Impact of nutritional support routes on mortality in acute pancreatitis: A network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Nutritional administration in acute pancreatitis (AP) management has sparked widespread discussion, yet contradictory mortality results across meta-analyses necessitate clarification. The optimal nutritional route in AP remains uncertain. Therefore, this study aimed to compare mortality among nutritional administration routes in patients with AP using consistency model. METHODS: This study searched four major databases for relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Two authors independently extracted and checked data and quality. Network meta-analysis was conducted for estimating risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence interval (CI) based on random-effects model. Subgroup analyses accounted for AP severity and nutrition support initiation. RESULTS: A meticulous search yielded 1185 references, with 30 records meeting inclusion criteria from 27 RCTs (n = 1594). Pooled analyses showed the mortality risk reduction associated with nasogastric (NG) (RR = 0.34; 95%CI: 0.16-0.73) and nasojejunal (NJ) feeding (RR = 0.46; 95%CI: 0.25-0.84) in comparison to nil per os. Similarly, NG (RR = 0.45; 95%CI: 0.24-0.83) and NJ (RR = 0.60; 95%CI: 0.40-0.90) feeding also showed lower mortality risk than total parenteral nutrition. Subgroup analyses, stratified by severity, supported these findings. Notably, the timing of nutritional support initiation emerged as a significant factor, with NJ feeding demonstrating notable mortality reduction within 24 and 48 h, particularly in severe cases. CONCLUSION: For severe AP, both NG and NJ feeding appear optimal, with variations in initiation timings. NG feeding does not appear to merit recommendation within the initial 24 h, whereas NJ feeding is advisable within the corresponding timeframe following admission. These findings offer valuable insights for optimizing nutritional interventions in AP.

Indigenizing and co-producing the ACGME anesthesiology milestone in Taiwan: a Delphi study and subgroup analysis.

BACKGROUND: To implement the ACGME Anesthesiology Milestone Project in a non-North American context, a process of indigenization is essential. In this study, we aim to explore the differences in perspective toward the anesthesiology competencies among residents and junior and senior visiting staff members and co-produce a preliminary framework for the following nation-wide survey in Taiwan. METHODS: The expert committee translation and Delphi technique were adopted to co-construct an indigenized draft of milestones. Descriptive analysis, chi-square testing, Pearson correlation testing, and repeated-measures analysis of variance in the general linear model were employed to calculate the F values and mean differences (MDs). RESULTS: The translation committee included three experts and the consensus panel recruited 37 participants from four hospitals in Taiwan: 9 residents, 13 junior visiting staff members (JVSs), and 15 senior visiting staff members (SVSs). The consensus on the content of the 285 milestones was achieved after 271 minor and 6 major modifications in 3 rounds of the Delphi survey. Moreover, JVSs were more concerned regarding patient care than were both residents (MD = - 0.095, P < 0.001) and SVSs (MD = 0.075, P < 0.001). Residents were more concerned regarding practice-based learning improvement than were JVSs (MD = 0.081; P < 0.01); they also acknowledged professionalism more than JVSs (MD = 0.072; P < 0.05) and SVSs (MD = 0.12; P < 0.01). Finally, SVSs graded interpersonal and communication skills lower than both residents (MD = 0.068; P < 0.05) and JVSs (MD = 0.065; P < 0.05) did. CONCLUSIONS: Most ACGME anesthesiology milestones are applicable and feasible in Taiwan. Incorporating residents' perspectives may bring insight and facilitate shared understanding to a new educational implementation. This study helped Taiwan generate a well-informed and indigenized draft of a competency-based framework for the following nation-wide Delphi survey.

Crowdsource authoring as a tool for enhancing the quality of competency assessments in healthcare professions.

The current Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE) is complex, costly, and difficult to provide high-quality assessments. This pilot study employed a focus group and debugging stage to test the Crowdsource Authoring Assessment Tool (CAAT) for the creation and sharing of assessment tools used in editing and customizing, to match specific users' needs, and to provide higher-quality checklists. Competency assessment international experts (n = 50) were asked to 1) participate in and experience the CAAT system when editing their own checklist, 2) edit a urinary catheterization checklist using CAAT, and 3) complete a Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) questionnaire consisting of 14 items to evaluate its four domains. The study occurred between October 2018 and May 2019. The median time for developing a new checklist using the CAAT was 65.76 minutes whereas the traditional method required 167.90 minutes. The CAAT system enabled quicker checklist creation and editing regardless of the experience and native language of participants. Participants also expressed the CAAT enhanced checklist development with 96% of them willing to recommend this tool to others. The use of a crowdsource authoring tool as revealed by this study has efficiently reduced the time to almost a third it would take when using the traditional method. In addition, it allows collaborations to partake on a simple platform which also promotes contributions in checklist creation, editing, and rating.