Treatment of multiple adjacent RT 1 gingival recessions with the modified coronally advanced tunnel (MCAT) technique and a collagen matrix or palatal connective tissue graft: 9-year results of a split-mouth randomized clinical trial

Clinical Oral Investigations - To evaluate t he long-term outcomes following treatment of RT 1 multiple adjacent gingival recessions (MAGR) using the modified coronally advanced tunnel (MCAT) with...     

Opposing patterns in self-reported and measured physical activity levels in middle-aged adults

Physical activity brings significant health benefits to middle-aged adults, although the research to date has been focused on late adulthood. This study aims to examine how ageing affects the self-reported and accelerometer-derived measures of physical activity levels in middle-aged adults. We employed the data recorded in the UK Biobank and analysed the physical activity levels of 2,998 participants (1381 men and 1617 women), based on self-completion questionnaire and accelerometry measurement of physical activity. We also assessed the musculoskeletal health of the participants using the dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) measurements provided by the UK Biobank. Participants were categorised into three groups according to their age: group I younger middle-aged (40 to 49 years), group II older middle-aged (50 to 59 years), and group III oldest middle-aged (60 to 69 years). Self-reported physical activity level increased with age and was the highest in group III, followed by group II and I (P?<?0.05). On the contrary, physical activity measured by accelerometry decreased significantly with age from group I to III (P?<?0.05), and the same pertained to the measurements of musculoskeletal health (P?<?0.05). It was also shown that middle-aged adults mostly engaged in low and moderate intensity activities. The opposing trends of the self-reported and measured physical activity levels may suggest that middle-aged adults over-report their activity level as they age. They should be aware of the difference between their perceived and actual physical activity levels, and objective measures would be useful to prevent the decline in musculoskeletal health.

     

Update PONV – Was gibt es Neues bei der Prophylaxe und Therapie von postoperativer Übelkeit und postoperativem Erbrechen?

Die Anaesthesiologie - Auch wenn für Anästhesiologen über Jahrzehnte die Prophylaxe und Therapie postoperativer Schmerzen im Rahmen des postoperativen Patientenkomforts an vorderster...     

A systematic review of the methodological quality of economic evaluations in genetic screening and testing for monogenic disorders

PurposeUnderstanding the value of genetic screening and testing for monogenic disorders requires high-quality, methodologically robust economic evaluations. This systematic review sought to assess the methodological quality among such studies and examined opportunities for improvement.MethodsWe searched PubMed, Cochrane, Embase, and Web of Science for economic evaluations of genetic screening/testing (2013-2019). Methodological rigor and adherence to best practices were systematically assessed using the British Medical Journal checklist.ResultsAcross the 47 identified studies, there were substantial variations in modeling approaches, reporting detail, and sophistication. Models ranged from simple decision trees to individual-level microsimulations that compared between 2 and >20 alternative interventions. Many studies failed to report sufficient detail to enable replication or did not justify modeling assumptions, especially for costing methods and utility values. Meta-analyses, systematic reviews, or calibration were rarely used to derive parameter estimates. Nearly all studies conducted some sensitivity analysis, and more sophisticated studies implemented probabilistic sensitivity/uncertainty analysis, threshold analysis, and value of information analysis.ConclusionWe describe a heterogeneous body of work and present recommendations and exemplar studies across the methodological domains of (1) perspective, scope, and parameter selection; (2) use of uncertainty/sensitivity analyses; and (3) reporting transparency for improvement in the economic evaluation of genetic screening/testing.