Stereoscopic three-dimensional visualisation technology in anatomy learning: A meta-analysis

Objectives: The features that contribute to the apparent effectiveness of three-dimensional visualisation technology [3DVT] in teaching anatomy are largely unknown. The aim of this study was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of the role of stereopsis in learning anatomy with 3DVT. Methods: The review was conducted and reported according to PRISMA Standards. Literature search of English articles was performed using EMBASE, MEDLINE, CINAHL EBSCOhost, ERIC EBSCOhost, Cochrane CENTRAL, Web of Science and Google Scholar databases until November 2019. Study selection, data extraction and study appraisal were performed independently by two authors. Articles were assessed for methodological quality using the Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument and the Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing the risk of bias. For quantitative analysis, studies were grouped based on relative between-intervention differences in instructional methods and type of control conditions. Results: A total of 3934 citations were obtained of which 67 underwent a full-text review. Ultimately, 13 randomised controlled trials were included in the meta-analysis. When interactive, stereoscopic 3D models were compared to interactive, monoscopic 3D models within a single level of instructional design, for example isolating stereopsis as the only true manipulated element in the experimental design, an effect size [ES] of 0.53 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.26-0.80; P <.00001) was found. In comparison with 2D images within multiple levels of instructional design, an effect size of 0.45 (95% CI 0.10-0.81; P <.002) was found. Stereopsis had no effect on learning when utilised with non-interactive 3D images (ES = −0.87, 95% CI −2.09-0.35; P =.16). Conclusion: Stereopsis is an important distinguishing element of 3DVT that has a significant positive effect on acquisition of anatomical knowledge when utilised within an interactive 3D environment. A distinction between stereoscopic and monoscopic 3DVT is essential to make in anatomical education and research

Global versus task-specific postoperative feedback in surgical procedure learning

Background: Task-specific checklists and global rating scales are both recommended assessment tools to provide constructive feedback on surgical performance. This study evaluated the most effective feedback tool by comparing the effects of the Observational Clinical Human Reliability Analysis (OCHRA) and the Objective Structured Assessment of Technical Skills (OSATS) on surgical performance in relation to the visual-spatial ability of the learners. Methods: In a randomized controlled trial, medical students were allocated to either the OCHRA (n = 25) or OSATS (n = 25) feedback group. Visual-spatial ability was measured by a Mental Rotation Test. Participants performed an open inguinal hernia repair procedure on a simulation model twice. Feedback was provided after the first procedure. Improvement in performance was evaluated blindly using a global rating sca

Diagnosed with a rare cancer: Experiences of adult sarcoma survivors with the healthcare system—results from the survsarc study

The aim of this study was to explore the experience of rare cancer patients with the healthcare system and examine differences between age groups (adolescents and young adults (AYA, 18–39 years), older adults (OA, 40–69 years) and elderly (≥70 years)). Dutch sarcoma patients, 2–10 years after diagnosis, completed a questionnaire on their experience with the healthcare sys-tem, satisfaction with care, information needs, patient and diagnostic intervals (first symptom to first doctor’s visit and first doctor’s visit to diagnosis, respectively) and received supportive care. In total, 1099 patients completed the questionnaire (response rate 58%): 186 AYAs, 748 OAs and 165 elderly. Many survivors experienced insufficient medical and non-medical guidance (32% and 38%), although satisfaction with care was rated good to excellent by 94%. Both patient and diagnostic intervals were >1 month for over half of the participants and information needs were largely met (97%). AYAs had the longest patient and diagnostic intervals, experienced the greatest lack of (non-)medical guidance, had more desire for patient support groups and used supportive care most often. This nationwide study among sarcoma survivors showed that healthcare experiences differ per age group and identified needs related to the rarity of these tumors, such as improvements concerning (non-)medical guidance and diagnostic intervals

Characteristics of contralateral carcinomas in patients with differentiated thyroid cancer larger than 1 cm

