Objectives Intraoperative placement of neck drains in thyroidectomy patients remains a widespread practice, despite prevailing evidence discouraging this practice. This systematic review and meta‐analysis was conducted to update the currently available evidence base. Methods Two independent investigators performed a comprehensive literature search to identify randomized control trials that evaluated postoperative complications associated with neck drains. This was conducted using four databases: Medline, Web of Science, EMBASE, and Cochrane. Identified articles were then screened using a strict eligibility criterion. Sixteen studies were included in the final quantitative analysis and assessed for risk of bias. All methods were in accordance with recommendations from the Cochrane Review Group, U.K. National Health Service Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses guidelines. Results Our initial search yielded 743 articles. Of those, 16 were included for final quantitative synthesis. The overall analysis demonstrated that postoperative hematomas [pooled odds ratio (OR) = 2.09 (1.04, 4.21); P = .04] and surgical site infections [pooled OR = 3.85 (2.04, 7.28); P < .01] were significantly more likely in the drained group. Furthermore, hospital stays were longer in the drained group [pooled mean difference = 0.88 days (0.56, 1.20); P < .01]. There were no significant differences in fluid volumes within the thyroid bed between study groups [pooled mean difference = −2.30 mL (−4.82, 0.21); P = .07]. Conclusion The drained patient group had overall higher odds of hematomas, surgical site infections, and longer hospital stays. Therefore, we recommend against this practice of neck drain insertions in patients who have undergone thyroidectomies. Laryngoscope, 131:690–700, 2021
Individualized survival prognostic models for symptomatic patients with appendicular metastatic bone disease are key to guiding clinical decision-making for the orthopedic surgeon. Several prognostic models have been developed in recent years; however, most orthopedic surgeons have not incorporated these models into routine practice. This is possibly due to uncertainty concerning their accuracy and the lack of comparison publications and recommendations. Our aim was to conduct a review and quality assessment of these models. A computerized literature search in MEDLINE, EMBASE and PubMed up to February 2022 was done, using keywords: “Bone metastasis”, “survival”, “extremity” and “prognosis”. We evaluated each model’s performance, assessing the estimated discriminative power and calibration accuracy for the analyzed patients. We included 11 studies out of the 1779 citations initially retrieved. The 11 studies included seven different models for estimating survival. Among externally validated survival prediction scores, PATHFx 3.0, 2013-SPRING and potentially Optimodel were found to be the best models in terms of performance. Currently, it is still a challenge to recommend any of the models as the standard for predicting survival for these patients. However, some models show better performance status and other quality characteristics. We recommend future, large, multicenter, prospective studies to compare between PATHfx 3.0, SPRING 2013 and OptiModel using the same external validation dataset.
Many junior doctors have reported a lack of confidence in managing emergency conditions. However, there is insufficient literature summarising the current knowledge about the non-technical skills needed by junior doctors to tackle medical emergencies. This paper aims to identify the non-technical skills necessary for the management of medical emergencies by junior doctors. Three databases were systematically searched to identify relevant articles published between January 2000 and March 2020. In total, 8707 unique articles were identified and independently screened by at least two authors, using predetermined inclusion and exclusion criteria. A coding framework was applied to extract relevant data and for thematic analysis of the included studies. These methods have been performed following the PRISMA-ScR Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews guidelines. There were a total of 13 articles included in the thematic analysis. The result of this review was the identification of several key non-technical skills: teamwork, communication, asking for help, challenging seniority, task prioritisation, decision-making, leadership and handling stress. In conclusion, lack of non-technical skills in junior doctors has a negative impact on patient care in a medical emergency. The training of junior doctors can be re-evaluated and designed to reflect the importance of these non-technical skills.
ObjectiveRecent studies have indicated a lack of ENT training at the undergraduate and post-graduate levels. This study aimed to review the impact of recent educational innovations in improving ENT training for medical students and junior doctors in the UK.MethodsThree independent investigators conducted a literature search of published articles on ENT education. Included studies were analysed using qualitative synthesis methods.ResultsAn initial search yielded 2008 articles; 44 underwent full-text evaluation and 5 were included for final analysis. Most included studies demonstrated benefits for students when compared to existing teaching standards in terms of objective assessment (knowledge and skills gained) or subjective assessment (confidence and preference) following implemented educational innovations.ConclusionThis study identified educational innovations developed in the past 15 years to enhance the teaching of core ENT competencies. More research is needed to establish their impact on the state of ENT medical education in the UK.
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.