inSPIRE (Somerset NHS)
Not a member yet
683 research outputs found
Sort by
Research & Development bulletin February 2025 (current awareness bulletin)
No full textThis is a bulletin produced by the Somerset NHS Foundation Trust Knowledge and Library Service. It is intended to provide a range of the most up-to-date resources, including recently published guidelines and research articles, news and policy items at the time of the production. Please note, you may not get access to full-text articles or links may be disabled
Postnatal instead of normally-timed cervical screening (PINCS-1): a protocol for a feasibility study of paired-sample cervical screening and urine self-sampling at 6 weeks and 12 weeks postnatal in the UK.
No full text© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2025. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ Group.Introduction: Cervical screening rates in the UK are falling, limiting our ability to prevent cervical cancer. Peak incidence of cervical cancer coincides with average age of childbirth, and women with young children are less likely to be screened. Current UK guidelines advise waiting 12 weeks after delivery to perform cervical screening, but this recommendation is not based on evidence from the era of liquid-based cytology or high-risk human papillomavirus (HPV) testing. New mums suggested offering cervical screening at 6 weeks postdelivery, in conjunction with the postnatal check-up with the general practice team in primary care. This study aims to assess the feasibility and acceptability of a paired-sample study design for cervical screening at 6 weeks and 12 weeks postnatal.
Methods and analysis: A study of 100 participants will be performed to assess feasibility and acceptability of cervical screening at both 6 weeks and 12 weeks postnatal, with urine self-sampling using a Colli-pee collection device at each time point. This will inform whether women are prepared to undergo cervical screening at 6 weeks postnatal and the feasibility of a future pair-wise diagnostic test accuracy (of HPV and abnormal cervical cytology) study or whether alternative study designs are needed. Participants must be aged 24.5-64 years old and eligible for the National Health Service Cervical Screening Programme (NHS CSP). At each appointment, participants will complete a questionnaire about their experience and thoughts regarding screening. Substudies ask participants who withdraw or decline to participate their reasons, to identify barriers. The study will be closed for recruitment once 100 participants have completed the 6-week screen in Postnatal Instead of Normally-Timed Cervical Screening (PINCS-1) or if recruitment is poor and 50% not recruited by 6 months, indicating that a paired-sample design is not feasible.
Ethics and dissemination: Ethical approval for PINCS-1 was given by the Stanmore Research Ethics Committee. The results, including participant feedback at each stage, built into the trial design, will inform the design of large studies to determine accuracy and clinical impact of cervical screening at 6 weeks postnatal, identifying whether giving choice (eg, from timing of appointments and/or offering self-sampling) will improve screening uptake. Data will inform the sample size needed for future studies to have adequate power. Results will also inform future NHS CSP management. Results will be shared via scientific publication and via conventional and social media channels accessed by young women
Global Variations in Practices after Bariatric and Metabolic Surgery; the PARTNER Study.
No full textBackground: With over 1 billion individuals affected globally, obesity and obesity related diseases is now a leading cause of death. Metabolic and bariatric surgery (MBS) has emerged as a cornerstone intervention for severe obesity and its associated comorbidities. Despite its efficacy, postoperative care and follow-up after MBS remains highly variable worldwide.
Objective: The PARTNER study aimed to evaluate global clinical practices in the postoperative management following MBS by surveying multidisciplinary healthcare professionals.
Methods: This study was an international online survey conducted between October 2024 and January 2025. A multidisciplinary team developed the questionnaire based on existing literature and international guidelines. The survey assessed five domains: follow-up care, postoperative treatment, dietary management, patient support, and measurement of surgical outcomes. Responses were analysed descriptively.
