Patient navigation across the cancer care continuum: An overview of systematic reviews and emerging literature

Patient navigation is a strategy for overcoming barriers to reduce disparities and to improve access and outcomes. The aim of this umbrella review was to identify, critically appraise, synthesize, and present the best available evidence to inform policy and planning regarding patient navigation across the cancer continuum. Systematic reviews examining navigation in cancer care were identified in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), PubMed, Embase, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health (CINAHL), Epistemonikos, and Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) databases and in the gray literature from January 1, 2012, to April 19, 2022. Data were screened, extracted, and appraised independently by two authors. The JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist for Systematic Review and Research Syntheses was used for quality appraisal. Emerging literature up to May 25, 2022, was also explored to capture primary research published beyond the coverage of included systematic reviews. Of the 2062 unique records identified, 61 systematic reviews were included. Fifty-four reviews were quantitative or mixed-methods reviews, reporting on the effectiveness of cancer patient navigation, including 12 reviews reporting costs or cost-effectiveness outcomes. Seven qualitative reviews explored navigation needs, barriers, and experiences. In addition, 53 primary studies published since 2021 were included. Patient navigation is effective in improving participation in cancer screening and reducing the time from screening to diagnosis and from diagnosis to treatment initiation. Emerging evidence suggests that patient navigation improves quality of life and patient satisfaction with care in the survivorship phase and reduces hospital readmission in the active treatment and survivorship care phases. Palliative care data were extremely limited. Economic evaluations from the United States suggest the potential cost-effectiveness of navigation in screening programs.     

Orientation and mobility outcome measures

Despite orientation and mobility (O&M) being a significant factor determining quality of life of people with low vision or blindness, there are no gold standard measures or agreement on how to measure O&M performance. In the first part of this systematic review, an inventory of O&M outcome measures used by recent studies to assess the performance of orientation and/or mobility of adults with vision impairment (low vision and blindness) is presented. A wide variety of O&M outcome measures have been implemented in different fields of study, such as epidemiologic research and interventional studies evaluating training, assistive technology, vision rehabilitation and vision restoration. The most frequent aspect of outcome measures is efficiency such as time, distance, speed and percentage of preferred walking speed, followed by obstacle contacts and avoidance, and dis/orientation and veering. Other less commonly used aspects are target identification, safety and social interaction and self-reported outcome measures. Some studies employ sophisticated equipment to capture and analyse O&M performance in a laboratory setting, while others carry out their assessment in real-world indoor or outdoor environments. In the second part of this review, the appropriateness of implementing the identified outcome measures to assess O&M performance in clinical and functional O&M practice is evaluated. Nearly a half of these outcome measures meet all four criteria of face validity (either clinical or functional), responsiveness, reliability and feasibility and have the potential to be implemented in clinical or functional O&M practice. The findings of this review confirm the complicated and dynamic nature of O&M. Multiple measures are required in any evaluation of O&M performance to facilitate holistic assessment of O&M abilities and limitations of each individual.     

miR-149与肿瘤关系的研究进展

miRNAs是一类长度约为20~25个核苷酸，参与基因调控表达的内源性非编码RNA。miR-149作为miRNAs的重要成员，在多种肿瘤中表达异常，其表达水平与肿瘤细胞增殖、转移、凋亡、耐药、患者的早期诊断及预后密切相关。因此，miR-149有望成为新一类抗肿瘤治疗的靶点。     

学龄期近视进展儿童调节功能的客观检查和分析

目的　对学龄期近视进展儿童进行调节功能的客观检查与分析，观察调节功能与近视进展之间的相关性。方法　选取2017年至2018年在首都医科大学附属北京同仁医院视光学门诊定期就诊的71名学龄期儿童为研究对象，根据受试者近年的屈光度进展速度，按≤0.50 D·a^-1、>0.50~1.00 D·a^-1、>1.00~1.50 D·a^-1、>1.50 D·a^-1分为4组，使用人眼调节分析仪对受试者进行调节功能的客观测量与分析，记录不同调节刺激视标下4组的客观调节反应值和客观调节微波动值，并作对比。结果　在所有调节视标上，各组随着调节刺激幅度增加，客观调节反应值也逐渐增加，4组在不同调节刺激视标下的客观调节反应值及平均的客观调节反应值差异均无统计学意义（均为P＞0.05）。≤0.50 D·a^-1、>0.50~1.00 D·a^-1、>1.00~1.50 D·a^-1、>1.50 D·a^-1近视进展速度组调节微波动值分别为（62.2±5.6）D、（62.5±5.3）D、（66.5±6.0）D和（58.0±6.5）D，4组间差异有统计学意义（F=6.424，P=0.001），在+0.50~-0.50 D、-2.00 D调节刺激视标下，4组的客观调节微波动值比较差异均有统计学意义（均为P＜0.05），在其余调节刺激视标下差异均无统计学意义（均为P＞0.05）。结论　对于学龄期儿童的近视进展速度，客观调节微波动值相对于客观调节反应值可能是一个更为敏感的相关指标。     

Severe lumbar spinal stenosis combined with Guillain-Barré syndrome: A case report

BACKGROUNDGuillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) is a rare disorder that typically presents with ascending weakness, pain, paraesthesias, and numbness, which mimic the findings in lumbar spinal stenosis. Here, we report a case of severe lumbar spinal stenosis combined with GBS.CASE SUMMARYA 70-year-old man with a history of lumbar spinal stenosis presented to our emergency department with severe lower back pain and lower extremity numbness. Magnetic resonance imaging confirmed the diagnosis of severe lumbar spinal stenosis. However, his symptoms did not improve postoperatively and he developed dysphagia and upper extremity numbness. An electromyogram was performed. Based on his symptoms, physical examination, and electromyogram, he was diagnosed with GBS. After 5 d of intravenous immunoglobulin (0.4 g/kg/d for 5 d) therapy, he gained 4/5 of strength in his upper and lower extremities and denied paraesthesias. He had regained 5/5 of strength in his extremities when he was discharged and had no symptoms during follow-up.CONCLUSIONGBS should be considered in the differential diagnosis of spinal disorder, even though magnetic resonance imaging shows severe lumbar spinal stenosis. This case highlights the importance of a careful diagnosis when a patient has a history of a disease and comes to the hospital with the same or similar symptoms.     

Comparison of outcomes between minimally invasive and median sternotomy for double and triple valve surgery: A meta-analysis

Background

Limited data exists demonstrating the efficacy of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) compared to median sternotomy (MS) for multiple valvular disease (MVD). This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to compare operative and peri-operative outcomes of MIS vs MS in MVD.

Methods

PubMed, Ovid, and Embase were searched from inception until August 2019 for randomized and observational studies comparing MIS and MS in patients with MVD. Clinical outcomes of intra- and postoperative times, reoperation for bleeding and surgical site infection were evaluated.

Results

Five observational studies comparing 340 MIS vs 414 MS patients were eligible for qualitative and quantitative review. The quality of evidence assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale was good for all included studies. Meta-analysis demonstrated increased cardiopulmonary bypass time for MIS patients (weighted mean difference [WMD], 0.487; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.365-0.608; P < .0001). Similarly, aortic cross-clamp time was longer in patients undergoing MIS (WMD, 0.632; 95% CI, 0.509-0.755; P < .0001). No differences were found in operative mortality, reoperation for bleeding, surgical site infection, or hospital stay.

Conclusions

MIS for MVD have similar short-term outcomes compared to MS. This adds value to the use of minimally invasive methods for multivalvular surgery, despite conferring longer operative times. However, the paucity in literature and learning curve associated with MIS warrants further evidence, ideally randomized control trials, to support these findings.