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...     

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...     

北京市三级甲等医院结直肠癌患者就医流向规律分析

目的 分析不同特征的结直肠癌患者就医行为选择在中医院（含中西医结合医院）、西医院及肿瘤专科医院间的差异，为合理引导结直肠癌患者适宜就医及制订相关政策提供依据。方法 收集北京地区2018年1月-2019年12月17家三级甲等医院21894例首诊结直肠癌成年住院患者的病案首页数据，采用EmpowerStats 2.0对数据进行描述性分析。结果 21894例结直肠癌患者中就诊于中医院的有862例（3.93%），西医院的有8723例（39.85%），肿瘤专科医院的有12309例（56.22%）。对于不同医疗机构，男性占比均大于女性，58-68岁患者占比最大。且结直肠癌患者年龄、医疗付款方式及肿瘤分期在不同医疗机构间的分布存在差异（P<0.001）。西医院及肿瘤专科医院结直肠癌Ⅲ期患者占比最大，而就诊于中医院患者中结直肠癌Ⅳ期最多。从地域分布来看，异地就诊比例（57.32%）大于本地，且就诊于肿瘤专科医院的患者中73.66%来自外地。患者来源前三名分别是北京市、河北省及内蒙古自治区。而在北京市内，西医院患者主要来源于朝阳区、海淀区及西城区，中医院患者主要来源于海淀区、朝阳区及丰台区，肿瘤专科医院则主要来源于朝阳区、海淀区及丰台区。结论 应大力倡导年轻以及早期结直肠癌患者向中医院分流，充分施展中医药在结直肠癌患者中的治疗优势；发挥三级医院带动作用，建立对口帮扶医院，减少不必要的跨省流动及提倡结直肠癌的早筛早治，以降低结直肠癌死亡率。     

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.