Reading Tip!
>To get to the fulltext easy, use the library proxy bookmarklet or activate our Pubmed url for the Get it! button!
Categories
- Acta Derm Venereol (8)
- Allergy (2)
- Am J Dermatopathol (1)
- Am J Kidney Dis (1)
- Anal Bioanal Chem (1)
- Anal Chem (1)
- Ann Med (1)
- Arch Dermatol (3)
- Arch Phys Med Rehabil (1)
- Arthritis Res Ther (1)
- Arthritis Rheum (1)
- Australas J Dermatol (1)
- BMC Proc (1)
- Br J Dermatol (50)
- Cell Tissue Res (1)
- Clin Exp Dermatol (2)
- Contact Dermatitis (51)
- Dermatol Clin (3)
- Dermatol Res Pract (1)
- Dermatol Surg (1)
- Disabil Rehabil (1)
- Discov Med (2)
- Drugs Aging (2)
- Eur J Dermatol (10)
- Eur J Immunol (1)
- Exp Dermatol (4)
- Front Immunol (1)
- Genes Immun (1)
- Genet Test Mol Biomarkers (1)
- Hum Mol Genet (1)
- Hum Mutat (1)
- Hum Pathol (1)
- Infect Immun (1)
- Inflamm Bowel Dis (1)
- Int J Dermatol (1)
- Int J Med Microbiol (1)
- Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci (1)
- J Allergy Clin Immunol (3)
- J Am Acad Dermatol (10)
- J Clin Invest (1)
- J Clin Virol (1)
- J Cutan Pathol (3)
- J Dermatol Sci (2)
- J Dtsch Dermatol Ges (4)
- J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol (9)
- J Hand Ther (1)
- J Immunol (1)
- J Invest Dermatol (20)
- J Med Genet (1)
- J Strength Cond Res (2)
- JAMA Dermatol (4)
- JNMA J Nepal Med Assoc (1)
- Lab Chip (1)
- Methods Mol Biol (1)
- Mol Vis (1)
- N Engl J Med (1)
- Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd (13)
- Ned Tijdschr Tandheelkd (1)
- Neth J Med (1)
- Occup Environ Med (1)
- Opt Lett (1)
- PLoS One (2)
- Qual Health Res (1)
- Regul Toxicol Pharmacol (2)
- Report (1)
- Sci Transl Med (1)
- Skin Res Technol (2)
- Trials (1)
Archives
- May 2022
- April 2022
- March 2022
- February 2022
- January 2022
- December 2021
- November 2021
- October 2021
- September 2021
- August 2021
- July 2021
- June 2021
- May 2021
- April 2021
- March 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- November 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- December 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- July 2019
- May 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- December 2018
- November 2018
- October 2018
- August 2018
- April 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- July 2017
- June 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- August 2016
- July 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- November 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
Contributors
Meta
Monthly Archives: February 2019
Dexamethasone therapy versus surgery for chronic subdural haematoma (DECSA trial): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.
![]() ![]() |
Related Articles |
Dexamethasone therapy versus surgery for chronic subdural haematoma (DECSA trial): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.
Trials. 2018 Oct 20;19(1):575
Authors: Miah IP, Holl DC, Peul WC, Walchenbach R, Kruyt N, de Laat K, Koot RW, Volovici V, Dirven CMF, van Kooten F, Kho KH, den Hertog HM, van der Naalt J, Jacobs B, Groen RJM, Lingsma HF, Dammers R, Jellema K, van der Gaag NA, Dutch Subdural Hematoma Research Group (DSHR)
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Chronic subdural haematoma (CSDH) is a common neurological disease with a rapidly rising incidence due to increasing age and widespread use of anticoagulants. Surgical intervention by burr-hole craniotomy (BHC) is the current standard practice for symptomatic patients, but associated with complications, a recurrence rate of up to 30% and increased mortality. Dexamethasone (DXM) therapy is, therefore, used as a non-surgical alternative but considered to achieve a lower success rate. Furthermore, the benefit of DXM therapy appears much more deliberate than the immediate relief from BHC. Lack of evidence and clinical equipoise among caregivers prompts the need for a head-to-head randomised controlled trial. The objective of this study is to compare the effect of primary DXM therapy versus primary BHC on functional outcome and cost-effectiveness in symptomatic patients with CSDH.
