Multislice spiral computed tomography imaging in evaluating hemophilic arthropathy.

BACKGROUND: Certain hemophilia patients are unable to cooperate with or afford magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) examinations. The purpose of our study was to explore the value of multislice spiral computed tomography (MSCT) in evaluating hemophilic arthropathy (HA). METHODS: Thirty-eight patients with 73 joints of HA were consecutively selected from January 2016 to May 2018 for this prospective study. All 73 joints were examined by X-ray, CT, and MRI within 2 days. The MRI scores of the joints were determined by the International Prophylaxis Study Group (IPSG) standard. The CT findings were quantified according to the IPSG standard, except for cartilage injury, which was quantified by joint space narrowing using the X-ray Pettersson score. The CT and MRI scores were compared by the paired Wilcoxon signed-rank test. The correlations between the CT score of joint space narrowing and MRI score of cartilage injury and the total CT and MRI scores were analyzed by Spearman rank correlation. The kappa test was used to compare the consistency of CT and MRI scores. RESULTS: MRI was superior to CT based on the scores for small amount of effusion (P < 0.05), synovial hypertrophy and hemosiderin deposition in the mild groups (P < 0.05). The CT and MRI scores were not significantly different for moderate and massive effusion, synovial hypertrophy, and hemosiderin deposition in the moderate and severe groups, bone erosion or cystic changes (P > 0.05), and there was a high degree of consistency between the two scores (kappa > 0.81). The consistency between the Pettersson scores of joint space narrowing on CT and the IPSG scores of cartilage injury on MRI was high (kappa = 0. 774, P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: The image scores of MSCT are generally consistent with MRI except for mild synovitis, which can be used as an alternative for the evaluation of HA.

Crowdsourcing in health and medical research: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Crowdsourcing is used increasingly in health and medical research. Crowdsourcing is the process of aggregating crowd wisdom to solve a problem. The purpose of this systematic review is to summarize quantitative evidence on crowdsourcing to improve health. METHODS: We followed Cochrane systematic review guidance and systematically searched seven databases up to September 4th 2019. Studies were included if they reported on crowdsourcing and related to health or medicine. Studies were excluded if recruitment was the only use of crowdsourcing. We determined the level of evidence associated with review findings using the GRADE approach. RESULTS: We screened 3508 citations, accessed 362 articles, and included 188 studies. Ninety-six studies examined effectiveness, 127 examined feasibility, and 37 examined cost. The most common purposes were to evaluate surgical skills (17 studies), to create sexual health messages (seven studies), and to provide layperson cardio-pulmonary resuscitation (CPR) out-of-hospital (six studies). Seventeen observational studies used crowdsourcing to evaluate surgical skills, finding that crowdsourcing evaluation was as effective as expert evaluation (low quality). Four studies used a challenge contest to solicit human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) testing promotion materials and increase HIV testing rates (moderate quality), and two of the four studies found this approach saved money. Three studies suggested that an interactive technology system increased rates of layperson initiated CPR out-of-hospital (moderate quality). However, studies analyzing crowdsourcing to evaluate surgical skills and layperson-initiated CPR were only from high-income countries. Five studies examined crowdsourcing to inform artificial intelligence projects, most often related to annotation of medical data. Crowdsourcing was evaluated using different outcomes, limiting the extent to which studies could be pooled. CONCLUSIONS: Crowdsourcing has been used to improve health in many settings. Although crowdsourcing is effective at improving behavioral outcomes, more research is needed to understand effects on clinical outcomes and costs. More research is needed on crowdsourcing as a tool to develop artificial intelligence systems in medicine. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO: CRD42017052835. December 27, 2016.

Association between salivary α-amylase activity and pain relief scale scores in cancer patients with bone metastases treated with radiotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Subjective assessment tools such as visual analog scales (VAS) or pain scores are commonly used to evaluate the intensity of chronic cancer-induced pain. However, their value is limited in some cases. We measured changes in VAS pain scores and salivary α-amylase (sAA) concentrations in cancer patients receiving radiotherapy for bone metastases to ascertain the correlation between these measures. METHODS: We enrolled 30 patients with bone metastases attending a single institution from June 2010 to March 2011. All patients with cancer-induced bone pain received radiation therapy (RT) at the same dose (30 Gy) and fractionation (3 Gy/fraction, 5 days/week) for palliative pain relief. We assessed heart rate (HR), systolic and diastolic blood pressures (DBP/SBP) and VAS pain scores before (d0) and after five (d5) and ten fractions (d10) of irradiation. sAA and salivary cortisol (SC) concentrations were measured using a portable analyzer and automated chemiluminescence analyzer, respectively. RESULTS: Radiotherapy markedly decreased VAS scores from (82.93 ± 9.29) to (31.43 ± 16.73) mm (P < 0.001) and sAA concentrations from (109.40 ± 26.38) to (36.03 ± 19.40) U/ml (P <0.001). Moreover, there was a significant correlation between these two indices (P <0.01, r = 0.541). HR decreased by 6.5% after radiotherapy, but did not correlate with VAS scores (P >0.05). SC concentrations and BP did not change significantly during the study (P >0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The significant correlation between sAA concentrations and VAS pain scores identified in these preliminary results suggests that this biomarker may be a valuable, noninvasive and sensitive index for the objective assessment of pain intensity in patients with cancer-induced bone pain.