Purpose: Improvements in outcomes for adolescent and young adult (AYA) oncology patients have lagged behind those of other age-specific cancer populations. Research has indicated that low availability of clinical trials, biological differences of this age-group, and several psychosocial factors including higher emotional distress impact outcomes. To improve care and survival rates for these patients, hospitals have implemented AYA oncology programs. The current study evaluated documentation of care in an AYA program housed in an academic medical center based on three areas emphasized in the National Comprehensive Cancer Network\'s Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology for AYAs: clinical trial enrollment, fertility, and psychosocial care. Methods: Retrospective chart reviews were conducted for 45 patients treated before the start of the AYA oncology program and 45 patients treated after program initiation. Patients aged 15-39 years with a diagnosis of a malignant tumor were included. Variables evaluated included documentation of clinical trial enrollment, fertility preservation and sexual health considerations, and behavioral health referrals. Results: Documentation of most clinical trial and fertility variables did not significantly improve from pre- to post-program, although a higher number of patients had these variables documented post-program. Behavioral health referrals increased significantly from 52.8% pre-program to 95.4% post-program. Conclusion: Access to behavioral health care improved the most following implementation of our AYA program, which is likely because of the integration of a dedicated psychologist for AYAs when the program began. The practice of guideline-based care for this population can be better assessed and improved with designated behavioral health providers and more systematic documentation processes.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the methodology used by the Reassessment Campaign on Veterinary Resuscitation (RECOVER) to re-evaluate the scientific evidence relevant to CPR in small and large animals, to newborn resuscitation, and to first aid and to formulate the respective consensus-based clinical guidelines.
METHODS: This report describes the evidence-to-guidelines process employed by RECOVER that is based on the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach and includes Information Specialist-driven systematic literature search, evidence evaluation conducted by more than 200 veterinary professionals, and provision of clinical guidelines in the domains of Preparedness and Prevention, Basic Life Support, Advanced Life Support, Post-cardiac Arrest Care, Newborn Resuscitation, First Aid, and Large Animal CPR.
METHODS: Transdisciplinary, international collaboration in academia, referral practice, and general practice.
RESULTS: For this update to the RECOVER 2012 CPR guidelines, we answered 135 Population, Intervention, Comparator, and Outcome (PICO) questions with the help of a team of Domain Chairs, Information Specialists, and more than 200 Evidence Evaluators. Most primary contributors were veterinary specialists or veterinary technician specialists. The RECOVER 2024 Guidelines represent the first veterinary application of the GRADE approach to clinical guideline development. We employed an iterative process that follows a predefined sequence of steps designed to reduce bias of Evidence Evaluators and to increase the repeatability of the quality of evidence assessments and ultimately the treatment recommendations. The process also allowed numerous important knowledge gaps to emerge that form the foundation for prioritizing research efforts in veterinary resuscitation science.
CONCLUSIONS: Large collaborative, volunteer-based development of evidence- and consensus-based clinical guidelines is challenging and complex but feasible. The experience gained will help refine the process for future veterinary guidelines initiatives.

OBJECTIVE: To systematically review the evidence and devise clinical recommendations on advanced life support (ALS) in dogs and cats and to identify critical knowledge gaps.
METHODS: Standardized, systematic evaluation of literature pertinent to ALS following Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology. Prioritized questions were each reviewed by Evidence Evaluators, and findings were reconciled by ALS Domain Chairs and Reassessment Campaign on Veterinary Resuscitation (RECOVER) Co-Chairs to arrive at treatment recommendations commensurate to quality of evidence, risk:benefit relationship, and clinical feasibility. This process was implemented using an Evidence Profile Worksheet for each question that included an introduction, consensus on science, treatment recommendations, justification for these recommendations, and important knowledge gaps. A draft of these worksheets was distributed to veterinary professionals for comment for 4 weeks prior to finalization.
METHODS: Transdisciplinary, international collaboration in university, specialty, and emergency practice.
RESULTS: Seventeen questions pertaining to vascular access, vasopressors in shockable and nonshockable rhythms, anticholinergics, defibrillation, antiarrhythmics, and adjunct drug therapy as well as open-chest CPR were reviewed. Of the 33 treatment recommendations formulated, 6 recommendations addressed the management of patients with nonshockable arrest rhythms, 10 addressed shockable rhythms, and 6 provided guidance on open-chest CPR. We recommend against high-dose epinephrine even after prolonged CPR and suggest that atropine, when indicated, is used only once. In animals with a shockable rhythm in which initial defibrillation was unsuccessful, we recommend doubling the defibrillator dose once and suggest vasopressin (or epinephrine if vasopressin is not available), esmolol, lidocaine in dogs, and/or amiodarone in cats.
CONCLUSIONS: These updated RECOVER ALS guidelines clarify the approach to refractory shockable rhythms and prolonged CPR. Very low quality of evidence due to absence of clinical data in dogs and cats continues to compromise the certainty with which recommendations can be made.

