SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “definition”

Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

102 records · Page 6Linked to original sources

PubMed2026

Electro-clinical efficacy and safety of midazolam in neonatal seizures: a systematic review with individual level exploratory analysis of gestational age-related treatment response.

UNLABELLED: Neonatal seizures are the most common neurological emergency during the neonatal period and are associated with increased mortality and adverse neurodevelopmental outcomes. Despite current recommendations supporting phenobarbital as first-line therapy, seizure control remains suboptimal in a large proportion of neonates, prompting the use of second-line antiseizure medications. Midazolam is increasingly administered in refractory neonatal seizures but evidence regarding its electro-clinical efficacy and safety remains limited and heterogeneous. To systematically review the available evidence on the electro-clinical efficacy and safety of midazolam in neonatal seizures and to perform an exploratory individual-level analysis investigating the association between gestational age and treatment response. A systematic review was conducted according to PRISMA 2020 guidelines. Studies including neonates with EEG- or aEEG-confirmed seizures treated with midazolam were included. Binary logistic regression was performed to assess the individual-level association between gestational age and treatment response. Eleven studies involving 146 neonates treated with midazolam were included. Electro-clinical response was observed in 101/146 neonates (69.2%), while seizure cessation was achieved in 61/146 neonates (41.8%). In an exploratory complete-case logistic regression analysis, higher gestational age appeared to be associated with a greater probability of electro-clinical response. The predicted probability curve crossed the 50% response probability at approximately 36.5 weeks of gestation. Hypotension was the most frequently reported adverse event, while respiratory depression, sedation-related effects, and transient EEG/aEEG suppression were reported less frequently. CONCLUSIONS: Midazolam may have a role as an add-on antiseizure medication in neonatal seizures, particularly in refractory cases. However, the evidence remains limited by heterogeneity in study design, EEG monitoring strategies, outcome definitions, and incomplete individual-level data. The observed association between gestational age and response is hypothesis-generating and requires prospective validation. WHAT IS KNOWN: • Phenobarbital often provides incomplete seizure control in neonates, making second-line antiseizure therapies necessary in refractory cases. • Evidence supporting midazolam for neonatal seizures remains limited and heterogeneous. WHAT IS NEW: • This systematic review summarizes the electro-clinical efficacy and safety of midazolam and includes an exploratory patient-level analysis suggesting that higher gestational age may be associated with improved treatment response. • These findings support further prospective studies on developmental determinants of response to GABAergic therapy.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Robotic-assisted transbronchial biopsy versus computed tomography-guided transthoracic needle biopsy for peripheral pulmonary lesions: a systematic review and meta-analysis of direct comparative studies.

Robotic-assisted bronchoscopy (RAB) and computed tomography-guided transthoracic biopsy (CTTB) are competing strategies for sampling peripheral pulmonary lesions (PPLs). Whether they differ in yield or safety is uncertain. To our knowledge, this is the first systematic review restricted to direct comparisons. We searched MEDLINE, Europe PMC, Scopus, Web of Science and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception to 7 July 2026 for studies directly comparing RAB with CTTB in adults with PPLs. The primary outcome was strict 2024 American Thoracic Society/American College of Chest Physicians diagnostic yield. Risk of bias was assessed with ROBINS-I and certainty with GRADE. A cohort-genealogy step identified, per outcome, the largest set of cohorts sharing no patients; only that set was pooled, with Hartung-Knapp and Mantel-Haenszel sensitivity analyses. Five retrospective studies from one US health system were eligible. Four share patients; at most three cohorts are mutually independent. Across those three, diagnostic yield was comparable (risk ratio [RR] 0.99, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.93-1.06; I²=24%; Hartung-Knapp 0.87-1.13), with an identical relative effect under strict and intermediate definitions although absolute yields fell from 88% to 74-84% under strict criteria. Pneumothorax requiring a chest tube and/or admission was about three-quarters less frequent with RAB across all three cohorts (RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.14-0.46; I²=0%; Hartung-Knapp 0.07-0.96). Strict yield (RR 0.99) and any pneumothorax (RR 0.06) were reported by two cohorts each and neither survives the few-studies correction. RAB took about 50 min longer than CTTB where same-session staging endobronchial ultrasound was counted in the robotic time, but only about 8 min longer than CTTB where it was not. Only one cohort reported yield by lesion size category and none reported yield by bronchus sign or lung zone, so lesion-level subgroups could not be pooled. Certainty was low for pleural complications and very low elsewhere. Low-certainty evidence indicates that RAB is associated with fewer pleural complications, with no statistically detectable difference in diagnostic yield; equivalence was not formally established. Because all evidence is retrospective, confined to one health system, and almost never stratified by lesion size or accessibility, these findings are hypothesis-generating and require a multicenter randomized trial.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Multidisciplinary mHealth Rehabilitation for Patients With Abdominal Cancer Who Are Receiving Chemoradiotherapy: Randomized Phase II Trial.

