Is zero underestimation feasible? Extended Vacuum-assisted breast biopsy in solid lesions – a blind study

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licens

The experiences of early career geriatricians throughout Europe during the COVID-19 pandemic

The COVID-19 pandemic has severely affected older adults and brought about unprecedented challenges to geriatricians. We aimed to evaluate the experiences of early career geriatricians (residents or consultants with up to 10 years of experience) throughout Europe using an online survey. We obtained 721 responses. Most of the respondents were females (77.8%) and residents in geriatric medicine (54.6%). The majority (91.4%) were directly involved in the care of patients with COVID-19. The respondents reported moderate levels of anxiety and feelings of being overloaded with work. The anxiety levels were higher in women than in men. Most of the respondents experienced a feeling of a strong restriction on their private lives and a change in their work routine. The residents also reported a moderate disruption in their training and research activities. In conclusion, early career geriatricians experienced a major impact of COVID-19 on their professional and private lives

Comprehensive geriatric assessment in older people : an umbrella review of health outcomes

Background: Comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) has been in use for the last three decades. However, some doubts remain regarding its clinical use. Therefore, we aimed to capture the breadth of outcomes reported and assess the strength of evidence of the use of comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) for health outcomes in older Methods: Umbrella review of systematic reviews of the use of CGA in older adults searching in Pubmed, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane library and CINHAL until 05 November 2021. All possible health outcomes were eligible. Two independent reviewers extracted key data. The grading of evidence was carried out using the GRADE for intervention studies, whilst data regarding systematic reviews were reported as narrative findings. Results: Among 1,683 papers, 31 systematic reviews (19 with meta-analysis) were considered, including 279,744 subjects. Overall, 13/53 outcomes were statistically significant (P < 0.05). There was high certainty of evidence that CGA reduces nursing home admission (risk ratio [RR] = 0.86; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.75–0.89), risk of falls (RR = 0.51; 95%CI: 0.29–0.89), and pressure sores (RR = 0.46; 95%CI: 0.24–0.89) in hospital medical setting; decreases the risk of delirium (OR = 0.71; 95%CI: 0.54–0.92) in hip fracture; decreases the risk of physical frailty in community-dwelling older adults (RR = 0.77; 95%CI: 0.64–0.93). Systematic reviews without meta-analysis indicate that CGA improves clinical outcomes in oncology, haematology, and in emergency department. Conclusions: CGA seems to be beneficial in the hospital medical setting for multiple health outcomes, with a high certainty of evidence. The evidence of benefits is less strong for the use of CGA in other settings