No abstract

Background Robot-assisted surgery is increasingly adopted in colorectal surgery. However, evidence for the implementation of robot-assisted surgery for colon cancer is sparse. This study aims to evaluate the short-term outcomes of robot-assisted colon surgery (RCS) for cancer compared to laparoscopic colon surgery (LCS). Methods Embase, MEDLINE, and Cochrane Library were searched between January 1, 2005 and October 2, 2020. Randomized clinical trials and observational studies were included. Non-original literature was excluded. Primary endpoints were anastomotic leakage rate, conversion to open surgery, operative time, and length of hospital stay. Secondary endpoints were surgical efficacy and postoperative morbidity. We evaluated risk of bias using RoB2 and ROBINS-I quality assessment tools. We performed a pooled analysis of primary and secondary endpoints. Heterogeneity was assessed by I2, and possible causes were explored by sensitivity- and meta-regression analyses. Publication bias was evaluated by Funnel plots and Eggers linear regression test. The level of evidence was assessed by GRADE. Results Twenty studies enrolling 13,799 patients (RCS 1740 (12.6%) and LCS 12,059 (87.4%) were included in the meta-analysis that demonstrated RCS was superior regarding: anastomotic leakage (odds ratio (OR) = 0.54, 95% CI [0.32, 0.94]), conversion (OR = 0.31, 95% CI [0.23, 0.41]), overall complication rate (OR = 0.85, 95% CI [0.73, 1.00]) and time to regular diet (MD =  − 0.29, 95% CI [− 0.56, 0.02]). LCS proved to have a shortened operative time compared to RCS (MD = 42.99, 95% CI [28.37, 57.60]). Level of evidence was very low according to GRADE. Conclusion RCS showed advantages in colonic cancer surgery regarding surgical efficacy and morbidity compared to LCS despite a predominant inclusion of non-RCT with serious risk of bias assessment and a very low level of evidence.

Background Targeted antimicrobial treatment is essential to avoid unnecessary use of broad-spectrum antibiotics and antimicrobial resistance. Targeted treatment relies on a precise microbiological diagnosis — in pneumonia, this poses a challenge as the usefulness of Gram stains and cultures is highly dependent on the quality of the sputum sample. This study aims to examine adverse effects and quality of sputum samples obtained by expiratory techniques (forced expiratory technique and sputum induction) compared with tracheal suction. The hypothesis is that expiratory techniques are non-inferior to tracheal suction in obtaining samples from the lower respiratory tract. This statistical analysis plan (SAP) describes the study design, method, and data analysis of the trial to increase transparency, avoid reporting bias or data-driven analysis and increase the study’s reproducibility. Method The design is a pragmatic, non-inferiority, parallel-arm randomized controlled trial including 280 patients admitted with suspected lower respiratory infection to two emergency departments. Patients are randomized to a usual care group, where sputum samples are collected by tracheal suction or to an intervention group where sputum samples are collected by forced expiratory technique and sputum induction. The statistical analysis will follow an intention-to-treat protocol. This SAP is developed and submitted before the end of recruitment, database closure, and statistical analyses. Discussion The results of this study will provide valuable knowledge to clinical practice by comparing adverse effects and sputum sample quality associated with different sample methods. Trial registration Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT04595526. Submitted on October 19, 2020

Objective To examine prospectively self-reported flare characteristics and their longitudinal association with disease activity and patient-reported outcomes (PRO) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Methods Consecutive RA patients with 28-joint count Disease Activity Score based on C-reactive protein (DAS28-CRP) < 3.2 and no swollen joints were examined at baseline, Month 6, and Month 12. Assessments included joint counts, DAS28-CRP, visual analog scale–evaluator’s global assessment (EGA), and PRO. Every third month, patients completed the Flare Assessment in Rheumatoid Arthritis and RA Flare Questionnaire, and disclosed self-management strategies. Flaring and non-flaring patients were compared and longitudinal associations between self-reported flare status (yes/no) and disease activity, PRO, and treatment escalation were explored. Results Among 80 patients with RA [74% females, mean (SD) age 63 (10) yrs, disease duration 11 (7) yrs, and baseline DAS28-CRP 1.9 (0.6)], 64 (80%) reported flare at least once during 12 months. Fifty‑five percent of flares lasted less than 1 week. Common self-management strategies were analgesics (50%) and restricted activities (38%). Patients who reported being in flare had consistently higher disease activity measures and PRO compared to patients without flare. In a partly adjusted model, all flare domains, patient-reported swollen and tender joint counts and disease activity measures were associated with flares. In fully adjusted analyses, present flare was independently associated with pain (OR 1.85, 95% CI 1.34–2.60), patient-reported swollen joints (OR 1.18, 95% CI 1.03–1.36), and higher EGA (OR 1.15, 95% CI 1.04–1.28). Treatment escalation was associated with present flare (p ≤ 0.001). Conclusion In RA, self-reported flares were frequent, mainly managed by analgesics, substantiated by higher disease activity measures, independently associated with pain and patient-reported swollen joints, and related to treatment escalation.

No abstract