BACKGROUND: Concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) for abdominal cancer frequently induces muscle loss, weight loss, and malnutrition. OBJECTIVE: This exploratory randomized phase II trial evaluated whether a multidisciplinary, mobile health (mHealth)-based multimodal rehabilitation program could preserve handgrip strength and muscle mass in patients with abdominal cancer undergoing CCRT. METHODS: In this prospective, multicenter, randomized, open-label phase II trial (NCT05325554), 111 eligible patients with abdominal malignancies scheduled for CCRT were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either multidisciplinary mHealth rehabilitation care (MRC; n=57) or standard care (SC; n=54). The MRC program was delivered by a dedicated multidisciplinary team using the AiNST mHealth platform and wearable heart rate monitors. The primary end point was handgrip strength at the end of CCRT (analyzed with analysis of covariance adjusting for baseline). Secondary end points were exploratory and analyzed without multiplicity adjustment; sensitivity analysis using false discovery rate (FDR) correction was performed. RESULTS: Between February 2022 and April 2023, 111 patients were enrolled. Adherence was high (n=93, 83.9% achieved exercise targets). After adjusting for baseline handgrip strength, the MRC group had significantly higher handgrip strength at the end of CCRT than the SC group (adjusted mean difference 4.87 kg, 95% CI 3.36-6.38; P<.001). Exploratory analyses of secondary end points (without multiplicity adjustment) showed that the MRC group also had better preservation of body weight (P=.005), skeletal muscle mass (P<.001), serum albumin (P=.009), prealbumin (P=.02), and lower rates of hematological toxicity (P<.05), as well as improved psychological status (distress thermometer [DT] and Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale [HADS]) and nutritional scores (Nutritional Risk Screening 2002 [NRS-2002] and Patient-Generated Subjective Global Assessment [PG-SGA]) at the end of CCRT (all P<.05). All nominally significant secondary end points remained significant after FDR correction (q<.05). These findings are preliminary and should be interpreted with caution due to the open-label design, population heterogeneity, and exploratory secondary analyses. CONCLUSIONS: In this exploratory phase II trial, a multidisciplinary, mHealth-based multimodal rehabilitation program was associated with better preservation of handgrip strength, muscle mass, and nutritional status, as well as lower rates of certain treatment toxicities, compared with SC. However, definitive conclusions are limited by the open-label design, heterogeneity of tumor types, and short follow-up. Larger, blinded phase III trials are needed to confirm these findings.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Comparative Effectiveness of Exercise Interventions for Hamstring Injury Prevention in Football Players: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Hamstring strain injury is a leading time-loss injury in football, yet trials have evaluated diverse exercise-based prevention programs with limited direct head-to-head evidence. This systematic review and network meta-analysis aimed to compare the effectiveness of exercise-based interventions for preventing hamstring injuries in football players using exposure-adjusted incidence rate ratios. METHODS: We conducted a PRISMA-aligned systematic review and random-effects network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials in football players comparing exercise-based interventions to prevent hamstring injuries. Searches covered PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase and Web of Science from inception to January 5, 2026. Interventions were modeled as separate nodes (Nordic hamstring exercise [NHE], FIFA 11, FIFA 11 + , FIFA 11 + Kids, bounding exercise program [BEP], usual training). The primary effect measure was incidence rate ratio (IRR) versus usual training, with ranking by P-scores; exploratory subgroup analyses were conducted by sex-restricted male-only evidence and age group. RESULTS: Eleven randomized controlled trials involving 9,282 participants were included. The network was connected but largely star-shaped, with most evidence comparing active interventions against usual training and no direct active-active comparisons. FIFA 11 + showed the most consistent exposure-adjusted association with reduced hamstring injury incidence versus usual training (IRR = 0.55, 95% CI 0.31-0.98; P-score = 0.84). FIFA 11 + Kids showed a favorable but imprecise estimate, whereas NHE showed a modest non-significant reduction and FIFA 11 and BEP showed no clear benefit. Male-only findings were broadly consistent with the primary analysis. Age-stratified analyses suggested that the apparent hierarchy was not fully identical across age strata, but subgroup networks were sparse and exploratory. RoB 2 judged three studies as high risk and eight as having some concerns; no trial was judged as overall low risk. Between-study heterogeneity was substantial, and treatment rankings were, therefore, interpreted cautiously. CONCLUSIONS: In this IRR-based network meta-analysis, FIFA 11 + showed the most consistent exposure-adjusted association with reduced hamstring injury incidence compared with usual training. However, certainty across the primary comparisons ranged from low to very low because of clinical and methodological heterogeneity, sparse direct evidence for several nodes, reliance on indirect active-active comparisons, substantial between-study heterogeneity, and moderate-to-high risk of bias across the included studies. The treatment hierarchy should, therefore, be interpreted as a low-to-very-low-certainty, population-level summary rather than as a basis for firm recommendations. Further well-reported, age- and population-specific head-to-head trials with consistent exposure, injury-definition, adherence, and intervention-dose reporting are needed. Registration Systematic review registration PROSPERO (CRD420251243576).

