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.     

中低度近视FS-LASIK、SMILE及ICL植入术的效果比较

目的比较飞秒激光制瓣准分子激光原位角膜磨镶术(FS-LASIK)、全飞秒激光小切口角膜基质透镜取出术(SMILE)和有晶状体眼后房型人工晶状体(ICL V4c)植入术三者矫正中低度近视的效果。方法采用回顾性研究。以惠州爱尔眼科医院2019年6月至2020年4月矫正中低度近视120例(120眼)作为研究对象,受术者分为FS-LASIK组、SMILE组及ICL组,每组40例(40眼),各组分别接受相应的手术,术后随访3个月比较其矫正效果。结果术后1个月及3个月,3组间视力及有效性指数对比差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);ICL组安全性指数高于SMILE组及FS-LASIK组(P<0.05)。术后3个月FS-LASIK组的三叶草像差、彗差和球差出现明显变化,而SMILE组的变化较小,ICL组变化最小(P<0.05)。结论对中低度近视FS-LASK、SMILE及ICL植入术三者均有确切疗效,而ICL V4c植入术的安全性最高,患者的视觉质量最好。     

Efficacy,immunogenicity, and safety of available vaccines in children on biologics: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Vaccinations are essential for preventing infectious diseases in children with chronic diseases as they have increased risk of infection from frequent use of biologics. Response to immunizations in this group is not well known.ObjectiveA systematic review was performed to evaluate three primary outcomes: efficacy; immunogenicity; and safety of vaccines in children with chronic conditions treated with biologics.MethodsThe protocol for our systematic review and meta-analysis was registered and published with PROSPERO. We searched electronic bibliographic databases for studies published from 2009 to 2019, focusing on vaccinations in children with chronic conditions treated with biologics.ResultsWe retrieved 532 records. Thirty-one full-text articles were selected, and 14 were included in the meta-analysis. No significant publication bias was found. Efficacy: limited data are available regarding the efficacy of vaccination, as most studies have focused on immunogenicity as surrogate outcome for efficacy. Immunogenicity: patients receiving anti-TNF-alpha therapy had a statistically significant risk of poor seroconversion (p = 0.028) and seroprotection by the serotype B influenza vaccine [inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) p = 0.013; juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) p = 0.004]. We found adequate responses with H1N1 and H3N2 serotypes. Few studies existed for pneumococcal, hepatitis A virus, hepatitis B virus, varicella-zoster virus, Measles Mumps Rubella virus, and multiple vaccine administration. Safety: vaccine administration was not associated with serious side effects, but JIA patients on anti-TNF alpha therapy had a statistically significant risk of presenting with myalgia or arthralgia postinfluenza vaccine (p = 0.014).ConclusionsMore evidence concerning efficacy, immunogenicity, and safety of vaccinations is needed to guide physicians in the vaccine decision process for this pediatric population.     

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.