Purpose: Traditionally, total thyroidectomy has been advocated for patients with tumors larger than 1 cm. However, according to the ATA and NCCN guidelines (2015, USA), patients with tumors up to 4 cm are now eligible for lobectomy. A rationale for adhering to total thyroidectomy might be the presence of contralateral carcinomas. The purpose of this study was to describe the characteristics of contralateral carcinomas in patients with differentiated thyroid cancer (DTC) larger than 1 cm. Methods: A retrospective study was performed including patients from 17 centers in 5 countries. Adults diagnosed with DTC stage T1b-T3 N0-1a M0 who all underwent a total thyroidectomy were included. The primary endpoint was the presence of a contralateral carcinoma. Results: A total of 1

Management of coronary disease in patients with advanced kidney disease

BACKGROUND Clinical trials that have assessed the effect of revascularization in patients with stable coronary disease have routinely excluded those with advanced chronic kidney disease. METHODS We randomly assigned 777 patients with advanced kidney disease and moderate or severe ischemia on stress testing to be treated with an initial invasive strategy consisting of coronary angiography and revascularization (if appropriate) added to medical therapy or an initial conservative strategy consisting of medical therapy alone and angiography reserved for those in whom medical therapy had failed. The primary outcome was a composite of death or nonfatal myocardial infarction. A key secondary outcome was a composite of death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or hospitalization for unstable angina, heart failure, or resuscitated cardiac arrest. RESULTS At a median follow-up of 2.2 years, a primary outcome event had occurred in 123 patients in the invasive-strategy group and in 129 patients in the conservative-strategy group (estimated 3-year event rate, 36.4% vs. 36.7%; adjusted hazard ratio, 1.01; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.79 to 1.29; P=0.95). Results for the key secondary outcome were similar (38.5% vs. 39.7%; hazard ratio, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.79 to 1.29). The invasive strategy was associated with a higher incidence of stroke than the conservative strategy (hazard ratio, 3.76; 95% CI, 1.52 to 9.32; P=0.004) and with a higher incidence of death or initiation of dialysis (hazard ratio, 1.48; 95% CI, 1.04 to 2.11; P=0.03). CONCLUSIONS Among patients with stable coronary disease, advanced chronic kidney disease, and moderate or severe ischemia, we did not find evidence that an initial invasive strategy, as compared with an initial conservative strategy, reduced the risk of death or nonfatal myocardial infarction

Health status after invasive or conservative care in coronary and advanced kidney disease

BACKGROUND In the ISCHEMIA-CKD trial, the primary analysis showed no significant difference in the risk of death or myocardial infarction with initial angiography and revascularization plus guideline-based medical therapy (invasive strategy) as compared with guideline-based medical therapy alone (conservative strategy) in participants with stable ischemic heart disease, moderate or severe ischemia, and advanced chronic kidney disease (an estimated glomerular filtration rate of &lt;30 ml per minute per 1.73 m2 or receipt of dialysis). A secondary objective of the trial was to assess angina-related health status. METHODS We assessed health status with the Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ) before randomization and at 1.5, 3, and 6 months and every 6 months thereafter. The primary outcome of this analysis was the SAQ Summary score (ranging from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating less frequent angina and better function and quality of life). Mixed-effects cumulative probability models within a Bayesian framework were used to estimate the treatment effect with the invasive strategy. RESULTS Health status was assessed in 705 of 777 participants. Nearly half the participants (49%) had had no angina during the month before randomization. At 3 months, the estimated mean difference between the invasive-strategy group and the conservative-strategy group in the SAQ Summary score was 2.1 points (95% credible interval, 120.4 to 4.6), a result that favored the invasive strategy. The mean difference in score at 3 months was largest among participants with daily or weekly angina at baseline (10.1 points; 95% credible interval, 0.0 to 19.9), smaller among those with monthly angina at baseline (2.2 points; 95% credible interval, 122.0 to 6.2), and nearly absent among those without angina at baseline (0.6 points; 95% credible interval, 121.9 to 3.3). By 6 months, the between-group difference in the overall trial population was attenuated (0.5 points; 95% credible interval, 122.2 to 3.4). CONCLUSIONS Participants with stable ischemic heart disease, moderate or severe ischemia, and advanced chronic kidney disease did not have substantial or sustained benefits with regard to angina-related health status with an initially invasive strategy as compared with a conservative strategy