FIFA 11 + ↗

PubMed2026

Valproate vs levetiracetam in juvenile myoclonic epilepsy: systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Juvenile myoclonic epilepsy (JME) is a genetic generalized epilepsy syndrome with onset typically in adolescence and a chronic course requiring long-term antiseizure medications (ASMs). Valproate (VPA) is the most effective treatment for seizure control in JME but use is limited by metabolic, cognitive, and teratogenic adverse effects (AEs). Levetiracetam (LEV) is an alternative ASM when VPA is contraindicated or not tolerated. Comparisons of the efficacy and long-term tolerability of VPA and LEV remain limited. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis using PRISMA guidelines and the Cochrane Handbook. We searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library from inception through January 2026 for studies in JME patients comparing LEV and VPA, and included randomized controlled trials and comparative observational studies with ≥ 6 months of follow-up. Primary outcomes were seizure remission and ASM failure or treatment discontinuation. Secondary outcomes included, memory impairment, weight gain or obesity, dizziness, and overall AEs. Risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were pooled using random-effects models. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I2 statistic. RESULTS: Seven studies encompassing 1,009 patients were included. VPA was associated with higher pooled seizure remission rates compared with LEV (344 of 574 vs. 169 of 390; RR 1.44, 95% CI 1.27-1.63); however, substantial heterogeneity (I2 = 88.4%) limits confidence in this finding. VPA was associated with a lower risk of drug failure or treatment discontinuation (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.54-0.86), with no heterogeneity (I2 = 0.0%). VPA was also associated with a higher risk of memory impairment (RR 5.37, 95% CI 2.05-14.04; I2 = 74.5%) and weight gain or obesity (RR 6.40, 95% CI 3.64-11.26; I2 = 35.9%). No significant differences were observed between treatments regarding dizziness (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.61-1.37; I2 = 21.2%). Sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of the pooled estimates. CONCLUSION: VPA was associated with higher seizure remission rates and lower treatment discontinuation compared with LEV; however, these findings must be interpreted with caution given the substantial heterogeneity, the predominance of observational studies, and the serious risk of bias identified in most included studies VPA also demonstrated lower rates of treatment discontinuation, despite a higher burden of cognitive impairment and weight gain. No relevant differences were observed regarding dizziness. Large-scale randomized trials with standardized outcome definitions and longer follow-up are needed to define the comparative risk-benefit profiles of LEV and VPA in JME.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Rotavirus vaccine effectiveness against rotavirus and acute gastroenteritis mortality: an analysis of pooled case-control studies from the MNSSTER-V dataset.

