| 1. |
- Mishra, A, et al.
(author)
-
Diminishing benefits of urban living for children and adolescents' growth and development
- 2023
-
In: Nature. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 1476-4687 .- 0028-0836. ; 615:7954, s. 874-883
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Optimal growth and development in childhood and adolescence is crucial for lifelong health and well-being1–6. Here we used data from 2,325 population-based studies, with measurements of height and weight from 71 million participants, to report the height and body-mass index (BMI) of children and adolescents aged 5–19 years on the basis of rural and urban place of residence in 200 countries and territories from 1990 to 2020. In 1990, children and adolescents residing in cities were taller than their rural counterparts in all but a few high-income countries. By 2020, the urban height advantage became smaller in most countries, and in many high-income western countries it reversed into a small urban-based disadvantage. The exception was for boys in most countries in sub-Saharan Africa and in some countries in Oceania, south Asia and the region of central Asia, Middle East and north Africa. In these countries, successive cohorts of boys from rural places either did not gain height or possibly became shorter, and hence fell further behind their urban peers. The difference between the age-standardized mean BMI of children in urban and rural areas was <1.1 kg m–2 in the vast majority of countries. Within this small range, BMI increased slightly more in cities than in rural areas, except in south Asia, sub-Saharan Africa and some countries in central and eastern Europe. Our results show that in much of the world, the growth and developmental advantages of living in cities have diminished in the twenty-first century, whereas in much of sub-Saharan Africa they have amplified.
|
|
| 2. |
- Bonjer, H Jaap, et al.
(author)
-
A randomized trial of laparoscopic versus open surgery for rectal cancer.
- 2015
-
In: The New England journal of medicine. - 1533-4406. ; 372:14, s. 1324-32
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Laparoscopic resection of colorectal cancer is widely used. However, robust evidence to conclude that laparoscopic surgery and open surgery have similar outcomes in rectal cancer is lacking. A trial was designed to compare 3-year rates of cancer recurrence in the pelvic or perineal area (locoregional recurrence) and survival after laparoscopic and open resection of rectal cancer.
|
|
| 3. |
- Del Cura-González, Isabel, et al.
(author)
-
How to Improve Healthcare for Patients with Multimorbidity and Polypharmacy in Primary Care : A Pragmatic Cluster-Randomized Clinical Trial of the MULTIPAP Intervention
- 2022
-
In: Journal of Personalized Medicine. - : MDPI AG. - 2075-4426. ; 12:5
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- (1) Purpose: To investigate a complex MULTIPAP intervention that implements the Ariadne principles in a primary care population of young-elderly patients with multimorbidity and polypharmacy and to evaluate its effectiveness for improving the appropriateness of prescriptions. (2) Methods: A pragmatic cluster-randomized clinical trial was conducted involving 38 family practices in Spain. Patients aged 65-74 years with multimorbidity and polypharmacy were recruited. Family physicians (FPs) were randomly allocated to continue usual care or to provide the MULTIPAP intervention based on the Ariadne principles with two components: FP training (eMULTIPAP) and FP patient interviews. The primary outcome was the appropriateness of prescribing, measured as the between-group difference in the mean Medication Appropriateness Index (MAI) score change from the baseline to the 6-month follow-up. The secondary outcomes were quality of life (EQ-5D-5L), patient perceptions of shared decision making (collaboRATE), use of health services, treatment adherence, and incidence of drug adverse events (all at 1 year), using multi-level regression models, with FP as a random effect. (3) Results: We recruited 117 FPs and 593 of their patients. In the intention-to-treat analysis, the between-group difference for the mean MAI score change after a 6-month follow-up was -2.42 (95% CI from -4.27 to -0.59) and, between baseline and a 12-month follow-up was -3.40 (95% CI from -5.45 to -1.34). There were no significant differences in any other secondary outcomes. (4) Conclusions: The MULTIPAP intervention improved medication appropriateness sustainably over the follow-up time. The small magnitude of the effect, however, advises caution in the interpretation of the results given the paucity of evidence for the clinical benefit of the observed change in the MAI.
|
|
| 4. |
- W A Koedam, Thomas, et al.
