Glycaemic control for patients with severe acute brain injury: Protocol for a systematic review

Background

Hyperglycaemia is common in patients with acute brain injury admitted to an intensive care unit (ICU). Many studies have found associations between development of hyperglycaemia and increased mortality in hospitalised patients. However, the optimal target for blood glucose control is unknown. We want to conduct a systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis to explore the beneficial and harmful effects of restrictive versus liberal glucose control on patient outcomes in adults with severe acute brain injury.

Methods

We will systematically search medical databases including CENTRAL, Embase, MEDLINE and trial registries. We will search the following websites for ongoing or unpublished trials: http://www.controlled-trials.com/ , http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ , www.eudraCT.com , http://centerwatch.com/ , The Cochrane Library's CENTRAL, PubMed, EMBASE, Science Citation Index Expanded and CINAHL. Two authors will independently review and select trials and extract data. We will include randomised trials comparing levels of glucose control in our analyses and observational studies will be included to address potential harms. The primary outcomes are defined as all-cause mortality, functional outcome and health-related quality of life. Secondary outcomes include serious adverse events including hypoglycaemia, length of ICU stay and duration of mechanical ventilation, and explorative outcomes including intracranial pressure and infection. Trial Sequential Analysis will be used to investigate the risk of type I error due to repetitive testing and to further explore imprecision. Quality of trials will be evaluated using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool, and quality of evidence will be assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) approach.

Discussion

The results of the systematic review will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publication. With the review, we hope to inform future randomised clinical trials and improve clinical practice.     

The current status of surgical pilonidal sinus disease therapy in Germany

European Surgery - Treatment of pilonidal sinus disease (PSD) requires a tailored approach. A national guideline was published in 2014. The current status of surgical PSD therapy...     

Retrograde inspection vs standard forward view for the detection of colorectal adenomas during colonoscopy: A back-to-back randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND The adenoma detection rate(ADR) is inversely associated with the incidence of interval colorectal cancer and serves as a benchmark quality criterion during screening colonoscopy. However, adenoma miss rates reach up to 26% and studies have shown that a second inspection of the right colon in retroflected view(RFV) can increase ADR.AIM To assess whether inspection of the whole colon in RFV compared to standard forward view(SFV) can increase ADR.METHODS Patients presenting for screening or surveillance colonoscopy were invited to participate in this randomized controlled trial and randomized into two arms. In RFV arm colonoscopy was initially performed with SFV, followed by a second inspection of the whole colon in RFV. In the SFV arm first withdrawal was performed with SFV, followed by a second inspection of the whole colon again with SFV. Number, size and morphology of polyps found during first and second inspection in each colonic segment were recorded and all polyps were removed and sent for histopathology in separate containers.RESULTS Two hundred and five patients were randomly assigned to the RFV(n = 101) and SFV(n = 104) arm. In the RFV arm, both polyp detection rate(PDR) and ADR were increased under second inspection in RFV(PDR 1~(st) SFV: 39.8%, PDR 2~(nd)RFV: 46.6%; ADR 1~(st) SFV: 35.2%, ADR 2~(nd) RFV: 42%). Likewise, in the SFV arm,PDR and ADR were increased under second inspection(PDR 1~(st) SFV: 37.5%, PDR 2~(nd) SFV: 46.6%; ADR 1~(st) SFV: 34.1%, ADR 2~(nd)SFV: 44.3%) with no significant differences in ADR and PDR between the SFV and RFV arm. Mean number of adenomas per patient(APP) was increased in the RFV and SFV(APP RFV arm: 1~(st) SFV: 1.71; 2~(nd) RFV: 2.38; APP SFV arm: 1~(st) SFV: 1.83, 2~(nd)SFV:2.2). The majority of adenomas additionally found during second inspection in RFV or in SFV were located in the transverse and left-sided colon and were 5 mm in size.CONCLUSION Second inspection of the whole colon leads to increased adenoma detection with no differences between SFV and RFV. Hence, increased detection is most likely a feature of the second inspection itself but not of the inspection mode.