Activity

More research using innovative statistical approaches is necessary before treatment tailoring can be an empirically-based process.

Our review found inconsistent findings across studies, likely due to the strong impact of predictors relative to moderators and limited statistical power. More research using innovative statistical approaches is necessary before treatment tailoring can be an empirically-based process.

Retrospective radiological analysis.

Translaminar screw (TLS) placement is one of the fixation techniques in the subaxial cervical spine. However, it can be difficult to use in small diameter of the lamina. This study proposed a novel bicortical laminar screw (BLS) and analyzed the related parameters using computed tomography (CT).

Cervical CT images taken at our institution from January 2013 to March 2017 were used for measurement. On the axial images, the maximum screw length (MSL) and trajectory angle (TA) of BLS and TLS were measured, together with the distance from the midline (DM) to the BLS entry point and the lamina width (LW). On the parasagittal images, the height of the lamina (LH) was measured.

MSL of BLS and TLS were 21.00 and 20.97 mm, 19.02 and 20.91 mm, 18.45 and 21.01 mm, and 20.00 and 21.01 mm in C3, C4, C5, and C6, respectively. TA of the BLS and TLS were 21.24° and 34.90°, 19.05° and 34.22°, 18.65° and 33.61°, and 18.30° and 34.51° at C3, C4, C5, and C6, respectively. DM were 6.44, 5.77, 5.68, and 6.03 at C3, C4, C5, and C6, respectively. LW and LH were 3.52 and 12.44 mm, 2.87 and 12.49 mm, 2.76 and 12.42 mm, and 3.18 and 13.30 mm at C3, C4, C5, and C6, respectively.

We suggest that BLS fixation is a feasible alternative option for posterior fixation to the lamina of the subaxial cervical spine. It may be especially useful when pedicle screw, lateral mass screw, and TLS are not appropriate.

We suggest that BLS fixation is a feasible alternative option for posterior fixation to the lamina of the subaxial cervical spine. It may be especially useful when pedicle screw, lateral mass screw, and TLS are not appropriate.Healthcare is a complex adaptive system with multiple stakeholders and dynamic environments. Therefore, healthcare organizations must continuously learn, innovate, adapt, and co-evolve to be successful. This article describes a systematic, comprehensive, and holistic performance management framework that healthcare managers can use to achieve these goals. The framework involves the ongoing assessment, modification, or replacement of current programs or services aimed at adapting successfully to achieve the organization’s strategic objectives. This is engendered by the presence of a culture that is premised on continuous learning and innovation. The foundation of the framework is based on accountability, the organization’s strategy, and its culture. This then acts as the basis for an ongoing process of measurement, disconfirmation, contextualization, implementation, and routinization that enhances learning, innovation, adaptation, and sustainability within the healthcare organization.While reflecting on early morning conversations with my dad, I became aware of how he influences my ontoepistemological approach to studying the Black graduate student experience. In this essay, I narrate my defining moment as I began asking my research participants modified versions of the questions my dad asks me. It is through these reflections that I realize, my dad may not have been asking me questions, instead, making observations. Powerful ones of perseverance. Subsequently, I encourage health communication scholars, practitioners, faculty, staff, and peers to embrace an active role as counter agents to the psychological stress and fatigue of Mr. Sleepy.

In patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) previously receiving 1-3 therapy lines, newer agents demonstrated improved outcomes versus older agents. Real-world treatment pattern data are limited. We assessed real-world treatment patterns and outcomes in patients with RRMM (≥2 prior therapy lines).

An electronic medical record (EMR) analysis and chart review were conducted using International Oncology Network (ION) EMR data. Selleckchem DL-Buthionine-Sulfoximine Patients ≥18years old initiating first-line MM treatment 1 January 2011, to 31 May 2017, were stratified into older/newer treatment cohorts (approval date before vs during/after 2012). Treatment patterns and outcomes were described; no statistical tests were performed.

In the EMR analysis (n=1601) and chart review (n=456), bortezomib, lenalidomide, and bortezomib-lenalidomide combinations dominated first-line treatment. Median real-world progression-free survival (rwPFS) was 12.0 to 3.5months (first- to fifth-line), and median real-world overall survival (rwOS) was 48.2 to 5.8months. A trend for increased rwPFS/rwOS with newer versus older treatments was observed. Most common AEs were fatigue, bone pain, and anemia.

Real-world data describing treatment patterns in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma are limited. Evaluation of new treatments on patient outcomes will influence treatment patterns and patient outcomes in the real-world setting.

Although a trend for improved rwPFS and rwOS with newer versus older treatments was suggested, additional treatment options to improve patient outcomes are needed.

Although a trend for improved rwPFS and rwOS with newer versus older treatments was suggested, additional treatment options to improve patient outcomes are needed.

The seesaw test consists of flexion and extension of the thumb metacarpal on the trapezium, with continuous axial pressure to keep the metacarpal base reduced in the carpometacarpal (CMC) joint. We aim to evaluate this maneuver compared with the grind test.

We prospectively enrolled 80 participants from March 2017 to March 2018 at a single institution, excluding those who had previous thumb surgery or pathology. Each participant underwent both seesaw and grind tests by 2 independent examiners. We included 24 patients with a mean age of 73 years in the CMC osteoarthritis group (Eaton stages 2-4) and 44 patients with a mean age of 66 years in the control group (Eaton stages 0 and 1). We calculated the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and multirater κ measure.

The seesaw test had a higher sensitivity than the grind test (42%-71% vs 13%-17%), but a lower specificity (82%-86% vs 91%-98%). The PPV was more consistent between examiners for the seesaw test (63%-68% vs 42%-80%), and the NPV was higher (73%-84% vs 66%-68%).