Endocardial/epicardial versus endocardial encircling cryoablation for ventricular tachycardia: A randomized trial

1. Download : Download high-res image (115KB)
2. Download : Download full-size image

     

A Type 1 diabetes technology pathway: consensus statement for the use of technology in Type 1 diabetes

In both adults and children with diabetes, technologies such as continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion using insulin pumps and continuous glucose monitoring can help improve diabetes control, reduce hypoglycaemia and improve quality of life. Access to these technologies in the UK is very variable. Some technologies are recommended by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, while others have not been appraised, and new technologies are emerging all the time. Additionally, different guidelines for adults and children further complicate access to diabetes technology in the transition from paediatric to adult care. Against this background, Diabetes UK and NHS England have brought together a multidisciplinary group of experts, including clinicians and people with diabetes, to develop this consensus guideline, combining the different technologies into a common pathway to aid clinical and policy decision‐making. We created a pathway that supports the incremental addition of technology as monotherapy and then dual therapy in the same way that we incrementally add in therapeutic agents to support people with Type 2 diabetes to achieve their personalized glycaemic targets. The pathway emphasizes the importance of structured education, specialist support and appropriate access to psychological therapies, as essential pillars for optimized use of diabetes‐related technology, and recommends the re‐evaluation of its use when the individual is unable either to use the technology appropriately or to achieve the intended outcomes. This pathway is endorsed by UK‐wide clinical and patient associations and we recommend that providers and commissioners use it to ensure the right individual with diabetes has access to the right technology in a timely way to help achieve better outcomes.     

A randomized clinical trial comparing non-thrust manipulation with segmental and distal dry needling on pain,disability, and rate of recovery for patients with non-specific low back pain

ABSTRACT

Objective: The purpose of this study was to examine the within and between-group effects of segmental and distal dry needling (DN) without needle manipulation to a semi-standardized non-thrust manipulation (NTM) targeting the symptomatic spinal level for patients with non-specific low back pain (NSLBP).

Methods: Sixty-five patients with NSLBP were randomized to receive either DN (n = 30) or NTM (n = 35) for six sessions over 3 weeks. Outcomes collected included the oswestry disability index (ODI), patient specific functional scale (PSFS), numeric pain rating scale (NPRS), and pain pressure thresholds (PPT). At discharge, patients perceived recovery was assessed.

Results: A two-way mixed model ANOVA demonstrated that there was no group*time interaction for PSFS (p = 0.26), ODI (p = 0.57), NPRS (p = 0.69), and PPT (p = 0.51). There was significant within group effects for PSFS (3.1 [2.4, 3.8], p = 0.018), ODI (14.5% [10.0%, 19.0%], p = 0.015), NPRS (2.2 [1.5, 2.8], p = 0.009), but not for PPT (3.3 [0.5, 6.0], p = 0.20).

Discussion: The between-group effects were neither clinically nor statistically significant. The within group effects were both significant and exceeded the reported minimum clinically important differences for the outcomes tools except the PPT. DN and NTM produced comparable outcomes in this sample of patients with NSLBP.

Level of evidence: 1b