Publications

OBJECTIVES

Mobile technology supporting text messaging interventions (TMIs) continues to evolve, presenting challenges for researchers and healthcare professionals who need to choose software solutions to best meet their program needs. The objective of this review was to systematically identify and compare text messaging platforms and to summarize their advantages and disadvantages as described in peer-reviewed literature.

METHODS

A scoping review was conducted using four steps: 1) identify currently available platforms through online searches and in mHealth repositories; 2) expand evaluation criteria of an mHealth mobile messaging toolkit and integrate prior user experiences as researchers; 3) evaluate each platform's functions and features based on the expanded criteria and a vendor survey; and 4) assess the documentation of platform use in the peer-review literature. Platforms meeting inclusion criteria were assessed independently by three reviewers and discussed until consensus was reached. The PRISMA guidelines were followed to report findings.

RESULTS

Of the 1041 potentially relevant search results, 27 platforms met inclusion criteria. Most were excluded because they were not platforms (e.g., guides, toolkits, reports, or SMS gateways). Of the 27 platforms, only 12 were identified in existing mHealth repositories, 10 from Google searches, while five were found in both. The expanded evaluation criteria included 22 items. Results indicate no uniform presentation of platform features and functions, often making these difficult to discern. Fourteen of the platforms were reported as open source, 10 focused on health care and 16 were tailored to meet needs of low resource settings (not mutually exclusive). Fifteen platforms had do-it-yourself setup (programming not required) while the remainder required coding/programming skills or setups could be built to specification by the vendor. Frequently described features included data security and access to the platform via cloud-based systems. Pay structures and reported targeted end-users varied. Peer-reviewed publications listed only 6 of the 27 platforms across 21 publications. The majority of these articles reported the name of the platform used but did not describe advantages or disadvantages.

CONCLUSIONS

Searching for and comparing mHealth platforms for TMIs remains a challenge. The results of this review can serve as a resource for researchers and healthcare professionals wanting to integrate TMIs into health interventions. Steps to identify, compare and assess advantages and disadvantages are outlined for consideration. Expanded evaluation criteria can be used by future researchers. Continued and more comprehensive platform tools should be integrated into mHealth repositories. Detailed descriptions of platform advantages and disadvantages are needed when mHealth researchers publish findings to expand the body of research on TMI tools for healthcare. Standardized descriptions and features are recommended for vendor sites.

The limb is a commonly used model system for developmental biology. Given the need for precise control of complex signalling pathways to achieve proper patterning, the limb is also becoming a model system for gene regulation studies. Recent developments in genomic technologies have enabled the genome-wide identification of regulatory elements that control limb development, yielding insights into the determination of limb morphology and forelimb versus hindlimb identity. The modulation of regulatory interactions - for example, through the modification of regulatory sequences or chromatin architecture - can lead to morphological evolution, acquired regeneration capacity or limb malformations in diverse species, including humans.

BACKGROUND & AIMS

The most commonly used noninvasive test for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening has been the guaiac fecal occult blood test (gFOBT). The fecal immunochemical test (FIT) detects CRC and colorectal polyps with higher levels of sensitivity than the gFOBT, and may be more acceptable to patients. However, the FIT has not replaced the gFOBT in many clinical settings. We analyzed data from a large healthcare system that replaced the gFOBT with the FIT to determine the effects on CRC screening.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective observational study of 7898 patients at the Veterans' Administration San Diego Healthcare System, 50-75 years old, who were offered stool-based CRC screening as part of primary care March 2014 through January 2015. Test orders and results were extracted from electronic health records; we performed manual reviews of colonoscopy and pathology reports for Veterans with positive results from the tests. Our primary outcome was test completion within 1 year of order; secondary outcomes were positive results and detection of advanced neoplasia by diagnostic colonoscopy. The primary analysis used an intention-to-screen approach, which included all patients with test orders; as-screened analyses were also performed.

RESULTS

Among 7898 patients, 3236 had gFOBT and 4662 FIT orders. In the intention to screen analysis, a significantly higher proportion of subjects completed a FIT (42.6%) than a gFOBT (33.4%) (P < .001); advanced neoplasia was detected in a significantly higher proportion of subjects offered a FIT (0.79%) than a gFOBT (0.28%) (P = .003). The numbers needed to invite to achieve 1 additional completed test and identify 1 additional patient with advanced neoplasia were 11 and 196, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

In a retrospective study of patients at a Veterans' administration healthcare system, replacing the gFOBT with the FIT increased the proportion of patients who completed CRC screening. Replacement of the gFOBT with the FIT should be strongly considered by all healthcare systems.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Lower GI bleeding (LGIB) is a common cause of morbidity and mortality. Colonoscopy is indicated in all hospitalized patients with LGIB, yet the time frame for performing colonoscopy remains unclear. Prior studies of outcomes in urgent versus elective colonoscopy have yielded conflicting results and were often underpowered. Our study objective was to compare several outcomes between urgent and elective colonoscopy in patients hospitalized for LGIB.

METHODS

Systematic review and meta-analysis were performed on studies that compared urgent and elective colonoscopy in patients with LGIB. Pooled rates were calculated for specific outcomes, and rate ratios were determined for selected comparison groups.

RESULTS

Twelve studies met inclusion criteria, with a total sample size of 10,172 patients in the urgent colonoscopy arm and 14,224 patients in the elective colonoscopy arm. Urgent colonoscopy was associated with increased use of endoscopic therapeutic intervention (RR, 1.70; 95% CI, 1.08-2.67). There were no significant differences in bleeding source localization (RR, 1.08; 95% CI, .92-1.25), adverse event rates (RR, 1.05; 95% CI, .65-1.71), rebleeding rates (RR, 1.14; 95% CI, .74-1.78), transfusion requirement (RR, 1.02; 95% CI, .73-1.41), or mortality (RR, 1.17; 95% CI, .45-3.02).

CONCLUSIONS

Urgent colonoscopy appears to be safe and well tolerated, but there is no clear evidence that it alters important clinical outcomes.