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...     

Praxis der perioperativen Prävention von Phantomschmerz: eine deutschlandweite Umfrage

Die Anaesthesiologie - Phantomschmerzen haben eine hohe Prävalenz nach Majoramputationen und sind mit einer zusätzlichen Einschränkung der Lebensqualität verbunden....     

浅论中医学对胰腺实体解剖的认知过程

中医学古籍中罕有关于“胰腺”的明确记载，缺乏直观、系统的理论论述。本文试图通过对各个时期具有代表性的医学典籍所记载内容的分析，结合现代解剖学相关理论，梳理中医学对胰腺实体解剖的认识过程。通过分析，笔者认为中医学对胰腺实体解剖的认识具有阶段性：①先秦两汉时期，存在胰腺实体解剖，但并非认为胰腺是脏器；②唐宋时期，胰腺实体解剖更加清晰，在医学上胰腺附属于脾，并非为独立的脏器；③明清时期，胰腺实体解剖明确，部分医家以独立脏器论之，出现“脾”、“胰”之争。中医学理论缺少对胰腺的单独论述，目前学界的主流观点多为“胰属脾”，线性归属以脾笼统代之略显单薄，不利于理论的丰富与发展。笔者认为胰腺藏象应独立于脾单独讨论，现代解剖学对胰腺命名同一，形态结构清楚，位置描述明确，可直接补充进中医学胰腺藏象（藏）理论中，为完善胰腺藏象理论搭建解剖学基础。     

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.