Roland Andersson

Bio: Roland Andersson is an academic researcher from Lund University. The author has contributed to research in topics: Pancreatic cancer & Pancreatitis. The author has an hindex of 64, co-authored 571 publications receiving 18751 citations. Previous affiliations of Roland Andersson include Linköping University & Fudan University.

Meta-analysis of the clinical and laboratory diagnosis of appendicitis

Abstract: Background: The importance of specific elements in the clinical diagnosis of appendicitis is controversial. This review analyses the diagnostic value of elements of disease history, clinical findings and laboratory test results in suspected appendicitis. Methods: A systematic Medline search was made of all published studies on the clinical and laboratory diagnosis of appendicitis in patients admitted to hospital with suspected disease. Meta-analyses of receiver–operator characteristic (ROC) areas, and positive and negative likelihood ratios, of 28 diagnostic variables described in 24 studies are presented. Results: Inflammatory response variables (granulocyte count, proportion of polymorphonuclear blood cells, white blood cell count and C-reactive protein concentration), descriptors of peritoneal irritation (rebound and percussion tenderness, guarding and rigidity) and migration of pain were the strongest discriminators, with ROC areas of 0·78 to 0·68. The discriminatory power of the inflammatory variables was particularly strong for perforated appendicitis, with ROC areas of 0·85 to 0·87. Appendicitis was likely when two or more inflammatory variables were increased and unlikely when all were normal. Conclusion: Although all clinical and laboratory variables are weak discriminators individually, they achieve a high discriminatory power when combined. Laboratory examination of the inflammatory response, clinical descriptors of peritoneal irritation, and a history of migration of pain yield the most important diagnostic information and should be included in any diagnostic assessment. Copyright © 2004 British Journal of Surgery Society Ltd. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Diagnosis and treatment of acute appendicitis: 2020 update of the WSES Jerusalem guidelines

Abstract: Acute appendicitis (AA) is among the most common causes of acute abdominal pain. Diagnosis of AA is still challenging and some controversies on its management are still present among different settings and practice patterns worldwide. In July 2015, the World Society of Emergency Surgery (WSES) organized in Jerusalem the first consensus conference on the diagnosis and treatment of AA in adult patients with the intention of producing evidence-based guidelines. An updated consensus conference took place in Nijemegen in June 2019 and the guidelines have now been updated in order to provide evidence-based statements and recommendations in keeping with varying clinical practice: use of clinical scores and imaging in diagnosing AA, indications and timing for surgery, use of non-operative management and antibiotics, laparoscopy and surgical techniques, intra-operative scoring, and peri-operative antibiotic therapy. This executive manuscript summarizes the WSES guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of AA. Literature search has been updated up to 2019 and statements and recommendations have been developed according to the GRADE methodology. The statements were voted, eventually modified, and finally approved by the participants to the consensus conference and by the board of co-authors, using a Delphi methodology for voting whenever there was controversy on a statement or a recommendation. Several tables highlighting the research topics and questions, search syntaxes, and the statements and the WSES evidence-based recommendations are provided. Finally, two different practical clinical algorithms are provided in the form of a flow chart for both adults and pediatric (< 16 years old) patients. The 2020 WSES guidelines on AA aim to provide updated evidence-based statements and recommendations on each of the following topics: (1) diagnosis, (2) non-operative management for uncomplicated AA, (3) timing of appendectomy and in-hospital delay, (4) surgical treatment, (5) intra-operative grading of AA, (6) ,management of perforated AA with phlegmon or abscess, and (7) peri-operative antibiotic therapy.

Determinants of survival in liver resection for colorectal secondaries.

Abstract: All 72 resections for colorectal liver secondaries during the period 1971-1984 were analysed retrospectively. Liver tumours were single in 35 (49 per cent), unilateral in 55 (76 per cent) and associated with extrahepatic disease in 12 (18 per cent) patients. Operative mortality was 5.6 per cent. With respect to the disease in the liver, the presence or absence of four or more metastases was the predominant prognostic determinant with a 5 year survival rate of 20 per cent in patients with less than four liver tumours, and no 3 year survivor among patients with four or more tumours. When the number of liver tumours was less than four, the prognosis in patients with unilateral disease was not significantly better than in patients with bilateral disease (P = 0.19). No other liver disease variable seemed to play any role in the prognosis. Extrahepatic disease was associated with a poor prognosis and no 5 year survivor. The length of the tumour-free resection margin was the only treatment variable that varied with the outcome: a resection margin of less than 10 mm was followed by a poor survival. Variables that did not influence survival included uni- or bilateral disease, liver tumour volume, tumour size, type of liver resection, Dukes' classification, differentiation of the primary tumour and synchronous or metachronous disease. It is concluded that resection for liver colorectal secondaries is indicated when there are less than four liver tumours, even if bilateral, no extrahepatic disease is present, and a resection margin of at least 10 mm can be obtained. It should not be performed unless all of these requirements are met.

Appendectomy and protection against ulcerative colitis.

Abstract: Background: A history of appendectomy is rare in patients with ulcerative colitis. This suggests a protective effect of appendectomy or that appendicitis and ulcerative colitis are alternative infl ...