BACKGROUND: Rotavirus accounts for an estimated 25% of diarrhoea deaths in children under 5 years globally, and more than 140 countries have included rotavirus vaccines in their routine national infant vaccination programmes. We aimed to calculate rotavirus vaccine effectiveness against rotavirus-positive and all-cause acute gastroenteritis deaths. METHODS: The Multi-National Subpopulations Study to Evaluate Rotavirus Vaccines (MNSSTER-V) dataset combines child-level data from test-negative case-control studies of rotavirus vaccine effectiveness that enrolled children under 5 years of age seeking care for acute gastroenteritis at hospitals or emergency departments in 24 countries between July 1, 2007, and Aug 24, 2023. Children were included in this study if they were: younger than 5 years, met the acute gastroenteritis case definition (had at least three episodes of diarrhoea in a 24-h period, had non-bloody and non-chronic diarrhoea, and were enrolled within 7 days of diarrhoea onset), met vaccine card quality metrics, had vaccine delivery dates if the child was reported to have received a rotavirus vaccine, and had a reported outcome of death or discharge. In-hospital acute gastroenteritis deaths were characterised, and rotavirus vaccine effectiveness against all-cause and rotavirus-positive acute gastroenteritis mortality was calculated using an unconditional logistic regression model with adjustment for national under-5 mortality strata and child's age. Vaccine effectiveness analyses against all-cause and rotavirus-positive acute gastroenteritis mortality were restricted to children aged at least 3 months who received any routine vaccines from countries reporting at least one acute gastroenteritis death. FINDINGS: From the MNSSTER-V dataset, we included 27 252 children younger than 5 years enrolled from 22 countries; outcomes of patients were not available for two countries. At least one in-hospital acute gastroenteritis death was reported from 16 countries including 21 522 children; in total, 183 all-cause acute gastroenteritis deaths and 25 rotavirus-positive deaths were reported. Among children aged at least 3 months who had received any routine vaccines, receiving at least one dose of a rotavirus vaccine had an adjusted vaccine effectiveness of 75·8% (95% CI 28·4 to 91·8; n=13 630) against rotavirus-positive acute gastroenteritis mortality and 20·8% (-47·0 to 57·3; n=20 005) against all-cause acute gastroenteritis mortality. INTERPRETATION: Rotavirus vaccines are effective in preventing rotavirus-positive acute gastroenteritis mortality. Continued efforts to improve vaccine delivery could help to reduce acute gastroenteritis mortality due to rotavirus worldwide. FUNDING: None.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Efficacy and safety of Vertebral Body Sliding Osteotomy (VBSO) versus Anterior Cervical Corpectomy and Fusion (ACCF): A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Anterior cervical corpectomy and fusion (ACCF) is an established treatment for complex cervical myelopathy and ossification of the posterior longitudinal ligament (OPLL), yet it carries risks of dural injury and graft-related failure. Vertebral body sliding osteotomy (VBSO) is a novel technique that avoids direct OPLL manipulation by translating the vertebral body anteriorly to enlarge the spinal canal. Although early studies suggest VBSO may reduce complications, evidence remains limited to retrospective cohorts from the technique's developers, with no high-level synthesis directly comparing it to ACCF. We therefore conducted this meta-analysis to compare clinical outcomes, complications, and radiographic parameters between VBSO and ACCF, while critically evaluating the certainty of the evidence and its generalizability. A systematic search of PubMed, Embase, Scopus, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science (through June 2025) identified four retrospective cohort studies (449 patients; VBSO n = 209, ACCF n = 240). A critical limitation of the included evidence is that all studies originated from a single institution (Asan Medical Center, Seoul, Korea) with overlapping enrollment periods (2006-2020), increasing the risk of duplicate patient cohorts. Furthermore, the first author (D.