OBJECTIVE: After the 2012 Reassessment Campaign on Veterinary Resuscitation (RECOVER) CPR Guidelines, this is an update of evidence-based consensus guidelines for Basic Life Support (BLS), advanced life support (ALS), and periarrest monitoring.
METHODS: These RECOVER CPR Guidelines were generated using a modified version of the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system for evidence evaluation and translation of this evidence into clear and actionable clinical instructions. Prioritized clinical questions in the Population, Intervention, Comparator, and Outcome (PICO) format were used as the basis to conduct systematic literature searches by information specialists, to extract information from relevant publications, to assess this evidence for quality, and finally to translate the findings into treatment recommendations. These recommendations were reviewed by the RECOVER writing group and opened for comment by veterinary professionals for 4 weeks.
METHODS: Transdisciplinary, international collaboration in university, specialty, and emergency practice.
RESULTS: A total of 40 worksheets were prepared to evaluate questions across the 3 domains of BLS, ALS and Monitoring, resulting in 90 individual treatment recommendations. High-dose epinephrine is no longer recommended, and atropine, if used, is only administered once. Bag-mask ventilation is prioritized over mouth-to-nose ventilation in nonintubated animals. In addition, an algorithm for initial assessment, an updated CPR algorithm, a rhythm diagnosis tool, and an updated drug dosing table are provided.
CONCLUSIONS: While the majority of the BLS and ALS recommendations remain unchanged, some noteworthy changes were made due to new evidence that emerged over the past 10 years. Indirectness of evidence remains the largest impediment to the certainty of guidelines formulation and underscores an urgent need for more studies in the target species of dogs and cats.

OBJECTIVE: To systematically review evidence and devise treatment recommendations for basic life support (BLS) in dogs and cats and to identify critical knowledge gaps.
METHODS: Standardized, systematic evaluation of literature pertinent to BLS following Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology. Prioritized questions were each reviewed by 2 Evidence Evaluators, and findings were reconciled by BLS Domain Chairs and Reassessment Campaign on Veterinary Resuscitation (RECOVER) Co-Chairs to arrive at treatment recommendations commensurate to quality of evidence, risk to benefit relationship, and clinical feasibility. This process was implemented using an Evidence Profile Worksheet for each question that included an introduction, consensus on science, treatment recommendations, justification for these recommendations, and important knowledge gaps. A draft of these worksheets was distributed to veterinary professionals for comment for 4 weeks prior to finalization.
METHODS: Transdisciplinary, international collaboration in university, specialty, and emergency practice.
RESULTS: Twenty questions regarding animal position, chest compression point and technique, ventilation strategies, as well as the duration of CPR cycles and chest compression pauses were examined, and 32 treatment recommendations were formulated. Out of these, 25 addressed chest compressions and 7 informed ventilation during CPR. The recommendations were founded predominantly on very low quality of evidence and expert opinion. These new treatment recommendations continue to emphasize the critical importance of high-quality, uninterrupted chest compressions, with a modification suggested for the chest compression technique in wide-chested dogs. When intubation is not possible, bag-mask ventilation using a tight-fitting facemask with oxygen supplementation is recommended rather than mouth-to-nose ventilation.
CONCLUSIONS: These updated RECOVER BLS treatment recommendations emphasize continuous chest compressions, conformation-specific chest compression techniques, and ventilation for all animals. Very low quality of evidence due to absence of clinical data in dogs and cats consistently compromised the certainty of recommendations, emphasizing the need for more veterinary research in this area.

暂无摘要。

In this overview, we seek to appraise recent experimental and observational studies investigating THC and its potential role as adjunctive therapy in various medical illnesses. Recent clinical trials are suggestive of the diverse pharmacologic potentials for THC but suffer from small sample sizes, short study duration, failure to address tolerance, little dose variation, ill-defined outcome measures, and failure to identify and/or evaluate confounds, all of which may constitute significant threats to the validity of most trials. However, the existing work underscores the potential therapeutic value of THC and, at the same time, calls attention to the critical need for better-designed protocols to fully explore and demonstrate safety and efficacy. In the most general sense, the present brief review illuminates some intriguing findings about THC, along with the basic threats to the validity of the research that supports those findings. The intent is to highlight existing generic weaknesses in the existing randomized controlled trial literature and, most importantly, provide guidance for improved clinical research.

