Asunto(s)

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Acquired hearing loss is common and its incidence increases markedly with age. In most people, 'age-related' hearing loss is sensorineural (due to the loss of cochlear hair cells) and bilateral, affecting both ears to the same degree. Hearing loss categorised as mild, moderate or severe is primarily managed with hearing aids. People with bilateral hearing loss may be offered one aid, fitted to one specific ear, or two aids fitted to both ears. There is uncertainty about the relative benefits to people with hearing loss of these different strategies. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of bilateral versus unilateral hearing aids in adults with a bilateral hearing impairment. SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane ENT Information Specialist searched the ENT Trials Register; Cochrane Register of Studies Online; PubMed; Ovid Embase; CINAHL; Web of Science; ClinicalTrials.gov; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the search was 8 June 2017. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the fitting of two versus one ear-level acoustic hearing aids in adults (over 18 years) with a bilateral hearing impairment, both ears being eligible for hearing aids. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Our primary outcomes were patient preference for bilateral or unilateral aids, hearing-specific health-related quality of life and adverse effects (pain or discomfort in the ear, initiation or exacerbation of middle or outer ear infection). Secondary outcomes included: usage of hearing aids (as measured by, for example, data logging or battery consumption), generic health-related quality of life, listening ability and audiometric benefit measured as binaural loudness summation. We used GRADE to assess the quality of the evidence for each outcome; this is indicated in italics. MAIN RESULTS: We included four cross-over RCTs with a total of 209 participants, ranging in age from 23 to 85 and with a preponderance of men. All the studies allowed the use of hearing aids for a total period of at least eight weeks before questions on preference were asked. All studies recruited patients with bilateral hearing loss but there was considerable variation in the types and degree of sensorineural hearing loss that the participants were experiencing.Three of the studies were published before the mid-1990s whereas the fourth study was published in 2011. Therefore, only the most recent study used hearing aids incorporating technology comparable to that currently readily available in high-income settings. Of the four studies, two were conducted in the UK in National Health Service (NHS - public sector) patients: one recruited patients from primary care with hearing loss detected by a screening programme whereas the other recruited patients who had been referred by their primary care practitioner to an otolaryngology department for hearing aids. The other two studies were conducted in the United States: one study recruited only military personnel or veterans with noise-induced hearing loss whereas about half of the participants in the other study were veterans.Only one primary outcome (patient preference) was reported in all studies. The percentage of patients who preferred bilateral hearing aids varied between studies: this was 54% (51 out of 94 participants), 39% (22 out of 56), 55% (16 out of 29) and 77% (23 out of 30), respectively. We have not combined the data from these four studies. The evidence for this outcome is of very low quality.The other outcomes of interest were not reported in the included studies. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review identified only four studies comparing the use of one hearing aid with two. The studies were small and included participants of widely varying ages. There was also considerable variation in the types and degree of sensorineural hearing loss that the participants were experiencing.For the most part, the types of hearing aid evaluated would now be regarded, in high-income settings, as 'old technology', with only one study looking at 'modern' digital aids. However, the relevance of this is uncertain, as this review did not evaluate the differences in outcomes between the different types of technology.We were unable to pool data from the four studies and the very low quality of the evidence leads us to conclude that we do not know if people with hearing loss have a preference for one aid or two. Similarly, we do not know if hearing-specific health-related quality of life, or any of our other outcomes, are better with bilateral or unilateral aids.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Hip fracture is a prevalent age-associated occurrence incorporating both medical and surgical need and a major challenge to public health and NHS resources. Effective management requires coordinated collaboration across specialties, professions and services. This concise guideline focuses on interdisciplinary aspects of hip fracture management abstracted from National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) clinical guideline (CG124), including the concept and implementation of the Hip Fracture Programme, detection and management of comorbidity and delirium, optimal analgesia, timing of surgery, multidisciplinary mobilisation, rehabilitation and hospital discharge. The recently updated National Hip Fracture Database report and NICE quality standard are potential drivers for progress.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Acute kidney injury (AKI) is a common syndrome that is independently associated with increased mortality. A standardized definition is important to facilitate clinical care and research. The definition of AKI has evolved rapidly since 2004, with the introduction of the Risk, Injury, Failure, Loss, and End-stage renal disease (RIFLE), AKI Network (AKIN), and Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) classifications. RIFLE was modified for pediatric use (pRIFLE). They were developed using both evidence and consensus. Small rises in serum creatinine are independently associated with increased mortality, and hence are incorporated into the current definition of AKI. The recent definition from the international KDIGO guideline merged RIFLE and AKIN. Systematic review has found that these definitions do not differ significantly in their performance. Health-care staff caring for children or adults should use standard criteria for AKI, such as the pRIFLE or KDIGO definitions, respectively. These efforts to standardize AKI definition are a substantial advance, although areas of uncertainty remain. The new definitions have enabled the use of electronic alerts to warn clinicians of possible AKI. Novel biomarkers may further refine the definition of AKI, but their use will need to produce tangible improvements in outcomes and cost effectiveness. Further developments in AKI definitions should be informed by research into their practical application across health-care providers. This review will discuss the definition of AKI and its use in practice for clinicians and laboratory scientists.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Acute kidney injury (AKI) is considered a silent disease that commonly occurs in patients with acute illness; however, given that it has few specific symptoms and signs in its early stages, detection can be delayed. AKI can also occur in patients with no obvious acute illness or secondary to more rare causes. In both these scenarios, patients are often under the care of specialists outside of nephrology, who might fail to detect that AKI is developing and might not be familiar with its optimum management. Therefore, there is a need to increase the awareness of AKI among many different healthcare specialists. In this article, we summarise the key recommendations from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) AKI guideline. The guideline provides recommendations for adult and paediatric patients on the prevention, early detection and management of AKI, as well as information on AKI and sources of support. Implementation of this guideline will contribute to improving patient safety and saving lives.

Asunto(s)

Asunto(s)

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

The aetiology of schizophrenia is complex and the pathological mechanisms involved are still not fully understood. The aim of this project was to gain insight into the underlying molecular changes occurring in schizophrenia through the analysis of gene expression. Using suppression subtractive hybridization to isolate differentially expressed genes in superior temporal cortex (BA22), we detected one prominent sequence with reduced expression in schizophrenia and represented in at least nine clones. This was then selected for further validation. This 190-bp partial transcript showed identity to part of the Dickkopf-3 (Dkk3) gene sequence. Differential expression was initially confirmed in BA22 by slot blot hybridization where expression was decreased by 35% (p < 0.026). These results were further authenticated in a larger panel (12 control and 11 schizophrenia cases) using SYBR Green I real-time quantitative RT-PCR, in which a 41% decrease in expression of Dkk3 mRNA in schizophrenia was obtained (p < 0.012). Furthermore, using in situ hybridization, Dkk3 mRNA was shown to be abundantly expressed in cortical neurones, with prominent expression in layers II/III and V/VI of BA22. Dkk3 belongs to a novel family of Dkk proteins, which have been shown to be potent inhibitors of the neurodevelopmental wingless (Wnt) signalling pathway, and is therefore a putative candidate for further investigation into the aetiology of schizophrenia.

Asunto(s)