(author)
-
Oncological Outcomes After Anastomotic Leakage After Surgery for Colon or Rectal Cancer: Increased Risk of Local Recurrence
- 2020
-
In: National Center for Biotechnology information.
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate oncological outcome for patients with and without anastomotic leakage after colon or rectal cancer surgery. Summary of background data: The role of anastomotic leakage in oncological outcome after colorectal cancer surgery is still topic of debate and impact on follow-up and consideration for further treatment remains unclear. Methods: Patients included in the international, multicenter, non-inferior, open label, randomized, controlled trials COLOR and COLOR II, comparing laparoscopic surgery for curable colon (COLOR) and rectal (COLOR II) cancer with open surgery, were analyzed. Patients operated by abdominoperineal excision were excluded. Both univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to investigate the impact of leakage on overall survival, disease-free survival, local and distant recurrences, adjusted for possible confounders. Primary endpoints in the COLOR and COLOR II trial were disease-free survival and local recurrence at 3-year follow-up, respectively, and secondary endpoints included anastomotic leakage rate. Results: For colon cancer, anastomotic leakage was not associated with increased percentage of local recurrence or decreased disease-free-survival. For rectal cancer, an increase of local recurrences (13.3% vs 4.6%; hazard ratio 2.96; 95% confidence interval 1.38-6.34; P = 0.005) and a decrease of disease-free survival (53.6% vs 70.9%; hazard ratio 1.67; 95% confidence interval 1.16-2.41; P = 0.006) at 5-year follow-up were found in patients with anastomotic leakage. Conclusion: Short-term morbidity, mortality, and long-term oncological outcomes are negatively influenced by the occurrence of anastomotic leakage after rectal cancer surgery. For colon cancer, no significant effect was observed; however, due to low power, no conclusions on the influence of anastomotic leakage on outcomes after colon surgery could be reached. Clinical awareness of increased risk of local recurrence after anastomotic leakage throughout the follow-up is mandatory. Trial registration: Registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00387842 and NCT00297791.
|
|
| 5. |
- Buunen, Mark, et al.
(author)
-
Survival after laparoscopic surgery versus open surgery for colon cancer: long-term outcome of a randomised clinical trial.
- 2009
-
In: The lancet oncology. - 1474-5488 .- 1470-2045. ; 10:1, s. 44-52
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic surgery for colon cancer has been proven safe, but debate continues over whether the available long-term survival data justify implementation of laparoscopic techniques in surgery for colon cancer. The aim of the COlon cancer Laparoscopic or Open Resection (COLOR) trial was to compare 3-year disease-free survival and overall survival after laparoscopic and open resection of solitary colon cancer. METHODS: Between March 7, 1997, and March 6, 2003, patients recruited from 29 European hospitals with a solitary cancer of the right or left colon and a body-mass index up to 30 kg/m(2) were randomly assigned to either laparoscopic or open surgery as curative treatment in this non-inferiority randomised trial. Disease-free survival at 3 years after surgery was the primary outcome, with a prespecified non-inferiority boundary at 7% difference between groups. Secondary outcomes were short-term morbidity and mortality, number of positive resection margins, local recurrence, port-site or wound-site recurrence, and blood loss during surgery. Neither patients nor health-care providers were blinded to patient groupings. Analysis was by intention-to-treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00387842. FINDINGS: During the recruitment period, 1248 patients were randomly assigned to either open surgery (n=621) or laparoscopic surgery (n=627). 172 were excluded after randomisation, mainly because of the presence of distant metastases or benign disease, leaving 1076 patients eligible for analysis (542 assigned open surgery and 534 assigned laparoscopic surgery). Median follow-up was 53 months (range 0.03-60). Positive resection margins, number of lymph nodes removed, and morbidity and mortality were similar in both groups. The combined 3-year disease-free survival for all stages was 74.2% (95% CI 70.4-78.0) in the laparoscopic group and 76.2% (72.6-79.8) in the open-surgery group (p=0.70 by log-rank test); the difference in disease-free survival after 3 years was 2.0% (95% CI -3.2 to 7.2). The hazard ratio (HR) for disease-free survival (open vs laparoscopic surgery) was 0.92 (95% CI 0.74-1.15). The combined 3-year overall survival for all stages was 81.8% (78.4-85.1) in the laparoscopic group and 84.2% (81.1-87.3) in the open-surgery group (p=0.45 by log-rank test); the difference in overall survival after 3 years was 2.4% (95% CI -2.1 to 7.0; HR 0.95 [0.74-1.22]). INTERPRETATION: Our trial could not rule out a difference in disease-free survival at 3 years in favour of open colectomy because the upper limit of the 95% CI for the difference just exceeded the predetermined non-inferiority boundary of 7%. However, the difference in disease-free survival between groups was small and, we believe, clinically acceptable, justifying the implementation of laparoscopic surgery into daily practice. Further studies should address whether laparoscopic surgery is superior to open surgery in this setting.