-H. Lee) is the same across all included studies, introducing substantial surgeon-expertise bias. Outcomes included neurological recovery, functional outcomes, complications, and radiographic parameters. Certainty of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) framework. Neurological recovery and functional outcomes were comparable between groups. ACCF showed slightly higher postoperative JOA scores (MD -0.59, 95% CI -0.96 to -0.22; p < 0.01), though the clinical relevance is uncertain. VBSO was associated with reduced risks of graft subsidence (RR 0.23; p < 0.01), pseudarthrosis (RR 0.25; p < 0.01), revision surgery (RR 0.17; p < 0.01), and neurological deterioration (RR 0.17; p = 0.02). CSF leakage appeared to be less frequent with VBSO, but the difference was not statistically significant. VBSO was also associated with greater postoperative cervical lordosis and shorter hospital stays. However, these findings must be interpreted with extreme caution: leave-one-out sensitivity analyses revealed that the results for postoperative JOA score, neurological deterioration, and pseudarthrosis were fragile and driven by a single large study, meaning these apparent advantages may not be robust. In addition, GRADE assessment revealed very low certainty across all assessed outcomes. Given the very low certainty of evidence, the preliminary nature of the available data, the fragility of several key findings, and the critical limitations of the underlying studies (single institution, overlapping patient cohorts, developer bias, and systematic imbalance in follow-up duration), the observed differences should be considered hypothesis-generating rather than definitive. VBSO should not be considered a proven superior alternative to ACCF based on the current evidence. Prospective, multicenter, international studies with balanced follow-up durations conducted by independent surgical teams are required before broader adoption can be recommended.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Safety, tolerability, and efficacy of RIPK1 inhibitor, SAR443820, in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (HIMALAYA): a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: RIPK1, a protein regulating inflammatory signalling and cell death, is implicated in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) pathophysiology. SAR443820 is a selective, oral, CNS-penetrant, reversible RIPK1 inhibitor. We aimed to evaluate the safety, tolerability, and efficacy of SAR443820 in participants with ALS. METHODS: This multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial was conducted at 63 clinical sites in 13 countries (Belgium, Canada, China, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Poland, Spain, Sweden, the UK, and the USA). Adults (aged 18-80 years) with a diagnosis of possible ALS, clinically probable ALS, clinically probable laboratory-supported ALS, or clinically definite ALS, in accordance with the revised El Escorial World Federation of Neurology criteria, were randomly assigned (2:1) by use of a stratified block design (blocks of three) to receive either 20 mg SAR443820 orally twice per day or matching placebo in the 24-week double-blind period. Randomisation was done centrally using interactive response technology and stratified by geographical region of trial site, region of ALS onset, use of riluzole, use of edaravone, and use of the combination of sodium phenylbutyrate and taurursodiol. Participants, care providers, investigators, and outcomes assessors were masked to trial intervention. The primary outcome was a change in ALS Functional Rating Scale Revised (ALSFRS-R) total score from baseline to week 24 and was calculated for all participants who had an ALSFRS-R total score available at baseline and at week 24. Safety analyses included all randomly assigned participants receiving one dose or more of trial intervention. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05237284) and was terminated early. FINDINGS: Between April 13, 2022, and July 17, 2023, 397 participants were screened and 305 randomly assigned to SAR443820 (n=203) or placebo (n=102); six were excluded from the primary analysis due to missing baseline ALSFRS-R values. Mean age was 56·9 years (SD 11·5); 183 (60%) participants were male and 122 (40%) were female. Least squares mean change in ALSFRS-R from baseline to week 24 was -6·73 (95% CI -7·48 to -5·98) for SAR443820 group (n=169) and -6·32 (-7·36 to -5·27) for placebo group (n=87). There was no statistically significant difference between the study groups (least squares mean difference -0·41 [95% CI -1·71 to 0·88]). Participants in the SAR443820 group had higher incidence of adverse events (171 [85%] of 202 vs placebo 80 [78%] of 102) and treatment discontinuations (28 [14%] of 202 vs placebo five [5%] of 102), with elevated hepatic enzymes being the most common cause. Nine deaths occurred in the double-blind period (seven [3%] of 202 in the SAR443820 group and two [2%] of 102 in the placebo group); none was attributed to SAR443820. INTERPRETATION: SAR443820 did not show clinical benefit and was associated with higher hepatic enzyme increase, indicating that further clinical development of SAR443820 in ALS is not warranted. FUNDING: Sanofi.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Accelerated Diagnostic Pathways for Suspected Acute Coronary Syndrome in Practice: A Randomized Trial of 0/1-Hour vs 0/3-Hour Troponin Testing.