Results: A total of 262 responses were received from 62 countries. Most respondents were bariatric surgeons (72.1%) working in public healthcare systems (73.3%). While 78.7% reported conducting three-month postoperative reviews, only 23.7% offered indefinite follow-up. Hybrid models of care (virtual and in-person) were common (56.9%). VTE prophylaxis and postoperative PPI use were recommended by 64.1% and 84.3% respectively. Nearly all respondents (98.1%) provided dietary advice, with protein and micronutrient supplementation widely endorsed. Only 56.1% routinely referred patients for psychological follow-up. Definitions of surgical success and failure varied widely, with inconsistent objective outcome measures.
Conclusion: The PARTNER study reveals significant international variation in postoperative management practices following MBS. These findings underscore the need for more standardized, evidence-based guidelines to improve long-term outcomes and equity of care worldwide
Underlying causes of violence and aggression by patients and relatives toward staff in healthcare settings, including environmental, psychological, and systemic factors (evidence summary)
No full textThis is an evidence summary produced by the Somerset NHS Foundation Trust Knowledge and Library Service
Disclaimer: We will endeavour to use the best, most appropriate and most recent sources available to ensure that the information supplied is accurate, up-to-date and evidence-based. It is the responsibility of the requestor to determine the accuracy, validity and interpretation of the search results. No responsibility can be taken by the library for any action taken on the basis of this information. New evidence may have been published since the date this evidence summary was created
AI-powered prostate cancer detection: a multi-centre, multi-scanner validation study.
No full text© The Author(s) 2025. Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use,
sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s)
and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material
in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not
included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted
use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/
licenses/by/4.0/.Objectives: Multi-centre, multi-vendor validation of artificial intelligence (AI) software to detect clinically significant prostate cancer (PCa) using multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is lacking. We compared a new AI solution, validated on a separate dataset from different UK hospitals, to the original multidisciplinary team (MDT)-supported radiologist's interpretations.
Materials and methods: A Conformité Européenne (CE)-marked deep-learning (DL) computer-aided detection (CAD) medical device (Pi) was trained to detect Gleason Grade Group (GG) ≥ 2 cancer using retrospective data from the PROSTATEx dataset and five UK hospitals (793 patients). Our separate validation dataset was on six machines from two manufacturers across six sites (252 patients). Data included in the study were from MRI scans performed between August 2018 to October 2022. Patients with a negative MRI who did not undergo biopsy were assumed to be negative (90.4% had prostate-specific antigen density < 0.15 ng/mL2). ROC analysis was used to compare radiologists who used a 5-category suspicion score.
Results: GG ≥ 2 prevalence in the validation set was 31%. Evaluated per patient, Pi was non-inferior to radiologists (considering a 10% performance difference as acceptable), with an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.91 vs. 0.95. At the predetermined risk threshold of 3.5, the AI software's sensitivity was 95% and specificity 67%, while radiologists at Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data Systems/Likert ≥ 3 identified GG ≥ 2 with a sensitivity of 99% and specificity of 73%. AI performed well per-site (AUC ≥ 0.83) at the patient-level independent of scanner age and field strength.
Conclusion: Real-world data testing suggests that Pi matches the performance of MDT-supported radiologists in GG ≥ 2 PCa detection and generalises to multiple sites, scanner vendors, and models.
Key points: QuestionThe performance of artificial intelligence-based medical tools for prostate MRI has yet to be evaluated on multi-centre, multi-vendor data to assess generalisability. FindingsA dedicated AI medical tool matches the performance of multidisciplinary team-supported radiologists in prostate cancer detection and generalises to multiple sites and scanners. Clinical relevanceThis software has the potential to support the MRI process for biopsy decision-making and target identification, but future prospective studies, where lesions identified by artificial intelligence are biopsied separately, are needed
Neoadjuvant chemotherapy before surgery versus surgery followed by chemotherapy for initial treatment in advanced epithelial ovarian cancer.
No full textRationale: Epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) presents at an advanced stage in the majority of women. These women require a combination of surgery and chemotherapy for optimal treatment. Conventional treatment has been to perform surgery first and then give chemotherapy. However, there may be advantages to using chemotherapy before surgery.