Surviving Sepsis Campaign: International Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock: 2016

Abstract: To provide an update to “Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock: 2012”. A consensus committee of 55 international experts representing 25 international organizations was convened. Nominal groups were assembled at key international meetings (for those committee members attending the conference). A formal conflict-of-interest (COI) policy was developed at the onset of the process and enforced throughout. A stand-alone meeting was held for all panel members in December 2015. Teleconferences and electronic-based discussion among subgroups and among the entire committee served as an integral part of the development. The panel consisted of five sections: hemodynamics, infection, adjunctive therapies, metabolic, and ventilation. Population, intervention, comparison, and outcomes (PICO) questions were reviewed and updated as needed, and evidence profiles were generated. Each subgroup generated a list of questions, searched for best available evidence, and then followed the principles of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system to assess the quality of evidence from high to very low, and to formulate recommendations as strong or weak, or best practice statement when applicable. The Surviving Sepsis Guideline panel provided 93 statements on early management and resuscitation of patients with sepsis or septic shock. Overall, 32 were strong recommendations, 39 were weak recommendations, and 18 were best-practice statements. No recommendation was provided for four questions. Substantial agreement exists among a large cohort of international experts regarding many strong recommendations for the best care of patients with sepsis. Although a significant number of aspects of care have relatively weak support, evidence-based recommendations regarding the acute management of sepsis and septic shock are the foundation of improved outcomes for these critically ill patients with high mortality.

External review and validation of the Swedish national inpatient register

Abstract: Background: The Swedish National Inpatient Register (IPR), also called the Hospital Discharge Register, is a principal source of data for numerous research projects. The IPR is part of the National Patient Register. The Swedish IPR was launched in 1964 (psychiatric diagnoses from 1973) but complete coverage did not begin until 1987. Currently, more than 99% of all somatic (including surgery) and psychiatric hospital discharges are registered in the IPR. A previous validation of the IPR by the National Board of Health and Welfare showed that 85-95% of all diagnoses in the IPR are valid. The current paper describes the history, structure, coverage and quality of the Swedish IPR. Methods and results: In January 2010, we searched the medical databases, Medline and HighWire, using the search algorithm “validat* (inpatient or hospital discharge) Sweden”. We also contacted 218 members of the Swedish Society of Epidemiology and an additional 201 medical researchers to identify papers that had validated the IPR. In total, 132 papers were reviewed. The positive predictive value (PPV) was found to differ between diagnoses in the IPR, but is generally 85-95%. Conclusions: In conclusion, the validity of the Swedish IPR is high for many but not all diagnoses. The long followup makes the register particularly suitable for large-scale population-based research, but for certain research areas the use of other health registers, such as the Swedish Cancer Register, may be more suitable.

Multiple Imputation for Nonresponse in Surveys

Abstract: 25. Multiple Imputation for Nonresponse in Surveys. By D. B. Rubin. ISBN 0 471 08705 X. Wiley, Chichester, 1987. 258 pp. £30.25.

Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis or Diagnosis (TRIPOD): explanation and elaboration.

Abstract: The TRIPOD (Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis) Statement includes a 22-item checklist, which aims to improve the reporting of studies developing, validating, or updating a prediction model, whether for diagnostic or prognostic purposes. The TRIPOD Statement aims to improve the transparency of the reporting of a prediction model study regardless of the study methods used. This explanation and elaboration document describes the rationale; clarifies the meaning of each item; and discusses why transparent reporting is important, with a view to assessing risk of bias and clinical usefulness of the prediction model. Each checklist item of the TRIPOD Statement is explained in detail and accompanied by published examples of good reporting. The document also provides a valuable reference of issues to consider when designing, conducting, and analyzing prediction model studies. To aid the editorial process and help peer reviewers and, ultimately, readers and systematic reviewers of prediction model studies, it is recommended that authors include a completed checklist in their submission. The TRIPOD checklist can also be downloaded from www.tripod-statement.org.

Guidelines for the Provision and Assessment of Nutrition Support Therapy in the Adult Critically Ill Patient Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM) and American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition (A.S.P.E.N.)

Abstract: This document represents the first collaboration between 2 organizations-the American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition and the Society of Critical Care Medicine-to describe best practices in nutrition therapy in critically ill children. The target of these guidelines is intended to be the pediatric critically ill patient (>1 month and 2-3 days in a PICU admitting medical, surgical, and cardiac patients. In total, 2032 citations were scanned for relevance. The PubMed/MEDLINE search resulted in 960 citations for clinical trials and 925 citations for cohort studies. The EMBASE search for clinical trials culled 1661 citations. In total, the search for clinical trials yielded 1107 citations, whereas the cohort search yielded 925. After careful review, 16 randomized controlled trials and 37 cohort studies appeared to answer 1 of the 8 preidentified question groups for this guideline. We used the GRADE criteria (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) to adjust the evidence grade based on assessment of the quality of study design and execution. These guidelines are not intended for neonates or adult patients. The guidelines reiterate the importance of nutrition assessment-particularly, the detection of malnourished patients who are most vulnerable and therefore may benefit from timely intervention. There is a need for renewed focus on accurate estimation of energy needs and attention to optimizing protein intake. Indirect calorimetry, where feasible, and cautious use of estimating equations and increased surveillance for unintended caloric underfeeding and overfeeding are recommended. Optimal protein intake and its correlation with clinical outcomes are areas of great interest. The optimal route and timing of nutrient delivery are areas of intense debate and investigations. Enteral nutrition remains the preferred route for nutrient delivery. Several strategies to optimize enteral nutrition during critical illness have emerged. The role of supplemental parenteral nutrition has been highlighted, and a delayed approach appears to be beneficial. Immunonutrition cannot be currently recommended. Overall, the pediatric critical care population is heterogeneous, and a nuanced approach to individualizing nutrition support with the aim of improving clinical outcomes is necessary.