RESUMO

Introduction: Rheumatoid arthritis is a chronic inflammatory disease diagnosed in a productive stage of life. Patients with RA experience changes in their musculoskeletal system, overall health and quality of life. It has been identified that patients with RA do not have appropriate knowledge about their condition. Educational programs can provide new knowledge, accompaniment, and closer follow-up to improve empowerment and quality of life in patients with RA. Purpose: To describe rheumatoid arthritis patients' experiences, perceptions, and expectations when enrolling on a multicomponent educational program in a specialized RA setting. Patients and Methods: A qualitative study was done. Patients with RA who attended a specialized center and enrolled in an educational program participated in two focus groups. The focus group discussions and the interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim, analyzed, and emerging themes were constructed. Results: Thirty-one participants were included in the focus groups. The median age was 60 years IQR (54-67), 92% were female. Two relevant categories emerged: first, the experience of being diagnosed with RA. Second, the program's ability to empower participants with knowledge and the possibility of transferring knowledge to other patients with the same condition. In addition, patients gave a high score to the expectations regarding the educational program. Conclusion: Understanding patients' expectations when enrolling in an educational program allows educators and clinicians to understand their motivations to create tailored programs that can contribute to acquiring empowerment in the educational process and managing their disease. Stakeholders should consider patients' expectations when implementing these interventions for patients with RA to adapt the intervention according to the patient's context and needs, which will directly affect the patient's adherence and lead to better use and allocation of resources for educational activities.

RESUMO

La rinosinusitis (RS) se define como la inflamación de la nariz y los senos paranasales con dos o más síntomas como bloqueo/obstrucción/congestión o secreción nasal (goteo nasal anterior/posterior) más dolor/presión facial y/o reducción o pérdida del sentido del olfato. Adicional, se tienen en cuenta los hallazgos objetivos como la presencia de pólipos nasales y/o descarga mucopurulenta en meato medio y/o edema u obstrucción de la mucosa en el meato medio en la endoscopia nasal. Se pueden considerar o no, los cambios tomográficos como cambios mucosos en el complejo osteomeatal y la mucosa de los senos paranasales. Se reconoce que los síntomas tienen alta sensibilidad, pero baja especificidad, de ahí la necesidad de hallazgos objetivos.

Rhinosinusitis (RS) is defined as inflammation of the nose and sinuses with two or more symptoms such as blockage/obstruction/congestion or nasal discharge. with two or more symptoms such as nasal blockage/obstruction/congestion or nasal discharge (anterior/posterior runny nose) plus facial pain/pressure and/or reduction or loss of the sense of smell. sense of smell. In addition, objective findings such as the presence of nasal polyps and/or nasal presence of nasal polyps and/or mucopurulent discharge from the middle meatus and/or edema or mucosal obstruction or mucosal obstruction in the middle meatus on nasal endoscopy. Tomographic changes may or may not tomographic changes may or may not be considered as mucosal changes in the osteomeatal complex and mucosal osteomeatal complex and the mucosa of the paranasal sinuses. It is recognized that the symptoms symptoms have high sensitivity but low specificity, hence the need for objective findings. findings.

Assuntos

RESUMO

La rinosinusitis (RS) se define como la inflamación de la nariz y los senos paranasales con dos o más síntomas como bloqueo/obstrucción/congestión o secreción nasal (goteo nasal anterior/posterior) más dolor/presión facial y/o reducción o pérdida del sentido del olfato. Adicional, se tienen en cuenta los hallazgos objetivos como la presencia de pólipos nasales y/o descarga mucopurulenta en meato medio y/o edema u obstrucción de la mucosa en el meato medio en la endoscopia nasal.

Rhinosinusitis (RS) is defined as inflammation of the nose and sinuses with two or more symptoms such as blockage/obstruction/congestion or nasal discharge with two or more symptoms such as nasal blockage/obstruction/congestion or nasal discharge (anterior/posterior runny nose) plus facial pain/pressure and/or reduced or lost sense of smell sense of smell. Additionally, objective findings such as the presence of nasal polyps and/or nasal presence of nasal polyps and/or mucopurulent discharge in the middle meatus and/or edema or mucous or mucosal obstruction in the middle meatus on nasal endoscopy.