BACKGROUND: For suspected acute coronary syndrome (ACS), guidelines recommend using high-sensitivity troponins (hs-cTn) in accelerated diagnostic pathways (ADPs) with 0/1-hour recommended over 0/3-hour ADP. However, implementation of these ADPs, with universal use of hs-cTns, has not been directly compared in randomized trials OBJECTIVES: This study sought to compare the efficiency and safety of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) 0/1-hour and a 0/3-hour ADP when implemented in real-world clinical practice. METHODS: This pragmatic, randomized, noninferiority implementation trial compared the safety and efficiency of clinician decision making using these 2 pathways. To prevent incorporation bias, an independent hs-cTnI was used for formal adjudication using the fourth universal definition of myocardial infarction (MI). Efficiency was judged by the proportion of patients discharged within 4 hours. The safety endpoint was major adverse cardiac events (MACE) within 30 days (adjudicated index or representation type 1 MI, cardiovascular death, and urgent coronary revascularization) for those who were considered not to have ACS and discharged. The noninferiority margin, for absolute difference in sensitivity, between the ESC 0/1-hour and the 0/3-hour ADP was set at 3%, assessed with a 1-sided 97.5% CI. RESULTS: From December 2021 to July 2024, of 13,983 screened 3,543 individual patients with suspected ACS were recruited and consented from 2 major emergency departments in North-West England, with 100% follow-up achieved for all representations to any national hospital. The median age was 60 years (IQR: 49.5-70.5 years), 53% were men, 6.7%, and 7.6% had adjudicated index type 1 MI and MACE within 30 days, respectively. The turnaround time from sample to result for central laboratory hs-cTnT was 81 minutes (IQR: 69-101 minutes). The proportion of patients discharged within 4 hours was relatively low and did not differ substantially (21.8% vs 19.2%, P = 0.07). In addition, the 0/1-hour pathway was noninferior for safety, in patients discharged, compared with the 0/3-hour pathway, absolute difference in sensitivity was +4.2% (1-sided 97.5% CI: -2.5) in favor of the 0/1-hour pathway. The calculated sensitivities were 93.7% (95% CI: 88.4%-97.1%) vs 89.5% (95% CI: 82.7%-94.3%), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of the ESC 0/1-hour pathway failed to discharge significantly more patients within 4 hours of presentation compared with the 0/3-hour ADP. In addition, The ESC 0/1-hour was noninferior to the 0/3-hour hs-cTn pathway for safety of discharge, although safety for both pathways was less than that imputed by observational studies. This trial demonstrates that perceived benefits to emergency department efficiency of a reduced sampling interval are mitigated by central laboratory turnaround times as well as system constraints. (Pragmatic Randomised Trial of the ESC 0/1 Versus 0/3 Hour Troponin Pathway [MACROS2]; NCT05322395).

