Conectar
Secondary and tertiary renal hyperparathyroidism (RHPT) are common sequelae of chronic kidney disease and are associated with worse patient mortality and quality of life. Clinical guidelines remain lacking with regard to recommendations for using intraoperative parathyroid hormone (IOPTH) during surgery for RHPT. A prospective randomised study will help evaluate the role of IOPTH in guiding surgery for secondary and tertiary RHPT.
Intraoperative parathyroid hormone monitoring to guide surgery in renal hyperparathyroidism is a pragmatic, multicentre, five-arm, parallel-group, patient-blinded and outcome assessor-blinded prospective pilot trial used to evaluate the feasibility of performing a definitive trial. Eligible participants include adult patients diagnosed with secondary or tertiary hyperparathyroidism who are candidates for subtotal or total parathyroidectomy. Consenting patients will be randomly assigned, through central allocation, in a 1:1:1:1:1 fashion to undergo surgery with IOPTH monitoring (four experimental arms: postexcision IOPTH samples taken at 10, 15, 20 or 25 min) or to undergo surgery without IOPTH monitoring (control arm). The primary feasibility objective is to estimate the percentage of eligible patients that are randomised: ≥70% proceed; 50–69% modify protocol before proceeding;
Ethics approval was obtained from the Hamilton Integrated Research Ethics Board. Pilot trial results will be shared widely through local, national and international academic and clinical networks and will be disseminated through conference presentations and publication in peer-reviewed journals.
NCT06542315, registered on 6 August 2024.
by Alex Thabane, Sarah Saleh, Sushmitha Pallapothu, Tyler McKechnie, Phillip Staibano, Jason W. Busse, Goran Calic, Ranil Sonnadara, Sameer Parpia, Mohit Bhandari
BackgroundCreativity fuels societal progress and innovation, particularly in the field of medicine. The scientific study of creativity in medicine is critical to understanding how creativity contributes to medical practice, processes, and outcomes. An appraisal of the current scientific literature on the topic, and its gaps, will expand our understanding of how creativity and medicine interact, and guide future research.
ObjectivesWe aimed to assess the quantity, trends, distribution, and methodological features of the peer-reviewed on creativity in medicine.
MethodsWe searched the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PsycINFO databases for peer-reviewed primary research publications on creativity in medicine. Screening, full-text review, and data extraction were performed independently and in duplicate by pairs of reviewers, with discrepancies resolved by a third reviewer. We performed descriptive analyses, graphically displaying the data using charts and maps where appropriate.
ResultsEighty-one studies were eligible for review, enrolling a total of 18,221 physicians, nurses and midwifes across all studies. Most research on creativity in medicine was published in the last decade, predominately in the field of nursing (75%). Researchers from Taiwan (22%) and the United States (21%) produced the most eligible publications, and the majority research was cross-sectional in nature (54%). There was substantial variability in the definitions of creativity adopted, and most studies failed to specify a definition of creativity. Forty-five different measurement tools were used to assess creativity, the most popular being divergent thinking tests such as the Torrance Test of Creative Thinking (24%) and Guilford Creativity Tests (16%).
ConclusionsPeer-reviewed scientific research on creativity in medicine, mostly conducted in the nursing profession, is sparse and performed on variable methodological grounds. Further scientific research on the topic, as well as the development of medicine-specific definitions and measurement tools, is required to uncover the utility of creativity in the medical domain.
FreshRSS 