Neoadjuvant therapy or upfront surgery in advanced endometrial cancer: a systematic review protocol.

INTRODUCTION: There is no consensus on the optimal treatment strategy for people with advanced endometrial cancer. Neoadjuvant therapies such as chemotherapy and radiotherapy have been employed to try to reduce the morbidity of surgery, improve its feasibility and/or improve functional performance in people considered unfit for primary surgery. The objective of this review is to assess whether neoadjuvant chemotherapy or radiotherapy improves health outcomes in people with advanced endometrial cancer when compared with upfront surgery. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This review will consider both randomised and non-randomised studies that compare health outcomes associated with the neoadjuvant therapy and upfront surgery in advanced endometrial cancer. Potential studies for inclusion will be collated from electronic searches of OVID Medline, Embase, international trial registries and conference abstract lists. Data collection and extraction will be performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. The methodological quality of the studies will be assessed using the Risk of Bias 2 and Risk of Bias in Non-randomised Studies of Interventions tools. If appropriate, we will perform a meta-analysis and provide summary statistics for each outcome. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval was not required for this study. Once complete, we will publish our findings in peer-reviewed publications, via conference presentations and to update relevant practice guidelines.

Comparative evaluation of a low-cost solar powered otoscope with a traditional device among health care workers in Malawi.

OBJECTIVES: To comparatively evaluate a low-cost otoscope with a traditional device among health care workers in Malawi. METHODS: The study is a prospective, comparative, qualitative observational survey of health care worker's opinions using 5-point Likert rating scales and tick box categories in a 10-item survey questionnaire. Twenty-five mixed cadre health care workers from the Ear, Nose, and Throat Department of the Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Blantyre in Malawi were recruited. Outcomes measures used were ease of speculum attachment, handling, insertion, stability, the quality of view, color, build, brightness, overall ease of use, and their suitability for local work. RESULTS: The low-cost otoscope scored statistically higher in overall combined performance, as well as in the remaining four out of the nine attributes. Notably, 54.2% of users rated the low-cost device more suitable than the traditional device for use in low-middle income countries, 25% were equivocal, and 20.8% preferred the traditional device. CONCLUSION: This study found the Arclight otoscope to be an appropriate and practical substitute for more expensive traditional otoscopes for the delivery of ENT services in low resource settings. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: N/A.