Acute Coronary Syndrome↗

PubMed2026

Artificial intelligence-assisted detection and optical differentiation of colorectal lesions in Lynch syndrome surveillance (CADLY2): a multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled superiority trial.

BACKGROUND: Artificial intelligence (AI)-based computer-aided detection (CADe) systems improve adenoma detection in average-risk colorectal cancer screening. Meanwhile, evidence in Lynch syndrome surveillance is sparse and inconsistent. We assessed the effect of CADe on adenoma detection during Lynch syndrome surveillance. Computer-aided optical diagnosis (CADx) performance for optical differentiation of colorectal lesions was evaluated as a secondary aim. METHODS: CADLY2 was an international, multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled superiority trial at nine specialised hereditary cancer surveillance centres in Belgium, Germany, the Netherlands, and Spain. Adults aged 18 years or older with genetically confirmed Lynch syndrome scheduled for surveillance colonoscopy were randomly assigned (1:1) to high-definition white-light (HD-WL) colonoscopy alone or to HD-WL colonoscopy with computer-aided assistance from CAD EYE (Fujifilm, Tokyo, Japan). CAD EYE was used for CADe during withdrawal and for CADx after lesion detection. Randomisation was done centrally through a secure web-based system using Pocock's minimisation algorithm with a stochastic component and was stratified by centre, sex, previous colorectal cancer, underlying pathogenic variant, and interval since previous colonoscopy. Allocation concealment was ensured through the centralised web-based system. Patients were masked to group allocation until the start of withdrawal in procedures with mild sedation, or until completion of the procedure in procedures with propofol-based sedation. Endoscopists were not masked. The primary outcome was adenoma detection rate, defined as the proportion of patients with at least one histopathologically confirmed adenoma, analysed in the full analysis set (defined as all randomly allocated patients with available data for the primary outcome). The diagnostic performance of the CADx system was evaluated as a secondary outcome. The safety analysis set comprised all randomly allocated patients who underwent a study colonoscopy. This study is registered with the German Clinical Trials Register, DRKS00030695, and is completed. FINDINGS: Between May 9, 2023, and Oct 30, 2025, 757 patients were randomly allocated to HD-WL colonoscopy (377 patients) or to AI-assisted colonoscopy (380 patients); 733 patients were included in the full analysis set (369 HD-WL and 364 AI-assisted). The median age was 49 years (IQR 38-59) in the HD-WL group and 50 years (38-59) in the AI-assisted group; 213 (58%) were female and 156 (42%) male in the HD-WL group, and 207 (57%) were female and 157 (43%) male in the AI-assisted group. The adenoma detection rate was 30·9% (114 of 369 patients) with HD-WL versus 33·8% (123 of 364 patients) with CADe assistance (odds ratio 1·14 [95% CI 0·83-1·57], p=0·41). For CADx differentiation of neoplastic versus non-neoplastic lesions in the paired lesion-level analysis, with histopathology as the reference standard and sessile serrated lesions and traditional serrated adenomas classified as non-neoplastic, CADx sensitivity was 85·9% (95% CI 82·0-89·1) and specificity was 91·4% (89·4-93·0). Three adverse events occurred in the AI-assisted group: two mild post-polypectomy bleedings and one serious pulmonary embolism or deep venous thrombosis unrelated to the procedure. No adverse events occurred in the HD-WL group. INTERPRETATION: CADe-assisted colonoscopy did not show the absolute improvement in adenoma detection rate that was assumed in the prespecified sample-size calculation. CADx did not clearly improve lesion differentiation beyond expert optical diagnosis in expert Lynch syndrome surveillance settings. FUNDING: Third-party research funding of the National Center for Hereditary Tumor Syndromes, University Hospital Bonn.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Ibuprofen versus acetaminophen for acute mild-to-moderate pain management in pediatric populations: a systematic review and meta-analysis of their efficacy.