Health-status outcomes with invasive or conservative care in coronary disease

BACKGROUND In the ISCHEMIA trial, an invasive strategy with angiographic assessment and revascularization did not reduce clinical events among patients with stable ischemic heart disease and moderate or severe ischemia. A secondary objective of the trial was to assess angina-related health status among these patients. METHODS We assessed angina-related symptoms, function, and quality of life with the Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ) at randomization, at months 1.5, 3, and 6, and every 6 months thereafter in participants who had been randomly assigned to an invasive treatment strategy (2295 participants) or a conservative strategy (2322). Mixed-effects cumulative probability models within a Bayesian framework were used to estimate differences between the treatment groups. The primary outcome of this health-status analysis was the SAQ summary score (scores range from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating better health status). All analyses were performed in the overall population and according to baseline angina frequency. RESULTS At baseline, 35% of patients reported having no angina in the previous month. SAQ summary scores increased in both treatment groups, with increases at 3, 12, and 36 months that were 4.1 points (95% credible interval, 3.2 to 5.0), 4.2 points (95% credible interval, 3.3 to 5.1), and 2.9 points (95% credible interval, 2.2 to 3.7) higher with the invasive strategy than with the conservative strategy. Differences were larger among participants who had more frequent angina at baseline (8.5 vs. 0.1 points at 3 months and 5.3 vs. 1.2 points at 36 months among participants with daily or weekly angina as compared with no angina). CONCLUSIONS In the overall trial population with moderate or severe ischemia, which included 35% of participants without angina at baseline, patients randomly assigned to the invasive strategy had greater improvement in angina-related health status than those assigned to the conservative strategy. The modest mean differences favoring the invasive strategy in the overall group reflected minimal differences among asymptomatic patients and larger differences among patients who had had angina at baseline

Initial invasive or conservative strategy for stable coronary disease

BACKGROUND Among patients with stable coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia, whether clinical outcomes are better in those who receive an invasive intervention plus medical therapy than in those who receive medical therapy alone is uncertain. METHODS We randomly assigned 5179 patients with moderate or severe ischemia to an initial invasive strategy (angiography and revascularization when feasible) and medical therapy or to an initial conservative strategy of medical therapy alone and angiography if medical therapy failed. The primary outcome was a composite of death from cardiovascular causes, myocardial infarction, or hospitalization for unstable angina, heart failure, or resuscitated cardiac arrest. A key secondary outcome was death from cardiovascular causes or myocardial infarction. RESULTS Over a median of 3.2 years, 318 primary outcome events occurred in the invasive-strategy group and 352 occurred in the conservative-strategy group. At 6 months, the cumulative event rate was 5.3% in the invasive-strategy group and 3.4% in the conservative-strategy group (difference, 1.9 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.8 to 3.0); at 5 years, the cumulative event rate was 16.4% and 18.2%, respectively (difference, 121.8 percentage points; 95% CI, 124.7 to 1.0). Results were similar with respect to the key secondary outcome. The incidence of the primary outcome was sensitive to the definition of myocardial infarction; a secondary analysis yielded more procedural myocardial infarctions of uncertain clinical importance. There were 145 deaths in the invasive-strategy group and 144 deaths in the conservative-strategy group (hazard ratio, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.83 to 1.32). CONCLUSIONS Among patients with stable coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia, we did not find evidence that an initial invasive strategy, as compared with an initial conservative strategy, reduced the risk of ischemic cardiovascular events or death from any cause over a median of 3.2 years. The trial findings were sensitive to the definition of myocardial infarction that was used