METHODS/DESIGN: This study is a prospective, multicentre, randomised controlled trial (RCT). Consecutive patients with a CSDH with a Markwalder Grading Scale (MGS) grade 1 to 3 will be randomised to treatment with DXM or BHC. The DXM treatment scheme will be 16 mg DXM per day (8 mg twice daily, days 1 to 4) which is then halved every 3 days until a dosage of 0.5 mg a day on day 19 and stopped on day 20. If the treatment response is insufficient (i.e. persistent or progressive symptomatology due to insufficient haematoma resolution), additional surgery can be performed. The primary outcomes are the functional outcome by means of the modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score at 3 months and cost-effectiveness at 12 months. Secondary outcomes are quality of life at 3 and 12 months using the Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) and Quality of Life after Brain Injury Overall Scale (QOLIBRI), haematoma thickness after 2 weeks on follow-up computed tomography (CT), haematoma recurrence during the first 12 months, complications and drug-related adverse events, failure of therapy within 12 months after randomisation and requiring intervention, mortality during the first 3 and 12 months, duration of hospital stay and overall healthcare and productivity costs. To test non-inferiority of DXM therapy compared to BHC, 210 patients in each treatment arm are required (assumed adjusted common odds ratio DXM compared to BHC 1.15, limit for inferiority < 0.9). The aim is to include a total of 420 patients in 3 years with an enrolment rate of 60%.
DISCUSSION: The present study should demonstrate whether treatment with DXM is as effective as BHC on functional outcome, at lower costs.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: EUCTR 2015-001563-39 . Date of registration: 29 March 2015.
PMID: 30342554 [PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE]
Posted in Trials
Comments Off on Dexamethasone therapy versus surgery for chronic subdural haematoma (DECSA trial): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.
Handekzeme bei niederländischen Imkern – eine Querschnittsuntersuchung.
![]() |
Related Articles |
Handekzeme bei niederländischen Imkern – eine Querschnittsuntersuchung.
J Dtsch Dermatol Ges. 2019 Feb;17(2):158-166
Authors: Oosterhaven JAF, Verbist J, Schuttelaar MA
PMID: 30762965 [PubMed – in process]
Posted in J Dtsch Dermatol Ges
Comments Off on Handekzeme bei niederländischen Imkern – eine Querschnittsuntersuchung.
Hand eczema among Dutch beekeepers – a cross-sectional study.
![]() |
Related Articles |
Hand eczema among Dutch beekeepers – a cross-sectional study.
J Dtsch Dermatol Ges. 2019 Feb;17(2):158-166
Authors: Oosterhaven JAF, Verbist J, Schuttelaar MA
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Studies of beekeepers have mostly focused on contact allergy to propolis. The overall prevalence of hand eczema (HE) in beekeepers has not been studied. Our objectives were to gain insight into the prevalence of HE in the Dutch beekeeper population; to define the impact of beekeeping activities on HE and vice versa; and to determine associated factors.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: We used a cross-sectional online survey. Dutch beekeepers answered questions on beekeeping activities, the prevalence and characteristics of HE, including severity, and the impact of the disease on beekeeping.
RESULTS: We analyzed 833 surveys (12 % of Dutch beekeepers). The one-year prevalence of HE was 13.2 %, and the lifetime prevalence was 20.5 %. In 28 patch-tested beekeepers with hand eczema, eight (28.6 %) were allergic to propolis. Atopic dermatitis was the only variable associated with HE: the odds ratio was 4.53 (95 % confidence interval 2.78-7.38). One in three beekeepers reported that HE was caused or worsened by beekeeping, although only 3.8 % reported working less at beekeeping because of HE, and the impact of HE on beekeeping activities (as perceived by beekeepers) is low.
CONCLUSIONS: In this sample of Dutch beekeepers, hand eczema was more prevalent than in the general population, but seems to have had little impact on the beekeeping activities of the majority of beekeepers.
PMID: 30762971 [PubMed – in process]
Posted in J Dtsch Dermatol Ges
Comments Off on Hand eczema among Dutch beekeepers – a cross-sectional study.