Objectives: To assess the advantages and disadvantages of treating women with advanced EOC with chemotherapy before cytoreductive surgery (neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT)) compared with conventional treatment where chemotherapy follows cytoreductive surgery (primary cytoreductive surgery (PCRS)).
Search methods: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform on 21 March 2024. We also checked the reference lists of relevant papers for further studies. We contacted the principal investigators of relevant trials for further information.
Eligibility criteria: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of women with advanced epithelial ovarian cancer (International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage III/IV) who were randomly allocated to treatment groups that compared platinum-based chemotherapy before cytoreductive surgery with platinum-based chemotherapy following cytoreductive surgery.
Outcomes: We extracted data on overall (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS), adverse events, surgically related mortality and morbidity, and quality of life outcomes.
Risk of bias: We used the Cochrane RoB 1 tool to assess risk of bias in RCTs.
Synthesis methods: We conducted meta-analyses using random-effects models (due to heterogeneity between studies) to calculate hazard ratios (HR), risk ratios (RR), mean differences (MD), and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for all outcomes. We assessed the certainty of evidence according to the GRADE approach.
Included studies: We identified a further 1022 titles and abstracts through our searches in this update (958 unique records after further de-duplication), adding to the 2227 titles and abstracts identified in previous versions of this review. A total of five RCTs of varying quality and size met the inclusion criteria. We identified no new completed studies in this update, but we did include additional data from existing studies. The studies assessed a total of 1774 women with stage III/IV ovarian cancer randomised to NACT followed by interval cytoreductive surgery (ICRS) or PCRS followed by chemotherapy. We included data from four studies in the meta-analyses (1692 participants).
Synthesis of results: Survival We found little or no difference between groups in OS (HR 0.96, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.08; P = 0.49; I2 = 0%; 4 studies; 1692 women; high-certainty evidence) and likely little or no difference between groups in PFS (HR 0.98, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.08; P = 0.62; I2 = 0%; 4 studies; 1692 women; moderate-certainty evidence). Adverse events Adverse events, surgical morbidity, and quality of life outcomes were variably and incompletely reported across studies. NACT reduces postoperative mortality (0.4% in the NACT group versus 3.3% in the PCRS group) (RR 0.18, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.52; P = 0.002; I2 = 0%; 4 studies; 1542 women; high-certainty evidence). There are probably clinically meaningful differences in favour of NACT compared to PCRS in overall surgically related adverse effects (grade 3+ (G3+)) (6% in the NACT group versus 29% in the PCRS group) (RR 0.22, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.38; P < 0.001; I2 = 0%; 2 studies; 435 women; moderate-certainty evidence). Organ resection NACT probably results in a large reduction in the need for stoma formation (5.8% in the NACT group versus 20.4% in the PCRS group) (RR 0.29, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.74; P = 0.009; I2 = 70%; 2 studies; 632 women; moderate-certainty evidence) and probably reduces the risk of needing bowel resection at the time of surgery (13.0% in the NACT group versus 26.6% in the PCRS group) (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.81; P = 0.007; I2 = 84%; 4 studies; 1578 women; moderate-certainty evidence). Quality of life Global quality of life on the EORTC QLQ-C30 produced imprecise results in three studies, with high levels of heterogeneity (quality of life at six months: MD 6.62, 95% CI -2.89 to 16.13; P = 0.17; I2 = 92%; 3 studies; 559 women; low-certainty evidence). Overall, functional and symptom scores may be slightly improved for NACT at 6 months, but similar by 12 months, although the differences might not be clinically meaningful.
