The Optimal Primary Treatment for Pediatric Perianal Abscess and Anal Fistula: A Systemic Review and Meta-Analysis

BackgroundPerianal abscesses and anal fistulas are common. The principle of intention-to-treat has not been considered in previous systemic reviews. Thus, the comparison between primary and post-recurrence management was confused, and the recommendation of primary treatment is obscure. The current study aims to identify the optimal initial treatment for pediatric patients.MethodsUsing PRISMA guidelines, studies were identified from MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar without any language or study design restriction. The inclusion criteria include original articles or articles with original data, studies of management for a perianal abscess with or without anal fistula, and patient age of <18 years. Patients with local malignancy, Crohn's disease, or other underlying predisposing conditions were excluded. Studies without analyzing recurrence, case series of <5, and irrelevant articles were excluded in the screening stage. Of the 124 screened articles, 14 articles had no full texts or detailed information. Articles written in a language other than English or Mandarin were translated by Google Translation first and confirmed with native speakers. After the eligibility process, studies that compared identified primary managements were then included in the qualitative synthesis.ResultsThirty-one studies involving 2507 pediatric patients met the inclusion criteria. The study design consisted of two prospective case series of 47 patients and retrospective cohort studies. No randomized control trials were identified. Meta-analyses for recurrence after initial management were performed with a random-effects model. Conservative treatment and drainage revealed no difference (Odds ratio [OR], 1.222; 95% Confidential interval [CI]: 0.615–2.427, p = 0.567). Conservative management had a higher risk of recurrence than surgery without statistical significance (OR 0.278, 95% CI: 0.109–0.707, p = 0.007). Compared with incision/drainage, surgery can prevent recurrence remarkably (OR 4.360, 95% CI: 1.761–10.792, p = 0.001). Subgroup analysis of different approaches within conservative treatment and operation was not performed for lacking information.ConclusionStrong recommendations cannot be made due to the lack of prospective or randomized controlled studies. However, the current study based on real primary management supports initial surgical intervention for pediatric patients with perianal abscesses and anal fistula to prevent recurrence.Level of evidenceType of study: Systemic review; Evidence level: Level II.     

Out of the boxes,out of the silos: The need of interdisciplinary collaboration to reduce poor-quality medical products in the supply chain

In this paper, we argue that understanding and addressing the problem of poor-quality medical products requires a more interdisciplinary approach than has been evident to date. While prospective studies based on rigorous standardized methodologies are the gold standard for measuring the prevalence of poor-quality medical products and understanding their distribution nationally and internationally, they should be complemented by social science research to unpack the complex set of social, economic, and governance factors that underlie these patterns. In the following sections, we discuss specific examples of prospective quality surveys and of social science studies, highlighting the value of cross-sector partnerships in driving high-quality, policy-relevant research in this area.     

Advanced vaccinology training globally: Update and impact of the COVID-19 crisis

The rapid development of innovations and new technologies, the focus on the life-course approach to immunization and equity, and the prevalent hesitancy towards vaccines requires immunization staff to be well-trained and updated regularly in order to deliver quality immunization services to the public. The need for advanced vaccinology training is therefore paramount. In preparation for a second Global Workshop on Advanced Vaccinology Training that took place in March 2022, this paper presents the results of a survey aiming to provide a thorough update of a landscape analysis on advanced vaccinology courses conducted in 2018 and a look at the impact of the COVID-19 crisis. Thirty-three course organizers responded to a survey to provide information on their respective course. Of those, 17 courses are short courses, 11 post-graduate courses and 5 are Master level courses. Most courses are organized on an annual basis. Even though some courses were not sustained overtime, the number of courses has been increasing during the last few years, and at least one vaccinology course is now being offered in each WHO region. Although the training capacity has increased tremendously, the need still exceeds the capacity and many courses have way more applicants than they can select. The most frequent challenges reported included sustainable funding and identifying faculty. The COVID-19 pandemic impacted the delivery of several vaccinology courses, which have been postponed or reformatted to an online or hybrid training event. An e-portal of the global collaboration has been established to facilitate communication between the different courses and to assist future course participants to identify the most suitable course for their needs.     

European consensus on patient contact shielding

Patient contact shielding has been in use for many years in radiology departments in order to reduce the effects and risks of ionising radiation on certain organs. New technologies in projection imaging and CT scanning such as digital receptors and automatic exposure control (AEC) systems have reduced doses and improved image consistency. These changes and a greater understanding of both the benefits and the risks from the use of shielding have led to a review of shielding use in radiology. A number of professional bodies have already issued guidance in this regard. This paper represents the current consensus view of the main bodies involved in radiation safety and imaging in Europe: European Federation of Organisations for Medical Physics, European Federation of Radiographer Societies, European Society of Radiology, European Society of Paediatric Radiology, EuroSafe Imaging, European Radiation Dosimetry Group (EURADOS), and European Academy of DentoMaxilloFacial Radiology (EADMFR). It is based on the expert recommendations of the Gonad and Patient Shielding (GAPS) Group formed with the purpose of developing consensus in this area. The recommendations are intended to be clear and easy to use. They are intended as guidance, and they are developed using a multidisciplinary team approach. It is recognised that regulations, custom and practice vary widely on the use of patient shielding in Europe and it is hoped that these recommendations will inform a change management program that will benefit patients and staff.