BackgroundLaboratory testing is the single highest-volume medical activity and drives clinical decision-making across medicine. However, the overall landscape of inappropriate testing, which is thought to be dominated by repeat testing, is unclear. Systematic differences in initial vs. repeat testing, measurement criteria, and other factors would suggest new priorities for improving laboratory testing.MethodsA multi-database systematic review was performed on published studies from 1997–2012 using strict inclusion and exclusion criteria. Over- vs. underutilization, initial vs. repeat testing, low- vs. high-volume testing, subjective vs. objective appropriateness criteria, and restrictive vs. permissive appropriateness criteria, among other factors, were assessed.ResultsOverall mean rates of over- and underutilization were 20.6% (95% CI 16.2–24.9%) and 44.8% (95% CI 33.8–55.8%). Overutilization during initial testing (43.9%; 95% CI 35.4–52.5%) was six times higher than during repeat testing (7.4%; 95% CI 2.5–12.3%; P for stratum difference <0.001). Overutilization of low-volume tests (32.2%; 95% CI 25.0–39.4%) was three times that of high-volume tests (10.2%; 95% CI 2.6–17.7%; P<0.001). Overutilization measured according to restrictive criteria (44.2%; 95% CI 36.8–51.6%) was three times higher than for permissive criteria (12.0%; 95% CI 8.0–16.0%; P<0.001). Overutilization measured using subjective criteria (29.0%; 95% CI 21.9–36.1%) was nearly twice as high as for objective criteria (16.1%; 95% CI 11.0–21.2%; P = 0.004). Together, these factors explained over half (54%) of the overall variability in overutilization. There were no statistically significant differences between studies from the United States vs. elsewhere (P = 0.38) or among chemistry, hematology, microbiology, and molecular tests (P = 0.05–0.65) and no robust statistically significant trends over time.ConclusionsThe landscape of overutilization varies systematically by clinical setting (initial vs. repeat), test volume, and measurement criteria. Underutilization is also widespread, but understudied. Expanding the current focus on reducing repeat testing to include ordering the right test during initial evaluation may lead to fewer errors and better care.

Background Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), a highly infectious disease, has been rapidly spreading all over the world and remains a great threat to global public health. Patients diagnosed with severe or critical cases have a poor prognosis. Hence, it is crucial for us to identify potentially severe or critical cases early and give timely treatments for targeted patients. In the clinical practice of treating patients with COVID-19, we have observed that the neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) of severe patients is higher than that in mild patients. We performed this systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the predictive values of NLR on disease severity and mortality in patients with COVID-19. Methods We searched PubMed, EMBASE, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) and Wanfang databases to identify eligible studies (up to August 11, 2020). Two authors independently screened studies and extracted data. The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed by Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 (QUADAS-2). Results Thirteen studies involving 1579 patients reported the predictive value of NLR on disease severity. The pooled sensitivity (SEN), specificity (SPE) and area under curve (AUC) were 0.78 (95% CI 0.70–0.84), 0.78 (95% CI 0.73–0.83) and 0.85 (95% CI 0.81–0.88), respectively. Ten studies involving 2967 patients reported the predictive value of NLR on mortality. The pooled SEN, SPE and AUC were 0.83 (95% CI 0.75–0.89), 0.83 (95% CI 0.74–0.89) and 0.90 (95% CI 0.87–0.92), respectively. Conclusions NLR has good predictive values on disease severity and mortality in patients with COVID-19 infection. Evaluating NLR can help clinicians identify potentially severe cases early, conduct early triage and initiate effective management in time, which may reduce the overall mortality of COVID-19. Trial registry This meta-analysis was prospectively registered on PROSPERO database (Registration number: CRD42020203612).

