SummaryBackground Uptake of self-testing and self-management of oral anticoagulation has remained inconsistent, despite good evidence of their eff ectiveness. To clarify the value of self-monitoring of oral anticoagulation, we did a metaanalysis of individual patient data addressing several important gaps in the evidence, including an estimate of the eff ect on time to death, fi rst major haemorrhage, and thromboembolism.

No abstract

BACKGROUND: The introduction of portable monitors (pointof-care devices) for the management of patients on oral anticoagulation allows self-testing by the patient at home. Patients who self-test can either adjust their medication according to a predetermined dose-INR schedule (self-management) or they can call a clinic to be told the appropriate dose adjustment (self-monitoring). Several trials of selfmonitoring of oral anticoagulant therapy suggest this may be equal to or better than standard monitoring. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effects of self-monitoring or self-management of oral anticoagulant therapy compared to standard monitoring. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2007, Issue 4), MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL (to November 2007). We checked bibliographies and contacted manufacturers and authors of relevant studies. No language restrictions were applied. SELECTION CRITERIA: Outcomes analysed were thromboembolic events, mortality, major haemorrhage, minor haemorrhage, tests in therapeutic range, frequency of testing, and feasibility of self-monitoring and self-management. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: The review authors independently extracted data. We used a fixed-effect model with the Mantzel-Haenzel method to calculate the pooled risk ratio (RR) and Peto's method to verify the results for uncommon outcomes. We examined heterogeneity amongst studies with the Chi 2 and I 2 statistics. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 18 randomized trials (4723 participants). Pooled estimates showed significant reductions in both thromboembolic events (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.69) and all-cause mortality (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.89). This reduction in mortality remained significant after the removal of low-quality studies (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.90). Trials of self-management alone showed significant reductions in thromboembolic events (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.70) and all-cause mortality (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.84); self-monitoring did not (thrombotic events RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.32 to 1.00; mortality RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.41). Self-monitoring significantly reduced major haemorrhages (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.91) whilst self-management did not (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.61). Twelve trials reported improvements in the percentage of mean INR measurements in the therapeutic range. No heterogeneity was identified in any of these comparisons.

Participants who self-monitor or self-manage can improve the quality of their oral anticoagulation therapy. Thromboembolic events were reduced, for both those self-monitoring or self-managing oral anticoagulation therapy. A reduction in all-cause mortality was observed in trials of self-management but not in self-monitoring, with no effects on major haemorrhage.

When considering the OA, dynamic closure techniques should be prioritized over the use of static closure techniques (strong recommendation). However, for techniques including suture closure, mesh reinforcement, component separation techniques and skin grafting, only clinical expertise guidance was provided. Considering the BA, a clinical expertise guidance statement was advised for dynamic closure techniques. Additionally, a clinical expertise guidance statement concerning suture closure and a good practice statement concerning mesh reinforcement during fascial closure were proposed. The role of advanced techniques such as component separation or relaxing incisions is questioned. In addition, the role of the abdominal girdle seems limited to very selected patients.

A systematic review and meta‐analysis were undertaken in order to explore the influence of matrix metalloproteinases and their diagnostic methods in chronic and acute wounds. Searches were conducted in the PubMed (Medline) and Embase (Elsevier) databases from inception to late November 2017. We included clinical trials enrolling patients with cutaneous chronic and acute wounds where a validated diagnostic method was employed for metalloproteinases. We excluded in vitro, animal or preclinical studies, nonoriginal articles, and studies without available data for analysis. In addition, references of narrative and systematic reviews were scrutinized for additional articles. Eight studies met the inclusion criteria. Results revealed that the most frequently determined matrix metalloproteinases were MMP‐2 and MMP‐9, and were found in 54.5% of wounds. MMP‐9 was present in more than 50% of the chronic wounds with a range from 37 to 78%. However, metalloproteinases were found in only 20% of acute wounds, and other types of metalloproteinases were also observed (MMP‐2 and MMP‐3). On the basis of the available evidence, high levels of metalloproteinases have been correlated with significantly delayed wound healing in wounds of a variety of etiologies.

BACKGROUND: The introduction of portable monitors (pointof-care devices) for the management of patients on oral anticoagulation allows self-testing by the patient at home. Patients who self-test can either adjust their medication according to a predetermined dose-INR schedule (self-management) or they can call a clinic to be told the appropriate dose adjustment (self-monitoring). Several trials of selfmonitoring of oral anticoagulant therapy suggest this may be equal to or better than standard monitoring. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effects of self-monitoring or self-management of oral anticoagulant therapy compared to standard monitoring. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2007, Issue 4), MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL (to November 2007). We checked bibliographies and contacted manufacturers and authors of relevant studies. No language restrictions were applied. SELECTION CRITERIA: Outcomes analysed were thromboembolic events, mortality, major haemorrhage, minor haemorrhage, tests in therapeutic range, frequency of testing, and feasibility of self-monitoring and self-management. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: The review authors independently extracted data. We used a fixed-effect model with the Mantzel-Haenzel method to calculate the pooled risk ratio (RR) and Peto's method to verify the results for uncommon outcomes. We examined heterogeneity amongst studies with the Chi 2 and I 2 statistics. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 18 randomized trials (4723 participants). Pooled estimates showed significant reductions in both thromboembolic events (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.69) and all-cause mortality (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.89). This reduction in mortality remained significant after the removal of low-quality studies (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.90). Trials of self-management alone showed significant reductions in thromboembolic events (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.70) and all-cause mortality (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.84); self-monitoring did not (thrombotic events RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.32 to 1.00; mortality RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.41). Self-monitoring significantly reduced major haemorrhages (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.91) whilst self-management did not (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.61). Twelve trials reported improvements in the percentage of mean INR measurements in the therapeutic range. No heterogeneity was identified in any of these comparisons.

A systematic review and quality assessment was performed to assess the management of diabetic foot osteomyelitis by medical or surgical treatment. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklist was used. All selected studies were evaluated using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool to assess the risk of bias for randomized controlled trials. The literature was revised using PubMed (Medline) and Embase (Elsevier) up to September 2020 to identify clinical trials assessing medical or surgical treatment to manage diabetic foot osteomyelitis. A total of six clinical trials that met our inclusion criteria, with a total of 308 participants. Healing rate, complete closure of the wound, and type of complications were the outcomes evaluated. Risk of bias assessment showed that only two of the six clinical trials included in the systematic review had a low risk of bias. Based on our findings, we believe that the management of diabetic foot osteomyelitis remains challenging. There are few high-quality clinical trials that both stratify clinical presentations and compare these treatments. We conclude that the available evidence is insufficient to identify the best option to cure diabetic foot osteomyelitis.