The use of artificial intelligence (AI) in healthcare is transforming a number of medical fields, including nephrology. The integration of various AI techniques in nephrology facilitates the prediction of the early detection, diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment of kidney disease. Nevertheless, recent reports have demonstrated that the majority of published clinical AI studies lack uniform AI reporting standards, which poses significant challenges in interpreting, replicating, and translating the studies into routine clinical use. In response to these issues, worldwide initiatives have created guidelines for publishing AI-related studies that outline the minimal necessary information that researchers should include. By following standardized reporting frameworks, researchers and clinicians can ensure the reproducibility, reliability, and ethical use of AI models. This will ultimately lead to improved research outcomes, enhanced clinical decision-making, and better patient management. This review article highlights the importance of adhering to AI reporting guidelines in medical research, with a focus on nephrology and urology, and clinical practice for advancing the field and optimizing patient care.

JAK inhibitors are the current standard of care in myelofibrosis, but many do not address and may worsen anemia; thus, anemia-related responses have traditionally been overlooked as efficacy end points in pivotal clinical trials, leading to a lack of consistency and analytic detail in their reporting. Here we apply our experiences in the phase III trials of momelotinib, a JAK1/JAK2/ACVR1 inhibitor and the first therapy indicated by the US FDA for myelofibrosis patients with anemia, to highlight how application of different criteria impacts the anemia-related benefits reported for any potential treatment in myelofibrosis. We advocate for a convention of a new expert consensus panel to bring consistency and transparency to the definition of anemia-related response in myelofibrosis.
What is this Perspective about? Anemia (too few healthy red blood cells) is common in patients with myelofibrosis. While it is becoming more common to measure the anemia benefits associated with potential treatments for myelofibrosis in clinical trials, different definitions of anemia benefit are available. This Perspective reviews these definitions, the differences between them, and why consistency and clarity in measuring anemia benefit matter. The definitions used in clinical trials of momelotinib, a treatment for patients with myelofibrosis and anemia, are also explained to show how the anemia benefit observed in these trials could have changed if different definitions were used. What does this Perspective show? Definitions of anemia benefit may include the number of red blood cell transfusions a patient receives, the amount of hemoglobin (a red blood cell protein) in their blood, or a combination thereof. Considerations such as timing, the types of patients included, and other factors are not consistent across definitions and not always clearly reported. Results when different definitions of anemia benefit were followed in the momelotinib clinical trials show that the amount of benefit observed with treatments changes depending on which definition is used. What conclusions can be drawn from this Perspective? More consistency and clarity in the definitions of anemia benefit in myelofibrosis clinical trials are needed, suggesting that a new panel of experts should come together to discuss this topic.

BACKGROUND: Recommendations within clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are heavily influenced by results from randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Therefore, it is imperative that all RCT outcomes are reported thoroughly to ensure CPGs are created using accurate information. Here, we evaluate the quality of harms reporting using the CONSORT Extension for Harms in RCTs underpinning recommendations in the American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons (AAOS) Management of Hip Fractures in Older Adults CPG.
METHODS: Each RCT cited as evidence for recommendations in the AAOS Management of Hip Fractures in Older Adults CPG was evaluated using the CONSORT Extension for Harms to determine the quality of harms reporting. Descriptive statistics (frequencies, percentages, 95 % confidence intervals) were used to summarize adherence to CONSORT Harms items. A linear regression model was used to evaluate the CONSORT Harms influence on the quality of reporting over time.
RESULTS: Among the 156 RCTs identified, there were a total of 31,848 participants. Most RCTs were conducted at a single center (137; 87.8 %) and in a single-blind manner (130; 83.3 %). Fifty-four (34.6 %) RCTs did not provide funding statements. Trials adequately reported an average of 6.65 out of 18 CONSORT Extension for Harms items (37.0 %). One RCT adequately reported all items, while five reported zero items. Forty-seven RCTs (30.1 %) reported ≥ 50 % of items and 73 (46.8 %) reported ≤ 33.3 % of items. The linear regression model demonstrated no significant increase in mean adherence over time (adjusted R2 = -0.006; p = 0.563).
CONCLUSIONS: Our results highlight inadequate harms reporting among RCTs in the AAOS Management of Hip Fractures in Older Patients CPG. While the CONSORT Harms Extension was intended to enhance reporting, the linear regression model did not demonstrate significant improvements over time.