15 research outputs found

    Systematic review on sleeve gastrectomy or Roux-en-Y gastric bypass surgery for refractory gastroparesis

    Get PDF
    Management of refractory gastroparesis is challenging after diet, prokinetics, and long-term nutritional support have failed. In this review, the efficacy and safety of surgical interventions (sleeve gastrectomy and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass surgery) are evaluated systematically in patients with refractory gastroparesis. The PubMed, Embase, and Scopus databases were searched to identify relevant studies published up to June 2021. Outcome of interest was symptom improvement and gastric emptying. Nineteen studies with 222 refractory gastroparesis patients (147 Roux-en-Y gastric bypass, 39 sleeve gastrectomy, and 36 subtotal gastrectomy) were included. All studies reported symptom improvement postoperatively, particularly vomiting and nausea. Gastric emptying improved postoperatively in 45% up to 67% for sleeve gastrectomy and 87% for Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. The findings of our systematic review suggest that sleeve gastrectomy and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass surgery improve symptoms and gastric emptying in patients with refractory gastroparesis. Surgery may be effective as treatment for a small group of patients when all other therapies have failed

    Bourdet Y., Communisme et marxisme. Notes critiques de sociologie politique.

    Get PDF
    Rubel M. Bourdet Y., Communisme et marxisme. Notes critiques de sociologie politique.. In: Revue française de sociologie, 1965, 6-2. pp. 254-255

    Validation study in four health-care databases: Upper gastrointestinal bleeding misclassification affects precision but not magnitude of drug-related upper gastrointestinal bleeding risk

    No full text
    Objective: To evaluate the accuracy of disease codes and free text in identifying upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) from electronic health-care records (EHRs). Study design and setting: We conducted a validation study in four European electronic health-care record (EHR) databases such as Integrated Primary Care Information (IPCI), Health Search/CSD Patient Database (HSD), ARS, and Aarhus, in which we identified UGIB cases using free text or disease codes: (1) International Classification of Disease (ICD)-9 (HSD, ARS); (2) ICD-10 (Aarhus); and (3) International Classification of Primary Care (ICPC) (IPCI). From each database, we randomly selected and manually reviewed 200 cases to calculate positive predictive values (PPVs). We employed different case definitions to assess the effect of outcome misclassification on estimation of risk of drug-related UGIB. Results: PPV was 22% [95% confidence interval (CI): 16, 28] and 21% (95% CI: 16, 28) in IPCI for free text and ICPC codes, respectively. PPV was 91% (95% CI: 86, 95) for ICD-9 codes and 47% (95% CI: 35, 59) for free text in HSD. PPV for ICD-9 codes in ARS was 72% (95% CI: 65, 78) and 77% (95% CI: 69, 83) for ICD-10 codes (Aarhus). More specific definitions did not have significant impact on risk estimation of drug-related UGIB, except for wider CIs. Conclusions: ICD-9-CM and ICD-10 disease codes have good PPV in identifying UGIB from EHR; less granular terminology (ICPC) may require additional strategies. Use of more specific UGIB definitions affects precision, but not magnitude, of risk estimates
    corecore