Assuntos

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: The common cold is a spontaneously remitting infection of the upper respiratory tract, characterised by a runny nose, nasal congestion, sneezing, cough, malaise, sore throat, and fever (usually < 37.8 ºC). Whilst the common cold is generally not harmful, it is a cause of economic burden due to school and work absenteeism. In the United States, economic loss due to the common cold is estimated at more than USD 40 billion per year, including an estimate of 70 million workdays missed by employees, 189 million school days missed by children, and 126 million workdays missed by parents caring for children with a cold. Additionally, data from Europe show that the total cost per episode may be up to EUR 1102. There is also a large expenditure due to inappropriate antimicrobial prescription. Vaccine development for the common cold has been difficult due to antigenic variability of the common cold viruses; even bacteria can act as infective agents. Uncertainty remains regarding the efficacy and safety of interventions for preventing the common cold in healthy people, thus we performed an update of this Cochrane Review, which was first published in 2011 and updated in 2013 and 2017. OBJECTIVES: To assess the clinical effectiveness and safety of vaccines for preventing the common cold in healthy people. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (April 2022), MEDLINE (1948 to April 2022), Embase (1974 to April 2022), CINAHL (1981 to April 2022), and LILACS (1982 to April 2022). We also searched three trials registers for ongoing studies, and four websites for additional trials (April 2022). We did not impose any language or date restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of any virus vaccine compared with placebo to prevent the common cold in healthy people. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used Cochrane's Screen4Me workflow to assess the initial search results. Four review authors independently performed title and abstract screening to identify potentially relevant studies. We retrieved the full-text articles for those studies deemed potentially relevant, and the review authors independently screened the full-text reports for inclusion in the review, recording reasons for exclusion of the excluded studies. Any disagreements were resolved by discussion or by consulting a third review author when needed. Two review authors independently collected data on a data extraction form, resolving any disagreements by consensus or by involving a third review author. We double-checked data transferred into Review Manager 5 software. Three review authors independently assessed risk of bias using RoB 1 tool as outlined in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. We carried out statistical analysis using Review Manager 5. We did not conduct a meta-analysis, and we did not assess publication bias. We used GRADEpro GDT software to assess the certainty of the evidence and to create a summary of findings table.  MAIN RESULTS: We did not identify any new RCTs for inclusion in this update. This review includes one RCT conducted in 1965 with an overall high risk of bias. The RCT included 2307 healthy young men in a military facility, all of whom were included in the analyses, and compared the effect of three adenovirus vaccines (live, inactivated type 4, and inactivated type 4 and 7) against a placebo (injection of physiological saline or gelatin capsule). There were 13 (1.14%) events in 1139 participants in the vaccine group, and 14 (1.19%) events in 1168 participants in the placebo group. Overall, we do not know if there is a difference between the adenovirus vaccine and placebo in reducing the incidence of the common cold (risk ratio 0.95, 95% confidence interval 0.45 to 2.02; very low-certainty evidence). Furthermore, no difference in adverse events when comparing live vaccine preparation with placebo was reported. We downgraded the certainty of the evidence to very low due to unclear risk of bias, indirectness because the population of this study was only young men, and imprecision because confidence intervals were wide and the number of events was low. The included study did not assess vaccine-related or all-cause mortality.  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This Cochrane Review was based on one study with very low-certainty evidence, which showed that there may be no difference between the adenovirus vaccine and placebo in reducing the incidence of the common cold. We identified a need for well-designed, adequately powered RCTs to investigate vaccines for the common cold in healthy people. Future trials on interventions for preventing the common cold should assess a variety of virus vaccines for this condition, and should measure such outcomes as common cold incidence, vaccine safety, and mortality (all-cause and related to the vaccine).

Assuntos

Assuntos

Assuntos

RESUMO

La leucemia linfocítica crónica (LLC) es una neoplasia caracterizada por la proliferación y acumulación clonal de células B maduras, que típicamente co-expresan los antígenos de superficie CD5 ­ CD23, dentro de la sangre, la médula ósea, los ganglios linfáticos, el bazo y otros tejidos . Esta patología es considerada el tipo de leucemia más común en personas adultas en países occidentales, y se considera una enfermedad de adultos mayores, con una mediana de edad al diagnóstico de 70 años .

Chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) is a neoplasm characterized by the proliferation and clonal accumulation of mature B cells, which typically co-express the CD5 - CD23 surface antigens, within the blood, bone marrow, lymph nodes, spleen and other tissues. This pathology is considered the most common type of leukemia in adults in Western countries, and is considered a disease of older adults, with a median age at diagnosis of 70 years.

