performed due to heterogeneity between studies. Quality of evidence was evaluated according to Grading of Recommendation Assessment, Development and Evaluation. Eight studies were included with a follow-up period of 26 up to 520 weeks. (Neo) adjuvant therapy, higher age, and more comorbidities had a significant negative influence on return to work. A previous period of unemployment, extensive surgical resection and postoperative complications significantly increased the risk of work disability. The quality of evidence for these prognostic factors was considered very low to moderate. Health care professionals need to be aware of these prognostic factors to select patients eligible for timely intensified rehabilitation in order to optimize the return to work process and prevent work disability.
|
|
| 2. |
- Harmsen, M. J., et al.
(författare)
-
Consensus on revised definitions of Morphological Uterus Sonographic Assessment (MUSA) features of adenomyosis : results of modified Delphi procedure
- 2022
-
Ingår i: Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology. - : Wiley. - 0960-7692 .- 1469-0705. ; 60:1, s. 118-131
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Objectives: To evaluate whether the Morphological Uterus Sonographic Assessment (MUSA) features of adenomyosis need to be better defined and, if deemed necessary, to reach consensus on the updated definitions. Methods: A modified Delphi procedure was performed among European gynecologists with expertise in ultrasound diagnosis of adenomyosis. To identify MUSA features that might need revision, 15 two-dimensional (2D) video recordings (four recordings also included three-dimensional (3D) still images) of transvaginal ultrasound (TVS) examinations of the uterus were presented in the first Delphi round (online questionnaire). Experts were asked to confirm or refute the presence of each of the nine MUSA features of adenomyosis (described in the original MUSA consensus statement) in each of the 15 videoclips and to provide comments. In the second Delphi round (online questionnaire), the results of the first round and suggestions for revision of MUSA features were shared with the experts before they were asked to assess a new set of 2D and 3D still images of TVS examinations and to provide feedback on the proposed revisions. A third Delphi round (virtual group meeting) was conducted to discuss and reach final consensus on revised definitions of MUSA features. Consensus was predefined as at least 66.7% agreement between experts. Results: Of 18 invited experts, 16 agreed to participate in the Delphi procedure. Eleven experts completed and four experts partly finished the first round. The experts identified a need for more detailed definitions of some MUSA features. They recommended use of 3D ultrasound to optimize visualization of the junctional zone. Fifteen experts participated in the second round and reached consensus on the presence or absence of ultrasound features of adenomyosis in most of the still images. Consensus was reached for all revised definitions except those for subendometrial lines and buds and interrupted junctional zone. Thirteen experts joined the online meeting, in which they discussed and agreed on final revisions of the MUSA definitions. There was consensus on the need to distinguish between direct features of adenomyosis, i.e. features indicating presence of ectopic endometrial tissue in the myometrium, and indirect features, i.e. features reflecting changes in the myometrium secondary to presence of endometrial tissue in the myometrium. Myometrial cysts, hyperechogenic islands and echogenic subendometrial lines and buds were classified unanimously as direct features of adenomyosis. Globular uterus, asymmetrical myometrial thickening, fan-shaped shadowing, translesional vascularity, irregular junctional zone and interrupted junctional zone were classified as indirect features of adenomyosis. Conclusion: Consensus between gynecologists with expertise in ultrasound diagnosis of adenomyosis was achieved regarding revised definitions of the MUSA features of adenomyosis and on the classification of MUSA features as direct or indirect signs of adenomyosis.
|
|
| 3. |
- Jordans, I. P.M., et al.
(författare)
-
Definition and sonographic reporting system for Cesarean scar pregnancy in early gestation : modified Delphi method
- 2022
-
Ingår i: Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology. - : Wiley. - 0960-7692 .- 1469-0705. ; 59:4, s. 437-449
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Objective: To develop a standardized sonographic evaluation and reporting system for Cesarean scar pregnancy (CSP) in the first trimester, for use by both general gynecology and expert clinics. Methods: A modified Delphi procedure was carried out, in which 28 international experts in obstetric and gynecological ultrasonography were invited to participate. Extensive experience in the use of ultrasound to evaluate Cesarean section (CS) scars in early pregnancy and/or publications concerning CSP or niche evaluation was required to participate. Relevant items for the detection and evaluation of CSP were determined based on the results of a literature search. Consensus was predefined as a level of agreement of at least 70% for each item, and a minimum of three Delphi rounds were planned (two online questionnaires and one group meeting). Results: Sixteen experts participated in the Delphi study and four Delphi rounds were performed. In total, 58 items were determined to be relevant. We differentiated between basic measurements to be performed in general practice and advanced measurements for expert centers or for research purposes. The panel also formulated advice on indications for referral to an expert clinic. Consensus was reached for all 58 items on the definition, terminology, relevant items for evaluation and reporting of CSP. It was recommended that the first CS scar evaluation to determine the location of the pregnancy should be performed at 6–7 weeks' gestation using transvaginal ultrasound. The use of magnetic resonance imaging was not considered to add value in the diagnosis of CSP. A CSP was defined as a pregnancy with implantation in, or in close contact with, the niche. The experts agreed that a CSP can occur only when a niche is present and not in relation to a healed CS scar. Relevant sonographic items to record included gestational sac (GS) size, vascularity, location in relation to the uterine vessels, thickness of the residual myometrium and location of the pregnancy in relation to the uterine cavity and serosa. According to its location, a CSP can be classified as: (1) CSP in which the largest part of the GS protrudes towards the uterine cavity; (2) CSP in which the largest part of the GS is embedded in the myometrium but does not cross the serosal contour; and (3) CSP in which the GS is partially located beyond the outer contour of the cervix or uterus. The type of CSP may change with advancing gestation. Future studies are needed to validate this reporting system and the value of the different CSP types. Conclusion: Consensus was achieved among experts regarding the sonographic evaluation and reporting of CSP in the first trimester.
|
|