BackgroundRegional citrate or heparin is often prescribed as an anticoagulant for continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT). However, their efficacy and safety remain controversial. Therefore, we performed this meta-analysis to compare these two agents and to determine whether the currently available evidence is sufficient and conclusive by using trial sequential analysis (TSA).MethodsWe searched for relevant studies in PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library databases and the China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) Database from database inception until September 2015. We selected randomized controlled trials comparing regional citrate with heparin in adult patients with acute kidney injury (AKI) who were prescribed CRRT.ResultsFourteen trials (n = 1134) met the inclusion criteria. Pooled analyses showed that there was no difference in mortality between the regional citrate and heparin groups (relative risk (RR) 0.97, 95 % confidence interval (CI) 0.84, 1.13, P > 0.05), which was confirmed by TSA. Compared with heparin, regional citrate significantly prolonged the circuit life span in the continuous venovenous haemofiltration (CVVH) subgroup (mean difference (MD) 8.18, 95 % CI 3.86, 12.51, P < 0.01) and pre-dilution subgroup (MD 17.51, 95 % CI 9.85, 25.17, P < 0.01) but not in the continuous venovenous haemodiafiltration (CVVHDF) subgroup (MD 28.60, 95 % CI −3.52, 60.73, P > 0.05) or post-dilution subgroup (MD 13.06, 95 % CI −2.36, 28.48, P > 0.05). However, the results were not confirmed by TSA. A reduced risk of bleeding was found in the regional citrate compared with the systemic heparin group (RR 0.31, 95 % CI 0.19, 0.51, P < 0.01) and TSA provided conclusive evidence. Fewer episodes of heparin-induced thrombocytopoenia (HIT) (RR 0.41, 95 % CI 0.19, 0.87, P = 0.02) and a greater number of episodes of hypocalcaemia (RR 3.96, 95 % CI 1.50, 10.43, P < 0.01) were found in the regional citrate group. However, TSA did not provide conclusive evidence.ConclusionIn adult patients with AKI, there is no difference in mortality between the regional citrate and heparin treated groups. However, regional citrate is more efficacious in prolonging circuit life span and reducing the risk of bleeding and should be recommended as the priority anticoagulant for critically ill patients who require CRRT.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13054-016-1299-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Autophagy is an intracellular catabolic mechanism that maintains the balance of proteins, lipids and aging organelles. 3-Methyladenine (3-MA) is a selective inhibitor of autophagy, whereas rapamycin, an antifungal agent, is a specific inducer of autophagy, inhibiting the protein mammalian target of rapamycin. In the present study, we examined the role of autophagy, inhibited by 3-MA and enhanced by rapamycin, in a model of acute spinal cord injury in rats. We found that rapamycin could significantly increase the expression of microtubule-associated protein 1 light chain 3 (LC3) and Beclin1 at the injury site. At the same time, the number of neurons and astrocytes with LC3 positive in the spinal cord was upregulated with time. In addition, administration of rapamycin produced an increase in the Basso, Beattie and Bresnahan scores of injured rats, indicating high recovery of locomotor function. Furthermore, expression of the proteins Bcl-2 and Bax was upregulated and downregulated, respectively. By contrast, the results for rats treated with 3-MA, which inhibits autophagy, were the opposite of those seen with the rapamycin-treated rats. These results show that induction of autophagy can produce neuroprotective effects in acute spinal cord injury in rats via inhibition of apoptosis.

In Chinese patients, it is strongly recommended to detect NUDT15 genotype rather than TPMT before initiating thiopurine drugs. 6TGN concentration should be routinely monitored in CD patients with NUDT15 wild type. As for CT genotype, starting at low dose and careful monitoring for leukopenia and 6TGN levels is recommended.

BackgroundInfected nonunion of tibia and femur are common in clinical practice, however, the treatment of these diseases has still been a challenge for orthopaedic surgeons. Ilizarov methods can eradicate infection, compensate bone defects and promote the bone union through progressive bone histogenesis. The objective of this systematic review was to review current available studies reporting on Ilizarov methods in the treatment of infected nonunion of tibia and femur, and to perform meta-analysis of bone and functional results and complications to evaluate the efficacy of Ilizarov methods.MethodsA comprehensive literature search was performed from the SCI, PubMed, Cochrane Library; and Embase between January 1995 and August 2015. Some major data were statistically analyzed using weighted means based on the sample size in each study by SPSS 13.0, including number of patients, mean age, mean previous surgical procedures, mean bone defects, mean length of follow-up, bone union, complications per patient, external fixation time, and external fixation index(EFI). Bone results (excellent, good, fair and poor rate), functional results (excellent, good, fair and poor rate) and complications were analyzed by Stata 9.0.FindingsA total of 590 patients from 24 studies were included in this systematic review. The average of bone union rate was 97.26% in all included studies. The poor rate in bone results and functional results was 8% (95%CI, 0.04–0.12; I2 = 44.1%, P = 0.065) and 10% (95%CI, 0.05–0.14; I2 = 34.7%, P = 0.121) in patients with infected nonunion of tibia and femur treated by Ilizarov methods. The rate of refracture, malunion, infectious recurrence, knee stiffness, amputation, limb edema and peroneal nerve palsy was respectively 4%, 7%, 5%, 12%, 4%, 13% and 13%.ConclusionsOur systematic review showed that the patients with infected nonunion of tibia and femur treated by Ilizarov methods had a low rate of poor bone and functional results. Therefore, Ilizarov methods may be a good choice for the treatment of infected nonunion of tibia and femur.

No abstract

EEN is effective in inducing early clinical remission, mucosal healing, promoting fistula closure and reducing the size of abscess in adult CD patients with complications.