Search

Background: To determine the quality and reliability of DCR YouTube videos as patient education resources and identify any associated factors predictive of video quality. Methods: A YouTube search was conducted using the terms “Dacryocystorhinostomy, DCR, surgery” on 12th of January 2022, with the first 50 relevant videos selected for inclusion. For each video, the following was collected: video hyperlink, title, total views, months since the video was posted, video length, total likes/dislikes, authorship (i.e. surgeon, patient experience or media companies) and number of comments. The videos were graded independently by a resident, a registrar and an oculoplastic surgeon using three validated scoring systems: the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), DISCERN, and Health on the Net (HON). Results: The average number of video views was 22,992, with the mean length being 488.12 s and an average of 18 comments per video. The consensus JAMA, DISCERN and HON scores were 2.1 ± 0.6, 29.1 ± 8.8 and 2.7 ± 1.0, respectively. This indicated that the included videos were of a low quality, however, only DISCERN scores had good interobserver similarity. Videos posted by surgeons were superior to non-surgeons when considering mean JAMA and HON scores. No other factors were associated with the quality of educational content. Conclusion: The quality and reliability of DCR related content for patient education is relatively low. Based on this study’s findings, patients should be encouraged to view videos created by surgeons or specialists in preference to other sources on YouTube. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Nausea is a common and unpleasant sensation for which current therapies such as serotonin (5-HT3) antagonists are often ineffective, while also conferring a risk of potential adverse events. Isopropyl alcohol (IPA) has been proposed as a treatment for nausea. We aimed to compare IPA with 5-HT3 antagonists for the treatment of nausea across all clinical settings. Methods: MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, CENTRAL and CINAHL were searched from inception to 17 July 2023 for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing inhaled IPA and a 5-HT3 antagonist for treatment of nausea. Severity and duration of nausea, rescue antiemetic use, adverse events and patient satisfaction were the outcomes sought. Risk of bias (RoB) was assessed using Cochrane RoB 2. Random-effects model was used for meta-analysis. Combination of meta-analyses and narrative review was used to synthesise findings. The evidence was appraised using GRADE. Results: From 1242 records, 4 RCTs were included with 382 participants. Participants receiving IPA had a significantly lower mean time to 50% reduction in nausea (MD − 20.06; 95% CI − 26.26, − 13.85). Nausea score reduction at 30 min was significantly greater in the IPA group (MD 21.47; 95% CI 15.47, 27.47). IPA led to significantly reduced requirement for rescue antiemetics (OR 0.60; 95% CI 0.37, 0.95; p = 0.03). IPA led to no significant difference in patient satisfaction when compared with a 5-HT3 antagonist. The overall GRADE assessment of evidence quality ranged from very low to low. Conclusion: IPA may provide rapid, effective relief of nausea when compared with 5-HT3 antagonists. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Early weight bearing (EWB) is often recommended after intramedullary nailing of tibial shaft fractures, however, the risks and benefits have not been critically evaluated in a systematic review or meta-analysis. Therefore, the aims of this study were to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing EWB and delayed weight-bearing (DWB) after intramedullary nailing of tibial shaft fractures and assess the relationship between weight-bearing, fracture union and healing. Method: This review included studies comparing the effects of EWB, defined as weight-bearing before 6 weeks, and DWB on fracture union and healing. PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Library were searched from inception to 9 May 2021. Risk of bias was assessed using the Down's and Black Checklist and Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool 2.0. Data were synthesised in a meta-analysis, as well as narrative and tabular synthesis. Results: Eight studies were included for data extraction and meta-analysis. The analysis produced mixed results and found a significant decrease in mean union time (−2.41 weeks, 95% confidence interval: −4.77, −0.05) with EWB and a significant Odd's Ratio (OR) for complications with DWB (OR: 2.93, 95% CI: 1.40, 6.16). There was no significant difference in rates of delayed union, non-union, re-operation and malunion. Conclusion: The included studies were of moderate risk of bias and demonstrated shorter union time and fewer complications with EWB. However, current evidence is minimal and has significant limitations. The role of EWB in high-risk patients is yet to be examined. Further well-designed, randomised studies are required on the topic. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]