Conectar
Corticosteroid injections are widely used as first-line treatment for trigger finger, but their comparative efficacy against other non-surgical and surgical interventions remains unclear. While previous meta-analyses have explored this topic, many were limited by a narrow scope or methodological constraints. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to comprehensively evaluate the effectiveness and safety of corticosteroid injections in adult trigger finger management compared with alternative treatment modalities, using robust methodology and updated evidence to guide clinical decision-making.
A systematic search will be conducted to identify the articles published on PubMed, Embase, Scopus and the Cochrane Library. All randomised controlled trials that compared (1) corticosteroid injection with alternative non-surgical modalities and (2) corticosteroid injection with surgical intervention in adults diagnosed with trigger finger will be included for the review. Two reviewers will independently perform the processes of study inclusion, data extraction and quality assessment. The primary outcome will be assessed by improvement in triggering and pain symptoms. Secondary outcomes will be assessed through safety assessment. The risk of bias and meta-analysis will be conducted using by RevMan V.5.4.
Ethical approval is not required for this study as it is a review based on published studies. The results will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations. The findings of this systematic review and meta-analysis results are expected to provide valuable information for clinicians to choose an optimal strategy for the management of trigger finger.
CRD42024547312.
Platelet and fresh frozen plasma (FFP) transfusions are routinely employed in the management of severe dengue. Previous research has indicated a potential link between ABO blood groups and susceptibility to dengue, with evidence suggesting that mosquito vector feeding preferences may be influenced by host blood type. These factors could potentially impact transfusion demands during outbreaks. This retrospective study aimed to investigate the relationship between ABO blood groups and transfusion requirements in patients with dengue.
Retrospective study.
The study was conducted at a tertiary care hospital in Kerala.
Clinical and laboratory data were reviewed for 199 patients confirmed with dengue who received blood component transfusions and compared with two control groups: 200 randomly selected patients with dengue who did not require transfusions and 200 patients without dengue who required transfusions, over a period spanning January 2015 to March 2023.
Among transfused dengue cases, blood groups O (41.71%), A (28.14%) and B (23.12%) were most prevalent; however, no statistically significant association was observed between ABO blood group and transfusion requirement. Furthermore, the total volumes of FFP and platelet transfusions did not differ significantly across ABO groups among patients with dengue. Notably, platelet transfusions were significantly more frequent in dengue cases (92.0%) compared with transfused patients without dengue (35.5%), whereas FFP transfusions were more common in non-dengue transfused cases (84.5%) than in patients with dengue (44.7%). Patients with dengue also received significantly higher mean volumes of both FFP and platelets.
Despite earlier reports linking ABO blood types to dengue susceptibility, this study found no significant association with transfusion requirements, warranting confirmation through larger multicentre studies.
by Megan Wiggins, Marie Varughese, Ellen Rafferty, Sasha van Katwyk, Christopher McCabe, Jeff Round, Erin Kirwin
BackgroundDuring public health crises such as the COVID-19 pandemic, decision-makers relied on infectious disease models to evaluate policy options. Often, there is a high degree of uncertainty in the evidence base underpinning these models. When there is increased uncertainty, the risk of selecting a policy option that does not align with the intended policy objective also increases; we term this decision risk. Even when models adequately capture uncertainty, the tools used to communicate their outcomes, underlying uncertainty, and associated decision risk have often been insufficient. Our aim is to support infectious disease modellers and decision-makers in interpreting and communicating decision risk when evaluating multiple policy options.
MethodsWe developed the Decision Uncertainty Toolkit by adapting methods from health economics and infectious disease modelling to improve the interpretation and communication of uncertainty. Specifically, we developed a quantitative measure of decision risk as well as a suite of risk visualizations. We refined the toolkit contents based on feedback from early dissemination through conferences and workshops.
ResultsThe Decision Uncertainty Toolkit: (i) adapts and extends existing health economics methods for characterization, estimation, and communication of uncertainty to infectious disease modelling, (ii) introduces a novel risk measure that quantitatively captures the downside risk of policy alternatives, (iii) provides visual outputs for dissemination and communication of uncertainty and decision risk, and (iv) includes instructions on how to use the toolkit, standard text descriptions and examples for each component. The use of the toolkit is demonstrated through a hypothetical example.
ConclusionThe Decision Uncertainty Toolkit improves existing methods for communicating infectious disease model results by providing additional information regarding uncertainty and decision risk associated with policy alternatives. This empowers decision-makers to consider and evaluate decision risk more effectively when making policy decisions. Improved understanding of decision risk can improve outcomes in future public health crises.
FreshRSS 