Background A significant proportion of the worldwide population is at risk of social isolation and loneliness as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. We aimed to identify effective interventions to reduce social isolation and loneliness that are compatible with COVID-19 shielding and social distancing measures. Methods and findings In this rapid systematic review, we searched six electronic databases (Medline, Embase, Web of Science, PsycINFO, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and SCOPUS) from inception to April 2020 for systematic reviews appraising interventions for loneliness and/or social isolation. Primary studies from those reviews were eligible if they included: 1) participants in a non-hospital setting; 2) interventions to reduce social isolation and/or loneliness that would be feasible during COVID-19 shielding measures; 3) a relevant control group; and 4) quantitative measures of social isolation, social support or loneliness. At least two authors independently screened studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias using the Downs and Black checklist. Study registration: PROSPERO CRD42020178654. We identified 45 RCTs and 13 non-randomised controlled trials; none were conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic. The nature, type, and potential effectiveness of interventions varied greatly. Effective interventions for loneliness include psychological therapies such as mindfulness, lessons on friendship, robotic pets, and social facilitation software. Few interventions improved social isolation. Overall, 37 of 58 studies were of “Fair” quality, as measured by the Downs & Black checklist. The main study limitations identified were the inclusion of studies of variable quality; the applicability of our findings to the entire population; and the current poor understanding of the types of loneliness and isolation experienced by different groups affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. Conclusions Many effective interventions involved cognitive or educational components, or facilitated communication between peers. These interventions may require minor modifications to align with COVID-19 shielding/social distancing measures. Future high-quality randomised controlled trials conducted under shielding/social distancing constraints are urgently needed.
Superior mesenteric artery (SMA) syndrome is a rare cause of gastrointestinal obstruction, caused by external compression of the third part of the duodenum by the SMA. It may be associated with the Nutcracker phenomenon: external compression of the left renal vein. To our knowledge, there are few reports in the literature describing the coexistence of these two conditions and so we take this opportunity to highlight a rare cause of the acute abdomen that might otherwise be overlooked in cases of nonspecific abdominal findings and potentially unremarkable initial investigations. We report a case of SMA syndrome and Nutcracker phenomenon in a 19-year-old female who presented to our emergency department with a short history of epigastric pain and emesis. The SMA syndrome is thought to develop as the result of an abnormally narrow angle between the proximal SMA and the aorta, for which a number of predisposing factors have been described. Surgical options exist; however, the SMA syndrome is typically managed conservatively in the first instance, consistent with the approach described in this case. The Nutcracker phenomenon may give rise to the Nutcracker syndrome in the presence of typical clinical manifestations; however, these did not feature in this case.
The incidence of mental health disorders is significantly higher in individuals with a rare disease, compared to the general population. This letter considers the possible reasons for this in terms of the many ways in which a rare disease impacts on an individual's life, and how these impacts can be strongly related to factors which predispose to mental health difficulties. Furthermore, issues surrounding mental health can also play a significant role in the process of diagnosing a rare disease. The unusual nature of such diseases intrinsically predisposes an individual to obtain an inaccurate diagnosis of a psychosomatic disorder, a diagnosis which can often be further complicated by the presence of genuine psychiatric symptoms. This letter argues that these common experiences of rare disease patients have impacts upon the way in which their psychiatric care should be offered and managed, and that sensitivity and understanding surrounding these issues should be considered a necessary part of effective care for rare disease patients.
Introduction Surgical management of Hinchey III and IV diverticulitis utilizes either Hartmann’s procedure (HP) or primary resection anastomosis (PRA) with or without fecal diversion. The aim of this meta-analysis is to determine which of the two procedures has a more favorable outcome. Methods A systematic review of the existing literature was performed using the PRISMA guidelines. A meta-analysis was carried out using a Mantel-Haenszel, random effects model, and forest plots were generated. The Newcastle-Ottawa and Jadad scoring tools were used to assess the included studies. Results A total of 25 studies involving 3546 patients were included in this study. The overall mortality in the HP group was 10.8% across the observational studies and 9.4% in the randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The mortality rate in the PRA group was lower than that in the HP group, at 8.2% in the observational studies and 4.3% in the RCTs. A comparison of PRA vs HP demonstrated a 40% lower mortality rate in the PRA group than in the HP (OR 0.60, 95% CI 0.38–0.95, p = 0.03) when analyzing the observational studies. However, meta-analysis of the three RCTs did not demonstrate any difference in mortality, (OR 0.44 (95% CI 0.14–1.34, p = 0.15). Wound infection rates between the two groups were comparable (OR 0.75, 95% CI 0.20–2.78, p = 0.67). Conclusion Analysis of observational studies suggests that PRA may be associated with a lower overall mortality. There were no differences in wound infection rates. Based on the current evidence, both surgical strategies appear to be acceptable.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.