ABSTRACT
Objective: To compare the predictive value of different risk assessment methods for puerperium venous thromboembolism (VTE). Methods: This study included 55 women with and 165 women without puerperal VTE. Using the cases, 11 assessment methods were compared. Results: The area under the curve (AUC) value of the 11 assessments was highest for the modified Caprini risk assessment model for pregnancy (a modified risk scoring method from Caprini, AUC = 0.805). Pairwise comparison of the AUC values of the 11 assessment methods indicated no significant difference among the five methods with AUC values > 0.7. Among them, the modified Caprini, the risk scoring method recommended by the Swedish Guidelines (Swedish method), and the risk scoring method recommended by the Shanghai consensus (Shanghai method) performed better than the other six methods with AUC values < 0.7 (P < 0.05). The sensitivities of the five methods for predicting a high risk of VTE were 69.09-94.55% and the specificities were 25.45-77.58%. The sensitivity of the modified Caprini was higher than those of the risk management method from the Chinese consensus (Chinese consensus method), Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists risk assessment scale (RCOG), and Swedish method (P < 0.05), but the specificity was only 25.45%. No significant difference in sensitivity was detected among the Swedish, Shanghai, RCOG, and Chinese consensus methods, whereas the specificity of the Swedish method was higher than that of the Shanghai, RCOG, and Chinese consensus methods. Conclusion: The predictive value of different risk assessment methods for puerperium VTE varies greatly. Considering the sensitivity and specificity, the Swedish method may have better clinical application value among the 11 methods.
ABSTRACT
To investigate the heterogeneity of decidual stromal cells (DSCs) and their functional alterations during delivery, we conducted single-cell RNA sequencing analysis to characterize the transcriptomic profiles of DSCs before and after labor onset. According to their transcriptomic profiles, DSCs (6382 cells) were clustered into five subgroups with different functions. Similar to stromal cells, cells in cluster 1 were involved in cell substrate adhesion. On the other hand, cells in clusters 2 and 3 were enriched in signal transduction-related genes. Labor onset led to significant alterations in many pathways, including the activator protein 1 pathway (all clusters), as well as in the response to lipopolysaccharide (clusters 1-3). The downregulated genes were involved in coagulation, ATP synthesis, and oxygen homeostasis, possibly reflecting the oxygen and energy balance during delivery. Our findings highlight that peripartum DSCs are heterogeneous and play multiple roles in labor.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to assess the impact on quality of life from informing patients with cancer of their diagnosis and disease status. METHOD: We searched the follow databases, PubMed, CENTRAL (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials), PsycINFO, WEB OF SCIENCE, Embase, CBM (Chinese Biomedical Literature database), WANFANG database (Chinese Medicine Premier), and CNKI (China National Knowledge Infrastructure), using the following terms: neoplasm, cancer, tumor, tumor, carcinoma, disclosure, truth telling, breaking bad news, knowledge, knowing, awareness, quality of life, QOL. Pairs of reviewers independently screened documents and extracted the data, and the meta-analysis was performed using Revman 5.0 software. RESULTS: Eleven thousand seven hundred forty records retrieved from the databases and 23 studies were included in the final analysis. A meta-analysis revealed that there were no differences in either the general quality of life and symptoms of fatigue, pain, dyspnea, insomnia, appetite loss, and diarrhea, between informed and uniformed cancer patients (P > 0.05). There were also no differences found between the patient groups in physical function, role function, cognitive activity, and emotional function (P > 0.05). In terms of vitality, patients who were completely informed about their diagnosis showed higher vitality than uniformed patients. Uninformed patients seemed to have lower social function scores. Between partly informed and uninformed cancer patients, no differences were found in their general quality of life, function domains, and disease-related symptoms (P > 0.05). CONCLUSION: Informing cancer patients of their diagnosis may not have a detrimental effect on their quality of life. TRIAL REGISTRATION: CRD42017060073 .
Subject(s)
Disclosure , Neoplasms/diagnosis , Quality of Life , Humans , Neoplasms/psychologyABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Cancer is the second leading cause of death globally. More millions new cancer cases are diagnosed, and millions persons died due to cancer each year. There are different attitudes on disclosure of diagnosis to the patients with cancer. The current systematic reviews are qualitative, and indicate that there is limited evidence on the association between awareness of diagnosis and quality of life in patients with cancer. In this study, we aim to evaluate the effect of awareness of diagnosis on quality of life in patients with cancer by conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis. METHODS: We will perform a comprehensive electronic search in the databases below: MEDLINE (via PubMed), EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PsycINFO, WEB OF SCIENCE, Chinese Biomedical Literature database, WANFANG database, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure. The cohort studies focusing on the association between awareness of diagnosis and quality of life in patients with cancer will be included. The risk of bias for the included studies will be appraised using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale tool for cohort study. We will pool the effect estimates from the included studies to quantitatively present the strength of the association of interest. RESULTS: This study will present pooled effect estimates regarding the impact of informing diagnosis on quality of life in patients with cancer. CONCLUSION: This is the first quantitative systematic review which tends to provide modest evidence on the association between informing diagnosis and quality of life in patients with cacner. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42017060073.
Subject(s)
Attitude to Health , Neoplasms/psychology , Quality of Life/psychology , Truth Disclosure , Clinical Protocols , Humans , Neoplasms/diagnosis , Systematic Reviews as TopicABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Traumatic brain injury is a leading cause of death and disability worldwide. The survivors usually suffer from disorders of consciousness, especially coma state and persistent vegetative state. For these patients, there is no standard treatment for them, but non-invasive brain stimulations are considered as relatively more acceptable treatments. However, the knowledge regarding the relative effectiveness and the rank of the effectiveness of the non-invasive brain stimulations is limited. Thus, in this study, we aim to conduct a systematic review and network meta-analysis to evaluate the effect of non-invasive train stimulations on arousal and alertness in patients in a coma or persistent vegetative state after traumatic brain injury. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A comprehensive search strategy will be performed in the relevant databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), Chinese Biomedical Literature Database, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wan Fang Data). The random or quasi-random controlled trails focusing on the effectiveness of the non-invasive brain stimulations will be included. The risk of bias for the included studies will be appraised using the Cochrane collaboration tool for assessing risk of bias. The standard pairwise meta-analysis and a Bayesian network meta-analysis will be conducted. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This research is a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Thus, there is no requirement of ethical approval and patient informed consent. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42018104945.
