IMPORTANCE Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is a highly prevalent global health concern and is associated with many adverse outcomes for patients. OBJECTIVE To evaluate the utility of the STOP-Bang (snoring, tiredness, observed apnea, blood pressure, body mass index, age, neck size, gender) questionnaire in the sleep clinic setting to screen for and stratify the risk of OSA among populations from different geographical regions.

Purpose Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is a critical occupational health concern, but is often undiagnosed in the general population and commercial drivers. The STOP-Bang questionnaire is a simple, reliable tool to screen for OSA, which could improve public health in a cost-effective manner. The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to assess the validity of the STOP-Bang questionnaire to detect OSA in these key populations. Methods We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, PsycINFO, Journals @ Ovid, Web of Science, Scopus, and CINAHL for relevant articles from 2008 to March 2020. The quality of studies was appraised using Cochrane Methods criteria. To calculate pooled predictive parameters, we created 2 × 2 contingency tables and performed random-effects meta-analyses. Results Of 3871 citations, five studies that evaluated STOP-Bang in the general population (n = 8585) and two in commercial drivers (n = 185) were included. In the general population, prevalence of all OSA (AHI ≥ 5), moderate-to-severe OSA (AHI ≥ 15), and severe OSA (AHI ≥ 30) was 57.6%, 21.3%, and 7.8% respectively. In commercial drivers, the prevalence of moderate-to-severe OSA was 37.3%. The trends of high sensitivity and negative predictive value of a STOP-Bang score ≥ 3 illustrates that the questionnaire helps detect and rule out clinically significant OSA in the general population and commercial drivers. Conclusion This meta-analysis demonstrates that the STOP-Bang questionnaire is a valid and effective screening tool for OSA in the general population and commercial drivers. Trial registration PROSPERO No. CRD42020200379; 08/22/2020

Objective To assess the efficacy and safety of N-acetylcysteine in the treatment of chronic pain. Methods A systematic search was carried out until April 2020 for clinical studies of N-acetylcysteine in the management of any persistent or recurrent chronic pain condition for adults ≥ 18 years old. Risk of Bias was assessed using the validated risk of bias tools. When appropriate, a meta-analysis using a random-effects model was performed, with a fixed-effect model for sensitivity analysis. Results Nine studies (n = 863) were included (5 randomized controlled trials [RCTs], 2 open-label non-comparative studies and 2 comparative studies), that evaluated patients with sickle cell disease (3), complex regional pain syndrome (1), pelvic pain/endometriosis (2), rheumatoid arthritis (1), diabetic neuropathy (1), and chronic neuropathic pain (1). In the pooled analysis of 3 RCTs, N-acetylcysteine did not reduce pain intensities (SMD -0.21, 95% CI -0.33 to 0.75, random-effects), improve functional outcomes (SMD 0.21, 95% CI -0.33 to 0.75) or quality of life (SMD 0.60, 95% CI -4.44 to 5.64); however, sensitivity analysis with a fixed effect model demonstrated an effect for pain intensities and function. Due to adverse events being inconsistently reported, no conclusion could be made regarding safety of N-acetylcysteine in chronic pain. Conclusions While there is some evidence to indicate N-acetylcysteine may provide analgesic efficacy for certain pain conditions, there is insufficient evidence to provide definitive evidence on NAC in chronic pain management. Larger-size RCTs spanning a variety of chronic pain conditions are needed to determine N-acetylcysteine’s role, if any, in pain medicine.

Identifying surgical patients with obstructive sleep apnoea may assist with anaesthetic management to minimise postoperative complications. Using trial sequential analysis, we evaluated the impact of obstructive sleep apnoea diagnosed by polysomnography or home sleep apnoea testing on postoperative outcomes in surgical patients. Multiple databases were systematically searched. Outcomes included: total postoperative complications, systemic complications (cardiovascular, respiratory, neurological, renal, infectious) and specific complications (atrial fibrillation, myocardial infarction, combined hospital and intensive care unit re-admission, mortality). The pooled odds ratios of postoperative complications were evaluated by the Mantel-Haenszel method random-effects model. Meta-analysis and meta-regression were conducted, and the GRADE approach was used to evaluate the certainty of evidence. Twenty prospective cohort studies with 3756 patients (2127 obstructive sleep apnoea and 1629 non-obstructive sleep apnoea) were included (9 in non-cardiac surgery and 11 in cardiac surgery). Postoperative complications were almost two-fold higher with obstructive sleep apnoea, OR (95%CI) 1.92 (1.52-2.42), p < 0.001; certainty of evidence, moderate. Obstructive sleep apnoea was associated with a 1.5 times increased risk of postoperative cardiovascular complications, OR (95%CI) 1.56 (1.20-2.02), p = 0.001; certainty of evidence, moderate; an almost two-fold increase in respiratory complications, OR (95%CI) 1.91 (1.39-2.62), p < 0.001; certainty of evidence, moderate; and hospital and ICU re-admission, OR (95%CI) 2. 25 (1.21-4.19), p = 0.01; certainty of evidence, low. Trial sequential analysis showed adequate information size for postoperative complications. Baseline confounding factors were adjusted by meta-regression, and the sub-group analysis did not materially change our results. This increased risk occurred especially in patients in whom obstructive sleep apnoea had been newly diagnosed, emphasising the importance of pre-operative screening.

Background Financial conflicts of interest (FCOIs) are widespread in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) and may be particularly important in point-of-care (POC) resources, such as UpToDate, that are used to aid clinical decision making. In this study, we determined the prevalence of industry payments from companies making biologic medications for IBD to contributors of UpToDate articles on IBD. Methods This cross-sectional analysis included UpToDate articles that mention the use of biologic medications for IBD. We collected the names of the contributors (authors and editors) and their disclosures on UpToDate. We then searched for their names on the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Open Payments database and compared the payment information from 2013 to 2018 with UpToDate's disclosures. We presented data per episode, which describes one instance of participation by one person in one article, regardless of whether that person contributed to multiple articles. Results We identified 23 articles on the treatment of Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis that mentioned the use of biologic medications, with 86 total episodes. Sixty-two (72%) episodes involved FCOIs. The median payment associated with each episode was $$55 (interquartile range = $44 to $145,241). Contributors did not fully disclose FCOIs in 41 (48%) episodes. Deputy editors, who are required to be free of FCOIs, in general did not have substantial episodes involving FCOI. Conclusions We found that UpToDate articles on inflammatory bowel disease involve substantial FCOI, many of which are not disclosed. The presence of these FCOIs may hamper trust in the objectivity of treatment recommendations.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract