Reducing the environmental impact of surgery on a global scale: systematic review and co-prioritization with healthcare workers in 132 countries

Background Healthcare cannot achieve net-zero carbon without addressing operating theatres. The aim of this study was to prioritize feasible interventions to reduce the environmental impact of operating theatres. Methods This study adopted a four-phase Delphi consensus co-prioritization methodology. In phase 1, a systematic review of published interventions and global consultation of perioperative healthcare professionals were used to longlist interventions. In phase 2, iterative thematic analysis consolidated comparable interventions into a shortlist. In phase 3, the shortlist was co-prioritized based on patient and clinician views on acceptability, feasibility, and safety. In phase 4, ranked lists of interventions were presented by their relevance to high-income countries and low–middle-income countries. Results In phase 1, 43 interventions were identified, which had low uptake in practice according to 3042 professionals globally. In phase 2, a shortlist of 15 intervention domains was generated. In phase 3, interventions were deemed acceptable for more than 90 per cent of patients except for reducing general anaesthesia (84 per cent) and re-sterilization of ‘single-use’ consumables (86 per cent). In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for high-income countries were: introducing recycling; reducing use of anaesthetic gases; and appropriate clinical waste processing. In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for low–middle-income countries were: introducing reusable surgical devices; reducing use of consumables; and reducing the use of general anaesthesia. Conclusion This is a step toward environmentally sustainable operating environments with actionable interventions applicable to both high– and low–middle–income countries

The research gap in chronic paediatric pain: A systematic review of randomised controlled trials.

Contains fulltext : 191356.pdf (publisher's version ) (Closed access)BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Chronic pain is associated with significant functional and social impairment. The objective of this review was to assess the characteristics and quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating pain management interventions in children and adolescents with chronic pain. METHODS: We performed a systematic search of PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Library up to July 2017. We included RCTs that involved children and adolescents (3 months-18 years) and evaluated the use of pharmacological or non-pharmacological intervention(s) in the context of pain persisting or re-occurring for more than 3 months. Methodological quality was evaluated using the Cochrane Risk of Bias (ROB) Tool. RESULTS: A total of 58 RCTs were identified and numbers steadily increased over time. The majority were conducted in single hospital institutions, with no information on study funding. Median sample size was 47.5 participants (Q1,Q3: 32, 70). Forty-five percent of RCTs included both adults and children and the median of the mean ages at inclusion was 12.9 years (Q1,Q3: 11, 15). Testing of non-pharmacological interventions was predominant and only 5 RCTs evaluated analgesics or co-analgesics. Abdominal pain, headache/migraine and musculoskeletal pain were the most common types of chronic pain among participants. Methodological quality was poor with 90% of RCTs presenting a high or unclear ROB. CONCLUSIONS: Evaluation of analgesics targeting chronic pain relief in children and adolescents through RCTs is marginal. Infants and children with long-lasting painful conditions are insufficiently represented in RCTs. We discuss possible research constraints and challenges as well as methodologies to circumvent them. SIGNIFICANCE: There is a substantial research gap regarding analgesic interventions for children and adolescents with chronic pain. Most clinical trials in the field focus on the evaluation of non-pharmacological interventions and are of low methodological quality. There is also a specific lack of trials involving infants and children and adolescents with long-lasting diseases.1 februari 201

The research gap in chronic paediatric pain: A systematic review of randomised controlled trials

Background and Objective: Chronic pain is associated with significant functional and social impairment. The objective of this review was to assess the characteristics and quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating pain management interventions in children and adolescents with chronic pain. Methods: We performed a systematic search of PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Library up to July 2017. We included RCTs that involved children and adolescents (3 months-18 years) and evaluated the use of pharmacological or non-pharmacological intervention(s) in the context of pain persisting or re-occurring for more than 3 months. Methodological quality was evaluated using the Cochrane Risk of Bias (ROB) Tool. Results: A total of 58 RCTs were identified and numbers steadily increased over time. The majority were conducted in single hospital institutions, with no information on study funding. Median sample size was 47.5 participants (Q1,Q3: 32, 70). Forty-five percent of RCTs included both adults and children and the median of the mean ages at inclusion was 12.9 years (Q1,Q3: 11, 15). Testing of non-pharmacological interventions was predominant and only 5 RCTs evaluated analgesics or co-analgesics. Abdominal pain, headache/migraine and musculoskeletal pain were the most common types of chronic pain among participants. Methodological quality was poor with 90% of RCTs presenting a high or unclear ROB. Conclusions: Evaluation of analgesics targeting chronic pain relief in children and adolescents through RCTs is marginal. Infants and children with long-lasting painful conditions are insufficiently represented in RCTs. We discuss possible research constraints and challenges as well as methodologies to circumvent them. Significance: There is a substantial research gap regarding analgesic interventions for children and adolescents with chronic pain. Most clinical trials in the field focus on the evaluation of non-pharmacological interventions and are of low methodological quality. There is also a specific lack of trials involving infants and children and adolescents with long-lasting diseases