Search

BACKGROUND: Trauma accounts for 10% of global mortality, with increasing rates disproportionally affecting low- and middle-income countries. In an attempt to improve clinical outcomes after injury, trauma systems have been implemented in multiple countries over recent years. However, whilst many studies have subsequently demonstrated improvements in overall mortality outcomes, less is known about the impact trauma systems have on morbidity, quality of life, and economic burden. This systematic review seeks to assess the existing evidence base for trauma systems with these outcome measures. METHODS: This review will include any study that assesses the impact implementation of a trauma system has on patient morbidity, quality of life, or economic burden. Any comparator study, including cohort, case-control, and randomised controlled studies, will be included, both retrospective or prospective in nature. Studies conducted from any region in the world and involving any age of patient will be included. We will collect data on any morbidity outcomes, health-related quality of life measures, or health economic assessments reported. We predict a high heterogeneity in these outcomes used and will therefore keep inclusion criteria broad. DISCUSSION: Previous reviews have shown the significant improvements that can be achieved in mortality outcomes with the implementation of an organised trauma system, however the wider impact they can have on morbidity outcomes, quality of life measures, and the economic burden of trauma, is less well described. This systematic review will present all available data on these outcomes, helping to better characterise both the societal and economic impact of trauma system implementation. HIGHLIGHTS: Trauma systems are known to improve mortality rates, however less in known on the impact they have on morbidity outcomes, quality of life, and economic burdenWe aim to perform a systematic review to identify any comparator study that assesses the impact implementation of a trauma system on these outcomesUnderstanding the impact trauma systems can have on wider parameters, such as economic and quality of life outcomes, is crucial to allow governments globally to appropriately allocate often limited healthcare resources.PROSPERO registration number: CRD42022348529.

BACKGROUND: The anticipatory prescribing of injectable medications is recommended practice in controlling distressing symptoms in the last days of life. A 2017 systematic review found practice and guidance was based on inadequate evidence. Since then, there has been considerable additional research, warranting a new review. AIM: To review the evidence published since 2017 concerning anticipatory prescribing of injectable medications for adults at the end-of-life in the community, to inform practice and guidance. DESIGN: Systematic review and narrative synthesis. METHODS: Nine literature databases were searched from May 2017 to March 2022, alongside reference, citation and journal hand-searches. Gough's Weight of Evidence framework was used to appraise included studies. RESULTS: Twenty-eight papers were included in the synthesis. Evidence published since 2017 shows that standardised prescribing of four medications for anticipated symptoms is commonplace in the UK; evidence of practices in other countries is limited. There is limited data on how often medications are administered in the community. Prescriptions are 'accepted' by family caregivers despite inadequate explanations and they generally appreciate having access to medications. Robust evidence of the clinical and cost-effectiveness of anticipatory prescribing remains absent. CONCLUSION: The evidence underpinning anticipatory prescribing practice and policy remains based primarily on healthcare professionals' perceptions that the intervention is reassuring, provides effective, timely symptom relief in the community and prevents crisis hospital admissions. There is still inadequate evidence regarding optimal medications and dose ranges, and the effectiveness of these prescriptions. Patient and family caregiver experiences of anticipatory prescriptions warrant urgent investigation. PROSPERO REGISTRATION: CRD42016052108.

OBJECTIVE: This study aims to estimate the rate of postoperative meningitis (both immediate and long-term) in patients following cochlear implants (CIs). It aims to do so through a systematic review and meta-analysis of published studies tracking complications after CIs. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library. REVIEW METHODS: This review was performed in line with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Studies tracking complications following CIs in patients were included. Exclusion criteria included non-English language studies and case series reporting

This is a systematic review funded by Marie Curie with the following objectives: 1. To identify the patient-centred outcome measures implemented in palliative care clinical practice; 2. To identify the facilitators of implementing patient-centred outcome measures in palliative care clinical practice; 3. To identify the barriers to implementing patient-centred outcome measures in palliative care clinical practice; 4. To identify lessons learned on implementing patient-centred outcome measures in palliative care clinical practice; 5. To identify the implementation models used when implementing patient-centred outcome measures in palliative care clinical practice; 6. To identify what implementation outcomes were measured and how, when implementing patient-centred outcome measures in palliative care clinical practice; 7. To assess the financial costs of implementing patient-centred outcome measures in palliative care clinical practice; 8. To update the recommendations from our previous literature to inform the implementation process in palliative care clinical practice for stakeholders at different levels.

The “PeRsOnalized Prevention roadmap for the future HEalThcare” (PROPHET) project, funded by the European Union’s Horizon Europe research and innovation program and linked to ICPerMed, seeks to develop a Strategy Research and Innovation Agenda (SRIA) for the European Union. Find attached the protocol that corresponds to one of the first steps in the PROPHET, namely a review that aims to map the evidence and highlight the evidence gaps in research or use of biomarkers in personalized prevention in the general population, as well as their integration with digital technologies.

The “PeRsOnalized Prevention roadmap for the future HEalThcare” (PROPHET) project, funded by the European Union’s Horizon Europe research and innovation program and linked to ICPerMed, seeks to develop a Strategy Research and Innovation Agenda (SRIA) for the European Union. This protocol corresponds to one of the first steps in the PROPHET, namely a review that aims to map the evidence and highlight the evidence gaps in research or use of biomarkers in personalized prevention in the general population, as well as their integration with digital technologies.