UNLABELLED: Ibuprofen and acetaminophen are the most widely used analgesics in pediatric practice for the management of acute mild-to-moderate pain. Despite their widespread use, the comparative analgesic efficacy of these two agents in children remains a subject of ongoing debate, with existing evidence largely derived from heterogeneous clinical settings and small individual trials. Therefore, this study aimed to systematically review and meta-analyze randomized controlled trials comparing the analgesic efficacy of ibuprofen versus acetaminophen in pediatric populations with acute mild-to-moderate pain. A systematic literature search was conducted up to May 2026 in PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science. The review was conducted and reported in accordance with the PRISMA-Children and Adolescents (PRISMA-C) 2026 reporting guideline. Eligible studies were randomized controlled trials comparing ibuprofen with acetaminophen in children and adolescents (defined as individuals aged 0 to < 18 years) with acute pain, reporting at least one extractable efficacy outcome. Continuous outcomes were synthesized as standardized mean differences (Hedges' g) using random-effects models; dichotomous outcomes were pooled as risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane RoB 2 tool and certainty of evidence was evaluated using the GRADE framework. Eight randomized controlled trials enrolling 1325 participants were included. Three pediatric trials contributed to the primary continuous pain outcome meta-analysis (n = 196 analyzable participants), yielding a pooled SMD of - 0.28 (95% CI - 0.57 to 0.00; p = 0.052; I2 = 0%), indicating a small effect favoring ibuprofen that did not reach conventional statistical significance. Given the small number of contributing studies (k = 3), the I2 statistic should be interpreted with caution as it has limited power to detect heterogeneity in this context. For the dichotomous pain freedom outcome (2 trials, n = 114), no significant difference was observed (pooled RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.53-1.99; p = 0.93; I2 = 0%). A prespecified sensitivity analysis including an adult soft-tissue injury trial attenuated the pooled effect toward the null (SMD - 0.15, 95% CI - 0.38 to 0.09; p = 0.23; I2 = 36.6%). Narrative synthesis of additional studies generally demonstrated comparable analgesic efficacy between the two agents across postoperative and outpatient pediatric settings. The overall certainty of evidence was rated as low for both primary outcomes, primarily due to imprecision and indirectness. CONCLUSION: Current evidence from randomized controlled trials does not demonstrate a superiority of ibuprofen over acetaminophen for acute mild-to-moderate pain management in children. Both agents appear to provide clinically meaningful analgesia across heterogeneous pediatric pain settings. The clinical choice between agents should be guided by individual patient factors, including contraindications to NSAIDs, the inflammatory nature of the pain etiology, and patient-specific characteristics. The low certainty of evidence underscores the need for adequately powered, methodologically rigorous trials to definitively establish the comparative efficacy of these two analgesics in the pediatric population. WHAT IS KNOWN: • Ibuprofen and acetaminophen are the two most widely used non-opioid analgesics for acute mild-to-moderate pain in children, and both are recommended as first-line agents by major international guidelines. • Prior meta-analyses in mixed pediatric-adult populations have suggested a modest analgesic advantage of ibuprofen over acetaminophen, but pediatric-specific evidence has remained limited and methodologically heterogeneous. WHAT IS NEW: • This systematic review and meta-analysis, restricted to randomized controlled trials in pediatric populations, found that ibuprofen showed a small effect favoring pain reduction compared with acetaminophen (SMD - 0.28, p = 0.052), although this did not reach conventional statistical significance. • The analgesic advantage of ibuprofen may be more pronounced in pain etiologies with a significant inflammatory component (e.g., fractures). At the same time, both agents appear broadly equivalent in most other acute pediatric pain settings, supporting individualized analgesic selection based on clinical context and patient-specific factors.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Chemoradiotherapy versus short-course radiotherapy for response-adapted organ preservation in early-stage and intermediate-stage rectal cancer (STAR-TREC): 12-month results of an international, multicentre, open-label, parallel-group, randomised, phase 2/3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Total mesorectal excision (TME) is the standard treatment for most early-stage and intermediate-stage rectal cancer but can cause substantial perioperative morbidity, functional impairment, and reduced quality of life. We assessed whether long-course chemoradiotherapy (LCCRT) or short-course radiotherapy (SCRT) could increase organ preservation and reduce surgery, toxicity, and quality-of-life harms without compromising oncological outcomes. METHODS: STAR-TREC is an international, multicentre, open-label, parallel-group, randomised, phase 2/3 trial in five European countries. Eligible patients were aged 16 years or older in the UK or aged 18 years or older elsewhere, had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0-1, and rectal adenocarcinoma (≤40 mm staged as mrT1-T3bN0). In phase 2, participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to LCCRT-based organ preservation (LCCRT-OP; 50 Gy in 25 fractions plus oral capecitabine 825 mg/m2 twice daily), SCRT-based organ preservation (SCRT-OP; 25 Gy in five fractions), or primary TME. Phase 2 assessed feasibility, with recruitment at months 12 and 24 as the primary endpoint and feasibility thresholds of four or more and six or more randomisations per month, respectively. Phase 3 adopted a partially randomised patient-preference design, allowing participants to choose either organ preservation or TME. Participants that chose organ preservation were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive LCCRT-OP or SCRT-OP using centralised, computer-generated assignment, with stratification by country and MRI T category (≤T3a vs T3b) using minimisation. The phase 3 primary endpoint was organ-preservation 30 months after treatment initiation, defined as absence of TME, stoma, or local recurrence, which was assessed in the modified intention-to-treat population, which included participants in phase 2 and phase 3. After a planned interim analysis of unmasked phase 2 data, the trial steering committee and independent data monitoring committee recommended reporting a 12-month, modified intention-to-treat analysis of implementation outcomes for participants recruited before Aug 8, 2023. This study is registered with ISRCTN (14240288) and is closed. FINDINGS: Between June 14, 2017, and April 8, 2024, 503 participants were enrolled at 37 sites. Phase 2 enrolled 120 participants, with recruitment rates of three and six participants per month at months 12 and 24, respectively. Overall, 12-month TME-free survival was 60% (47 of 78 participants). After phase 3 recruitment ended, interim analysis of unmasked phase 2 data showed an early TME-free survival benefit with LCCRT versus SCRT (12-month median TME-free survival not reached [95% CI not reached-not reached] vs 7·6 months [95% CI 6·4-not reached]; hazard ratio [HR] 3·7 [95% CI 1·7-8·0]; posterior probability of superiority >99·5%). The trial steering committee and independent data monitoring committee therefore recommended expanded analysis of 426 participants recruited before Aug 8, 2023: 120 from phase 2 and 306 from phase 3. 17 participants withdrew before treatment, leaving 409 in the modified intention-to-treat population: 163 allocated to LCCRT, 168 to SCRT, and 78 to primary TME. 116 (28%) participants were female and 293 (72%) were male. Among participants who opted for organ preservation, 12-month TME-free survival was 78·5% (95% CI 72·4-85·1) with LCCRT and 60·6% (53·6-68·4) with SCRT (HR 1·90 [95% CI 1·29-2·81]). The most common grade 3-4 serious adverse events were gastrointestinal disorders (four [2%] with LCCRT vs six [4%] with SCRT vs six [8%] with TME) and procedural complications (three [2%] with LCCRT vs five [3%] with SCRT vs five [6%] with TME). One participant allocated to primary TME died after an anastomotic leak. INTERPRETATION: These early results support a response-adapted organ-preservation approach, with LCCRT appearing more effective than SCRT at 12 months. Organ-preservation might also reduce treatment-related toxicity compared with primary TME. Longer follow-up is needed for the prespecified 30-month endpoint and definitive functional and oncological outcomes. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK, Stand Up to Cancer, Dutch Cancer Society, Danish Cancer Society, Kom Op Tegen Kanker, Cancerfonden, ALF Region Stockholm, RCC Region Stockholm.

Humans↗