Susanne Vahr Lauridsen

INTRODUCTION: A 2012 systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials on emergency department-initiated tobacco control (ETC) showed only short-term efficacy. The aim of this study was to update data through May 2015. METHODS: After registering the study protocol on the international prospective register of systematic reviews (PROSPERO) in May 2015, we searched 7 databases and the gray literature. Our outcome of interest was the point prevalence of tobacco-use abstinence at 1-month, 3-month, 6-month, or 12-month follow-up. We calculated the relative risk (RR) of tobacco-use abstinence after ETC at each follow-up time separately for each study and then pooled Mantel-Haenszel RRs by follow-up time. These results were pooled with results of the 7 studies included in the previous review. We calculated the effect of ETC on the combined point prevalence of tobacco-use abstinence across all follow-up times by using generalized linear mixed models. RESULTS: We retrieved 4 additional studies, one published as an abstract, comprising 1,392 participants overall. The 1-month follow-up point prevalence of tobacco-use abstinence after ETC resulted in an RR of 1.49 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.08-2.05) across 3 studies; 3-month follow-up, an RR of 1.38 (95% CI, 1.12-1.71) across 9 studies; 6-month follow-up, an RR of 1.09 (95% CI, 0.84-1.41) across 6 studies; and 12-month follow-up, an RR of 1.26 (95% CI, 1.00-1.59) across 3 studies. The effect on the combined point prevalence of abstinence was an RR of 1.40 (95% CI, 1.06-1.86) (P = .02). CONCLUSION: ETC is effective in promoting continual tobacco-use abstinence up to 12 months after intervention. ETC may be a critically important public health strategy for engaging hard-to-reach smokers in tobacco-use cessation.

BACKGROUND: Radical cystectomy is associated with high rates of perioperative morbidity. Robotic-assisted radical cystectomy (RARC) is widely used today despite limited evidence for clinical superiority. The aim of this review was to evaluate the effect of RARC compared to open radical cystectomy (ORC) on complications and secondary on length of stay, time back to work and health-related quality of life (HRQoL). METHODS: The databases PubMed, The Cochrane Library, Embase and CINAHL were searched. A systematic review according to the PRISMA guidelines and cumulative analysis was conducted. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that examined RARC compared to ORC were included in this review. We assessed the quality of evidence using the Cochrane Collaboration's 'Risk of bias' tool and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. Data were extracted and analysed. RESULTS: The search retrieved 273 articles. Four RCTs were included involving overall 239 patients. The quality of the evidence was of low to moderate quality. There was no significant difference between RARC and ORC in the number of patients developing complications within 30 or 90 days postoperatively or in overall grade 3-5 complications within 30 or 90 days postoperatively. Types of complications differed between the RARC and the ORC group. Likewise, length of stay and HRQoL at 3 and 6 months did not differ. CONCLUSION: Our review presents evidence for RARC not being superior to ORC regarding complications, LOS and HRQoL. High-quality studies with consistent registration of complications and patient-related outcomes are warranted. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42016038232.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Whether prehabilitation in radical cystectomy adds to the effort of reducing postoperative morbidity and impairments in the survivorship phase has until recently received limited attention. This narrative review aims to summarize the current evidence base on prehabilitaion interventions focusing on the efficacy of procedure-specific interventions and the influence on postoperative outcomes. RECENT FINDINGS: Given the oncological risk, there is a relative short window to intervene and proactively optimize the patient before radical cystectomy. Preliminary results are however promising and a single-center randomized controlled trial (RCT) has shown that home-based short-term physical prehabilitation is feasible and effective and significantly improves early mobilization, time to perform activities of daily living and health-related quality of life (HRQoL). No significant impact on length of stay or complications was found. Limited evidence support preoperative nutritional interventions in cancer surgery, although evidence suggests improved outcome if malnourished individuals are adequately fed 7-10 days before surgery. No RCTs have evaluated the effect of smoking or alcohol cessation interventions on complications or HRQoL in radical cystectomy. Patient education interventions focusing on stoma care improve significantly self-efficacy in regards to independently change of stoma-appliance up to 1 year postoperatively. Currently, there is no evidence of early intervention considering psychological well being, sexual health or shared decision-making. SUMMARY: Published data indicate that a group of preoperative multiprofessional interventions including physical exercises, supportive nutritional care and stoma education can postoperatively improve early mobilization, self-efficacy and HRQoL. No evidence for further reduction of length of stay or complications was found.

OBJECTIVE: To develop and validate Clinical Diversity In Meta-analyses (CDIM), a new tool for assessing clinical diversity between trials in meta-analyses of interventions. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: The development of CDIM was based on consensus work informed by empirical literature and expertise. We drafted the CDIM tool, refined it, and validated CDIM for interrater scale reliability and agreement in three groups. RESULTS: CDIM measures clinical diversity on a scale that includes four domains with 11 items overall: setting (time of conduct/country development status/units type); population (age, sex, patient inclusion criteria/baseline disease severity, comorbidities); interventions (intervention intensity/strength/duration of intervention, timing, control intervention, cointerventions); and outcome (definition of outcome, timing of outcome assessment). The CDIM is completed in two steps: first two authors independently assess clinical diversity in the four domains. Second, after agreeing upon scores of individual items a consensus score is achieved. Interrater scale reliability and agreement ranged from moderate to almost perfect depending on the type of raters. CONCLUSION: CDIM is the first tool developed for assessing clinical diversity in meta-analyses of interventions. We found CDIM to be a reliable tool for assessing clinical diversity among trials in meta-analysis.