|
|
| 6. |
- Deijen, Charlotte L., et al.
(author)
-
Ten-year outcomes of a randomised trial of laparoscopic versus open surgery for colon cancer
- 2017
-
In: Surgical Endoscopy. - : SPRINGER. - 0930-2794 .- 1432-2218. ; 31:6, s. 2607-2615
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Laparoscopic surgery for colon cancer is associated with improved recovery and similar cancer outcomes at 3 and 5 years in comparison with open surgery. However, long-term survival rates have rarely been reported. Here, we present survival and recurrence rates of the Dutch patients included in the COlon cancer Laparoscopic or Open Resection (COLOR) trial at 10-year follow-up. Between March 1997 and March 2003, patients with non-metastatic colon cancer were recruited by 29 hospitals in eight countries and randomised to either laparoscopic or open surgery. Main inclusion criterion for the COLOR trial was solitary adenocarcinoma of the left or right colon. The primary outcome was disease-free survival at 3 years, and secondary outcomes included overall survival and recurrence. The 10-year follow-up data of all Dutch patients were collected. Analysis was by intention-to-treat. The trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT00387842). In total, 1248 patients were randomised, of which 329 were Dutch. Fifty-eight Dutch patients were excluded and 15 were lost to follow-up, leaving 256 patients for 10-year analysis. Median follow-up was 112 months. Disease-free survival rates were 45.2 % in the laparoscopic group and 43.2 % in the open group (difference 2.0 %; 95 % confidence interval (CI) -10.3 to 14.3; p = 0.96). Overall survival rates were 48.4 and 46.7 %, respectively (difference 1.7 %; 95 % CI -10.6 to 14.0; p = 0.83). Stage-specific analysis revealed similar survival rates for both groups. Sixty-two patients were diagnosed with recurrent disease, accounting for 29.4 % in the laparoscopic group and 28.2 % in the open group (difference 1.2 %; 95 % CI -11.1 to 13.5; p = 0.73). Seven patients had port- or wound-site recurrences (laparoscopic n = 3 vs. open n = 4). Laparoscopic surgery for non-metastatic colon cancer is associated with similar rates of disease-free survival, overall survival and recurrences as open surgery at 10-year follow-up.
|
|
| 7. |
- Petersson, Josefin, et al.
(author)
-
Bowel Obstruction and Ventral Hernia After Laparoscopic Versus Open Surgery for Rectal Cancer in A Randomized Trial (COLOR II).
- 2019
-
In: Annals of surgery. - 1528-1140. ; 269:1, s. 53-57
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- The aim of this study was to evaluate the risk of bowel obstruction, incisional, and parastomal hernia following laparoscopic versus open surgery for rectal cancer.Laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer has been adopted worldwide, after trials reported similar oncological outcomes compared with open surgery. Little is known about long-term morbidity, including bowel obstruction, incisional, and parastomal hernia following surgery.Patients included in the international, multicenter, noninferior, open-label, randomized COLOR II trial were followed for five years. Primary endpoint was local recurrence at 3-year follow-up. Secondary endpoints included bowel obstruction, incisional and parastomal hernia within 5 years, and the current article reports on these secondary endpoints.All 1044 patients included in the COLOR II trial were analyzed. There was no difference in risk of bowel obstruction, incisional, or parastomal hernia following laparoscopic or open surgery for rectal cancer.Based on long-term morbidity outcomes, laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer could be considered a routine technique as there are no differences with open surgery.
|
|