Assuntos

RESUMO

La guía está dirigida al personal clínico asistencial especializado que brinda tratamiento a los pacientes con diagnóstico de LLC, en el contexto del SGSSS colombiano. Incluye a los siguientes profesionales potenciales: Hematólogos y Hematólogos-oncólogos. También está dirigida a los centros asistenciales que brindan cuidado a los pacientes con diagnóstico de LLC y a quienes toman decisiones administrativas, tanto en el medio hospitalario como en las aseguradoras, pagadores del gasto en la salud y en la generación de políticas de salud. Finalmente, las recomendaciones pueden ser de interés para pacientes con LLC, sus familiares y cuidadores. Se considera pertinente aclarar que la guía ofrecerá recomendaciones específicas frente a las preguntas definidas, y excede el alcance de esta, definir las competencias profesionales del equipo involucrado en el manejo de esta patología.

The guide is aimed at specialized clinical care personnel who provide treatment to patients diagnosed with CLL, in the context of the Colombian SGSSS. It includes the following potential professionals: hematologists and hematologist-oncologists. It is also addressed to health care centers that provide care to patients diagnosed with CLL and to administrative decision makers, both in the hospital environment and in the insurance companies, health care payers and health policy makers. Finally, the recommendations may be of interest to CLL patients, their families and caregivers. It is considered pertinent to clarify that the guide will offer specific recommendations in response to the questions defined, and it is beyond the scope of this guide to define the professional competencies of the team involved in the management of this pathology.

Assuntos

Assuntos

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Neurosyphilis is an infection of the central nervous system, caused by Treponema pallidum, a spirochete capable of infecting almost any organ or tissue in the body causing neurological complications due to the infection. This disease is a tertiary manifestation of syphilis. The first-line treatment for neurosyphilis is aqueous crystalline penicillin. However, in cases such as penicillin allergy, other regimes of antibiotic therapy can be used. OBJECTIVES: To assess the clinical effectiveness and safety of antibiotic therapy for adults with neurosyphilis. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Library, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and Opengrey up to April 2019. We also searched proceedings of eight congresses to a maximum of 10 years, and we contacted trial authors for additional information. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised clinical trials that included men and women, regardless of age, with definitive diagnoses of neurosyphilis, including HIV-seropositive patients. We compared any antibiotic regime (concentration, dose, frequency, duration), compared to any other antibiotic regime for the treatment for neurosyphilis in adults. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected eligible trials, extracted data, and evaluated risk of bias. We resolved disagreements by involving a third review author. For dichotomous data (serological cure, clinical cure, adverse events), we presented results as summary risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We assessed the quality of evidence using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: We identified one trial, with 36 participants​ diagnosed ​with syphilis and HIV. The participants were mainly men, with a median age of 34 years. This trial, ​funded by a pharmaceutical company, compared ceftriaxone in 18 participants (2 g daily for 10 days), with penicillin G, also in 18 participants (4 million/Units (MU)/intravenous (IV) every 4 hours for 10 days). The trial reported incomplete and inconclusive results. Three of 18 (16%) participants receiving ceftriaxone versus 2 of 18 (11%) receiving penicillin G achieved serological cure (RR 1.50; 95% CI: 0.28 to 7.93; 1 trial, 36 participants very low-quality evidence); and 8 of 18 (44%) participants receiving ceftriaxone versus 2 of 18 (18%) participants receiving penicillin G achieved clinical cure (RR 4.00; 95% CI: 0.98 to 16.30; 1 trial, 36 participants very low-quality evidence). Although more participants who received ceftriaxone achieved serological and clinical cure compared to those who received penicillin G, the evidence from this trial was insufficient to determine whether there was a difference between treatment with ceftriaxone or penicillin G.In this trial, the authors reported what would usually be adverse events as symptoms and signs in the follow-up of participants. Furthermore, this trial did not evaluate recurrence of neurosyphilis, time to recovery nor quality of life. We judged risk of bias in this clinical trial to be unclear for random sequence generation, allocation, ​and blinding of participants, and high for incomplete outcome data, potential conflicts of interest (funding bias), and other bias, due to the lack of a sample size calculation. We rated the quality of evidence as very low. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Due to low quality and insufficient evidence, it was not possible to determine whether there was a difference between treatment with ceftriaxone or Penicillin G. Also, the benefits to people without HIV and neurosyphilis are unknown, as is the ceftriaxone safety profile.Therefore, these results should be interpreted with caution. This conclusion does not mean that antibiotics should not be used for treating this clinical entity. This Cochrane Review has identified the need of adequately powered trials, which should be planned according to Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) recommendations, conducted and reported as recommended by the CONSORT statement. Furthermore, the outcomes should be based on patients' perspectives taking into account Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) recommendations.

