Short-term statin use is associated with a reduced incidence of glaucoma. The effect of statins on glaucoma progression and IOP is uncertain.

Background Virtual reality (VR) has been used successfully in medicine both as a distraction tool during procedures, and as an acclimatisation tool to prepare for a procedure or experience. It has not yet become widely used in dentistry, but could theoretically have a role in exposure-based acclimatisation for dental experiences. Methods To examine the use of VR or bespoke dental smartphone applications pre- or perioperatively in dentistry, to decrease anxiety in a paediatric population attending for dental examination or treatment, compared with children/adolescents who receive no intervention, or more conventional behavioural management techniques. Searches were made of eight electronic databases: the Cochrane Oral Health Group’s Trials Register, The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE(PubMed), EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Scopus and Web of Science. Further searches reference cross‐checks were performed to identify studies that were not discovered online. Results Systematic reviews and randomised control trials have demonstrated the successful use of VR to both distract patients perioperatively during medical procedures, and also preoperatively to prepare them for these interventions. However, to date, VR has only been applied to dentistry in a very limited number of studies. Three studies using virtual reality in a dental setting demonstrated decreased pain and anxiety compared with no intervention. All three of these studies were carried out in the perioperative period. A fourth study used a bespoke dental app and imagery to prepare patients with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) for dental treatment, finding statistically significant decreases in both the number of appointments and number of attempts required to carry out a procedure. Conclusion VR is a promising tool which to date has been under-utilised in dentistry. High quality, clinical studies are required to assess the use of preoperative VR and smartphone applications to prepare patients for dental examination and procedures under local or general anaesthetic.

Naloxone has been reported to have potential benefit in the treatment of stroke. We evaluated the effect of naloxone in a double-blind trial conducted with 15 stroke patients whose deficits ranged from 8 to 60 hours in duration. All but one patient sustained a cerebral infarction. Neurologic function was assessed before and five minutes after each of two injections given to each patient in a double-blind fashion. The injections consisted of naloxone (0.4 mg in 3 patients and 4.0 mg in 12 patients) and saline. Prior to the trial, samples of plasma were obtained for determination of immunoreactive beta-endorphin for each patient. Four patients showed minimal improvement following injection of naloxone, while five patients exhibited a slightly greater improvement following saline injection. There were no significant elevations of plasma beta-endorphin among stroke patients. We conclude that naloxone may not have a significant therapeutic role for stroke in the clinical setting.

Purpose: To determine the effectiveness of dysphagia interventions compared to standard care in improving oral intake and reducing aspiration for adults in acute and critical care. Methods: We searched electronic literature for randomised and quasi-randomised trials and bibliography lists of included studies to March 2020. Study screening, data extraction, risk of bias and quality assessments were conducted independently by two reviewers. Meta-analysis used fixed effects modelling. The systematic review protocol is registered and published. Results: We identified 22 studies (19 stroke, 2 intensive care stroke and 1 general intensive care) testing 9 interventions and representing 1700 patients. Swallowing treatment showed no evidence of a difference in the time to return to oral intake (n = 33, MD (days) − 4.5, 95% CI − 10.6 to 1.6, 1 study, P = 0.15) (very low certainty) or in aspiration following treatment (n = 113, RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.45, 4 studies, I 2 = 0%, P = 0.45) (low certainty). Swallowing treatment showed evidence of a reduced risk of pneumonia (n = 719, RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.89, 8 studies, I 2 = 15%, P = 0.004) (low certainty) but no evidence of a difference in swallowing quality of life scores (n = 239, MD − 11.38, 95% CI − 23.83 to 1.08, I 2 = 78%, P = 0.07) (very low certainty). Conclusion: There is limited evidence for the effectiveness of swallowing treatments in the acute and critical care setting. Clinical trials consistently measuring patient-centred outcomes are needed.

Lifetime risk of developing colorectal cancer is 5%, and 5-year survival at early stage is 92%. Individuals with precancerous lesions removed at primary screening are typically recommended surveillance colonoscopy. Because greater benefits are anticipated for those with higher risk of colorectal cancer, scope for risk-specific surveillance recommendations exists. This review assesses published cost-effectiveness estimates of postpolypectomy surveillance to consider the potential for personalized recommendations by risk group. Meta-analyses of incidence of advanced neoplasia postpolypectomy for low-risk cases were comparable to those without adenoma, with both rates under the lifetime risk of 5%. This group may not benefit from intensive surveillance, which risks unnecessary harm and inefficient use of often scarce colonoscopy capacity. Therefore, greater personalization through deintensified strategies for low-risk individuals could be beneficial. The potential for noninvasive testing, such as fecal immunochemical tests, combined with primary prevention or chemoprevention may reserve colonoscopy for targeted use in personalized risk-stratified surveillance. This review appraised evidence supporting a program of personalized surveillance in patients with colorectal adenoma according to risk group and compared the effectiveness of surveillance colonoscopy with alternative prevention strategies. It assessed trade-offs among costs, benefits, and adverse effects that must be considered in a decision to adopt or reject personalized surveillance.

BackgroundOropharyngeal dysphagia or swallowing difficulties are common in acute care and critical care, affecting 47% of hospitalised frail elderly, 50% of acute stroke patients and approximately 62% of critically ill patients who have been intubated and mechanically ventilated for prolonged periods. Complications of dysphagia include aspiration leading to chest infection and pneumonia, malnutrition, increased length of hospital stay and re-admission to hospital. To date, most dysphagia interventions in acute care have been tested with acute stroke populations. While intervention studies in critical care have been emerging since 2015, they are limited and so there is much to learn about the type, the delivery and the intensity of treatments in this setting to inform future clinical trials. The aim of this systematic review is to summarise the evidence regarding the relationship between dysphagia interventions and clinically important patient outcomes in acute and critical care settings.MethodsWe will search MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, Web of Science, CINAHL and clinical trial registries from inception to the present. We will include studies conducted with adults in acute care settings such as acute hospital wards or units or intensive care units and critical care settings. Studies will be restricted to randomised controlled trials and quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing a new dysphagia intervention with usual care or another intervention. The main outcomes that will be collected include length of time taken to return to oral intake, change in incidence of aspiration and pneumonia, nutritional status, length of hospital stay and quality of life. Key intervention components such as delivery, intensity, acceptability, fidelity and adverse events associated with such interventions will be collected to inform future clinical trials. Two independent reviewers will assess articles for eligibility, data extraction and quality appraisal. A meta-analysis will be conducted as appropriate.DiscussionNo systematic review has attempted to summarise the evidence for oropharyngeal dysphagia interventions in acute and critical care. Results of the proposed systematic review will inform practice and the design of future clinical trials.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD 42018116849 (http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/)

No abstract

No abstract