Objective: The aim of this meta-analysis was to summarize the current available evidence on nonoperative management (NOM) with antibiotics for uncomplicated appendicitis, both in adults and children. Summary Background Data: Although earlier meta-analyses demonstrated that NOM with antibiotics may be an acceptable treatment strategy for patients with uncomplicated appendicitis, evidence is limited by conflicting results. Methods: Systematic literature search was performed using MEDLINE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and EMBASE databases for randomized and nonrandomized studies comparing antibiotic therapy (AT) and surgical therapy-appendectomy (ST) for uncomplicated appendicitis. Literature search was completed in August 2018. Results: Twenty studies comparing AT and ST qualified for inclusion in the quantitative synthesis. In total, 3618 patients were allocated to AT (n = 1743) or ST (n = 1875). Higher complication-free treatment success rate (82.3% vs 67.2%; P < 0.00001) and treatment efficacy based on 1-year follow-up rate (93.1% vs 72.6%; P < 0.00001) were reported for ST. Index admission antibiotic treatment failure and rate of recurrence at 1-year follow-up were reported in 8.5% and 19.2% of patients treated with antibiotics, respectively. Rates of complicated appendicitis with peritonitis identified at the time of surgical operation (AT: 21.7% vs ST: 12.8%; P = 0.07) and surgical complications (AT: 12.8% vs ST: 13.6%; P = 0.66) were equivalent. Conclusions: Antibiotic therapy could represent a feasible treatment option for image-proven uncomplicated appendicitis, although complication-free treatment success rates are higher with ST. There is also evidence that NOM for uncomplicated appendicitis does not statistically increase the perforation rate in adult and pediatric patients receiving antibiotic treatment. NOM with antibiotics may fail during the primary hospitalization in about 8% of cases, and an additional 20% of patients might need a second hospitalization for recurrent appendicitis.

The ultimate goal of glaucoma management is the preservation of patients’ visual function and quality of life (QoL). The disease itself as well as the medical or surgical treatment can have an enormous impact on a patient’s QoL. Even the mere diagnosis of a chronic, irreversible, potentially blinding disorder can adversely affect the patient’s sense of well-being and QoL by eliciting significant anxiety. Patients with primary open-angle glaucoma rarely present with visual symptoms, at least early in the course of the disease. A better understanding of patient-reported QoL can improve patient–physician interaction and enhance treatment adherence by customizing treatment options based on individual patient profile, thus optimizing long-term prognosis. These aspects are summarized and critically appraised in this article.

Abstract.Using the best quality of clinical research evidence is essential for choosing the right treatment for patients. How to identify the best research evidence is, however, difficult. In this narrative review we summarise these threats and describe how to minimise them. Pertinent literature was considered through literature searches combined with personal files. Treatments should generally not be chosen based only on evidence from observational studies or single randomised clinical trials. Systematic reviews with meta-analysis of all identifiable randomised clinical trials with Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) assessment represent the highest level of evidence. Even though systematic reviews are trust worthier than other types of evidence, all levels of the evidence hierarchy are under threats from systematic errors (bias); design errors (abuse of surrogate outcomes, composite outcomes, etc.); and random errors (play of chance). Clinical research infrastructures may help in providing larger and better conducted trials. Trial Sequential Analysis may help in deciding when there is sufficient evidence in meta-analyses. If threats to the validity of clinical research are carefully considered and minimised, research results will be more valid and this will benefit patients and heath care systems. Sažetak. Primjena najkvalitetnijih dokaza kliničkih istraživanja ključna je u odabiru ispravnog liječenja pacijenata. No, način na koji će se odabrati najbolji dokazi predstavlja često poteškoću. Ovim preglednim člankom prikazujemo opasnosti navedenog odabira, kao i načine kako ih umanjiti. Relevantni izvori razmatrani su pretragom literature u kombinaciji s osobnim datotekama. Izbor liječenja uglavnom se ne bi smio temeljiti isključivo na opservacijskim ili pojedinačnim randomiziranim kliničkim studijama. Sustavni pregledi s metaanalizom svih identificiranih randomiziranih kliničkih studija procijenjenih sustavom stupnjevanja procjene, razvoja i evalua cije preporuka (engl. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation; GRADE) predstavljaju najvišu razinu dokaza. Iako su sustavni pregledi pouzdaniji od drugih vrsta dokaza, sve razine hijerarhije dokaza ugrožene su sustavnim pogreškama (engl. bias); pogreškama dizajna studije (zloupotreba surogatnih ishoda, složenih ishoda itd.) i slučajnim pogreškama (igra slučaja). Kliničke istraživačke infrastrukture mogu pomoći u pružanju većih i adekvatnije provedenih ispitivanja. Sekvencijska analiza studija može pomoći pri odlučivanju kada postoji dovoljna razina dokaza u metaanalizama. Ako se prijetnje valjanosti kliničkih istraživanja pažljivo razmatraju i minimiziraju, rezultati istraživanja bit će vrjedniji i korisniji pacientima i zdravstvenim sustavima.Ključne riječi: klinička praksa temeljena na dokazima; medicina temeljena na dokazima; meta-analiza; randomizirana klinička studija; sekvencijska analiza studija; sustavni pregled

In most cases there was limited evidence supporting the positive benefit-risk balance at the time of approval. Delays or discrepancies in the fulfilment of obligations allow medicinal products with unsettled benefit-risk profiles onto the market for several years. This should be taken into account when further early or step-wise licensing strategies are considered.

No abstract

No abstract

The sensitivity, specificity, and DOR results show the high value of CEUS for the characterization and differentiation of ductal adenocarinomas from other pancreatic diseases and for cystic pancreatic lesions. For this reason and due to their noninvasive nature, CEUS and ECEUS should be used as the first methods for characterizing neoplastic pancreatic lesions, especially since these are often incidental findings. The methods improve the quality of ultrasound diagnostics and result in faster diagnosis and better disease management.

Age, International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics stage III/IV, lymph-node involvement, and type of NACT administered have a significant impact on survival. Response to NACT is a good surrogate endpoint of survival in patients with LACC.