Assuntos

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Leukocytes contained in the allogeneic packed red blood cell (PRBC) are the cause of certain adverse reactions associated with blood transfusion. Leukoreduction consists of eliminating leukocytes in all blood products below the established safety levels for any patient type. In this systematic review, we appraise the clinical effectiveness of allogeneic leukodepleted (LD) PRBC transfusion for preventing infections and death in patients undergoing major cardiovascular surgical procedures. METHODS: We searched randomized controlled trials (RCT), enrolling patients undergoing a major cardiovascular surgical procedure and transfused with LD-PRBC. Data were extracted, and risk of bias was assessed according to Cochrane guidelines. In addition, trial sequential analysis (TSA) was used to assess the need of conducting additional trials. Quality of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach. RESULTS: Seven studies met the eligibility criteria. Quality of the evidence was rated as moderate for both outcomes. The risk ratio for death from any cause comparing the LD-PRBC versus non-LD-PRBC group was 0.69 (CI 95% = 0.53 to 0.90; I 2 = 0%). The risk ratio for infection in the same comparison groups was 0.77 (CI 95% = 0.66 to 0.91; I 2 = 0%). TSA showed a conclusive result in this outcome. CONCLUSIONS: We found evidence that supports the routine use of leukodepletion in patients undergoing a major cardiovascular surgical procedure requiring PRBC transfusion to prevent death and infection. In the case of infection, the evidence should be considered sufficient and conclusive and hence indicated that further trials would not be required.

RESUMO

Few Orthopaedics and Traumatology journals from Latin America and Spain are indexed in major databases; controlled clinical trials published in these journals cannot be exhaustively retrieved using electronic literature searches. We aimed to identify, describe and assess the quality of controlled clinical trials published in Orthopaedics and Traumatology journals from Latin America and Spain through handsearching and evidence mapping methods. We identified controlled clinical trials published in eligible Orthopaedics/Traumatology journals in Spanish until July 2017 by handsearching. Data were extracted for controlled clinical trials main characteristics and the Cochrane risk of bias tool was used to assess the controlled clinical trials methodological quality. In addition, we mapped the main findings of these trials. As a result, we assessed 5631 references in 29 eligible journals of which 57 were controlled clinical trials (1.0%). Controlled clinical trials were published between 1995 and 2017 at a rate of 2.5 per year. Journals from Spain and Mexico published around 63% of the controlled clinical trials identified. The median sample size of patients enrolled was 60 (range = 30-300 participants). About conditions assessed, 38.5% of controlled clinical trials assessed issues related to knee conditions, 15.7% about hip and 10.5% about trauma or spine. The risk of bias domains most affected was selective reporting bias and random sequence generation. In addition, only two and seven trials had low risk of bias in all items related to participant/personnel and outcome assessment blindings, respectively. More than 40% of studies did not report differences on benefits/harms between the interventions assessed. As a conclusion, the number of controlled clinical trials published in Orthopaedics/Traumatology journals from Latin America and Spain is low. These controlled clinical trials had important methodological shortcomings and were judged as unclear or high risk of bias. These trials are now available in CENTRAL for their potential inclusion in systematic reviews and other documents of synthesis.

RESUMO

La guía está dirigida al personal clínico asistencial que brinda cuidados a pacientes con carcinoma basocelular, en lo relativo a prevención, diagnóstico, tratamiento y seguimiento, en los diferentes grados de complejidad de los servicios de la atención en salud en el marco del SGSSS (médicos familiares, médicos generales, médicos especialistas en dermatología, oncólogos, cirujanos plásticos, patólogos, radioterapeutas, cirujanos de cabeza y cuello, profesionales de enfermería y otros profesionales de la salud relacionados con el manejo del carcinoma basocelular). Los manejos de condiciones específicas por parte del subespecialistas ameritan recomendaciones que exceden el alcance del presente documento. El texto también está dirigido a tomadores de decisiones, generadores de políticas de salud, pagadores del gasto y todo el personal relacionado, que se desempeñe en el ámbito hospitalario o de las aseguradoras en salud. Esta GPC ofrece recomendaciones específicas para las preguntas definidas, y excede el alcance de la misma, definir las competencias profesionales del equipo involucrado en el manejo de esta patología.

Assuntos