Exploring patient satisfaction after operative and nonoperative treatment for midshaft clavicle fractures:a focus group analysis

Background: There is no consensus on the optimal treatment for displaced midshaft clavicle fractures. Several studies indicate superior patient satisfaction in favour of operative reconstruction. It is unknown what drives superior satisfaction in this treatment group. The aim of this study was to explore patient satisfaction and identify contributors to patient satisfaction after operative and nonoperative treatment for displaced midshaft clavicle fractures in adults using a focus group approach. Methods: Four face-to-face and two web-based focus groups were hosted. A total of 24 participants who were treated nonoperatively (n = 14) or operatively (n = 10) agreed to participate. Participants were selected using purposive sampling, ensuring variation in gender, age, treatment complications and outcomes. A question script was developed to systematically explore patient expectations, attitudes and satisfaction with different dimensions of care. All focus groups were voice-recorded and transcribed at verbatim. Thematic analysis was conducted on all face-to-face and web-based transcripts. Results: The main emerging themes across treatment groups were; need for more information, functional recovery, speed of recovery and patient-doctor interaction. There was no difference in themes observed between operative and nonoperative focus groups. The lack of information was the most important complaint in dissatisfied patients. Conclusion: Our study shows that informing patients about their injury, treatment options and expectations for recovery is paramount for overall patient satisfaction after treatment for a displaced midshaft clavicle fracture. Level of evidence: Level III, focus group study. </p

Integrated analysis of pain, health-related quality of life, and analgesic use in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer treated with Radium-223

BACKGROUND: Radium-223 (Ra-223), an alpha-emitting radiopharmaceutical, established an improved overall survival and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in symptomatic metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) patients. However, effects on pain were not specifically evaluated. Here we assess integrated HRQoL, pain, and opioid use in a contemporary, more extensively pretreated, symptomatic and asymptomatic mCRPC population. METHODS: mCRPC patients scheduled for Ra-223 treatment were included and analyzed for HRQoL, pain, and opioid use, using Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Prostate (FACT-P) and Brief Pain Inventory-Short Form (BPI-SF) questionnaires and recording of opioid use and dosage, respectively. Primary outcome measure was the percentage of patients experiencing a complete pain response (score of 0 on the BPI-SF Worst pain item and no increase in daily use of analgesics). A complete or partial pain response (better BPI-SF score and decrease in opioid use) and a better or no change in HRQoL was evaluated as an integrated overall clinical response (IOCR). Secondary endpoints included the time to pain progression (TPP) and Total FACT-P deterioration (TTFD), defined as time from first Ra-223 treatment to clinical meaningful increase in BPI-SF Worst pain item score and Total FACT-P score, respectively. RESULTS: This registry included 300 patients, of whom 105 (35%) were evaluable for FACT-P and BPI-SF during Ra-223 treatment. Forty-five (43%) patients had pain at baseline (PAB) (BPI-SF Worst pain score 5-10 points) and 60 (57%) had no pain at baseline (no-PAB) (BPI-SF Worst pain score 0-4 points). Complete pain response was achieved in 31.4% of the patients, while 58% had an IOCR. The median TTP and TTFD were 5.6 and 5.7 months, respectively, while the difference between PAB and no-PAB patients was not significant. CONCLUSIONS: In contemporary, extensively pretreated mCRPC patients, Ra-223 treatment induced complete pain responses while integrated analysis of HRQoL, pain response, and opioid use demonstrated that the majority of patients derive clinical benefit

External validation of prognostic models for preeclampsia in a Dutch multicenter prospective cohort

Objective: To perform an external validation of all published prognostic models for first-trimester prediction of the risk of developing preeclampsia (PE). Methods: Women <14 weeks of pregnancy were recruited in the Netherlands. All systematically identified prognostic models for PE that contained predictors commonly available were eligible for external validation. Results: 3,736 women were included; 87 (2.3%) developed PE. Calibration was poor due to overestimation. Discrimination of 9 models for LO-PE ranged from 0.58 to 0.71 and of 9 models for all PE from 0.55 to 0.75. Conclusion: Only a few easily applicable prognostic models for all PE showed discrimination above 0.70, which is considered an acceptable performance

External validation of prognostic models for preeclampsia in a Dutch multicenter prospective cohort.

To perform an external validation of all published prognostic models for first-trimester prediction of the risk of developing preeclampsia (PE). Women <14 weeks of pregnancy were recruited in the Netherlands. All systematically identified prognostic models for PE that contained predictors commonly available were eligible for external validation. 3,736 women were included; 87 (2.3%) developed PE. Calibration was poor due to overestimation. Discrimination of 9 models for LO-PE ranged from 0.58 to 0.71 and of 9 models for all PE from 0.55 to 0.75. Only a few easily applicable prognostic models for all PE showed discrimination above 0.70, which is considered an acceptable performance