Authors' conclusions: The available high- to moderate-certainty evidence shows there is likely little or no difference in primary survival outcomes between PCRS and NACT for those with advanced EOC who are suitable for either treatment option. NACT reduces the risk of postoperative mortality and likely reduces the risk of serious adverse events, especially those around the time of surgery, and the need for stoma formation. These data should inform women and clinicians (involving specialist gynaecological multidisciplinary teams) and allow treatment to be tailored to the individual patient, taking into account surgical resectability, age, histology, stage, and performance status. Data from an unpublished study and ongoing studies are awaited
Nature-Based Guided Imagery and Meditation Significantly Enhance Mental Well-Being and Reduce Depressive Symptoms: A Randomized Experiment
No full textMental health difficulties are highly prevalent and costly, and mental health services are often overwhelmed. Brief and cost-effective interventions are needed to help improve mental well-being. We aimed to test the effect of a nature-based guided imagery (GI) and a nature-based meditation (NBM) on mental well-being and a range of clinically relevant measures over a 2-week period, including three time points. The community sample included 40 individuals (mean age = 38.63, standard deviation = 12.99; gender = 11 males, 28 females, and 1 responded as “nonbinary”). Participants were randomly assigned 1:1 to either the GI or the NBM. Participants were given one audio file to listen to (either GI or NBM), both of which were ∼20 minutes in duration. Similar to previous work, we found evidence for increases in well-being and nature connection immediately following the GI. The results suggest that both the GI and NBM are likely to be effective in improving mental well-being. There were statistically significant increases in well-being, self-compassion, and mindfulness, as well as decreases in rumination, negative affect, and depressive symptoms. There was also evidence for clinically meaningful improvements in depressive symptoms and well-being. This experimental study provides preliminary evidence to support the development of nature-based interventions to improve well-being. Further research is needed to test this in larger and clinical samples, either as an adjunct to therapy or as self-help for those with mild-to-moderate symptoms of depression
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease and the Management of Cardiopulmonary Risk in the UK: A Systematic Literature Review and Modified Delphi Study.
No full text2025 Shrikrishna et al. This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited. The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/
terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution – Non Commercial (unported, v4.0) License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/). By accessing
the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed.
For permission for commercial use of this work, please see paragraphs 4.2 and 5 of our Terms (https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php).Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is linked to increased mortality and morbidity, especially in patients with coexisting cardiovascular disease. These patients face heightened cardiopulmonary risk, which escalates further after acute exacerbations of COPD. While there is some guidance on the management of acute exacerbations of COPD, there is a lack of specific strategies for addressing cardiopulmonary risk in COPD. This program of work aimed to establish UK consensus statements and a clinical pathway for managing cardiopulmonary risk in patients with COPD, synthesizing evidence and expert input through a modified Delphi approach. A multidisciplinary Taskforce conducted a systematic review, focusing on the UK and addressing questions relating to the healthcare burden of acute exacerbations of COPD (AECOPDs), the link between AECOPDs and cardiopulmonary events, the management of cardiopulmonary risk in patients with COPD, and the guidelines and interventions implemented to optimize COPD management. The evidence identified was summarized and used to synthesize preliminary consensus statements reflecting the current situation and recommendations for action. Following iterative voting rounds, consensus was reached on 18 statements. Further to this, a clinical pathway framework to support the recognition and management of cardiopulmonary risk in patients with COPD using the consensus statements was formulated. AECOPDs were identified as a substantial healthcare burden in the UK, contributing to high mortality, frequent healthcare interactions, and elevated costs. These exacerbations were associated with cardiopulmonary events such as myocardial infarction and stroke. Most UK guidelines have focused on the respiratory management of COPD exacerbations, but lack strategies to specifically address cardiopulmonary risk, highlighting the need for integration of care. This consensus program has identified gaps in management, as well as a need to optimize care and reduce the cost of COPD management through the development of new UK policies and clinical guidance.All authors are members of the UK Cardiopulmonary Taskforce, which is sponsored by AstraZeneca. DS has received consultancy and speaker fees from Astra Zeneca, GSK, Boehringer Ingelheim, BMS, Sanofi, Regeneron, Chiesi, Pfizer, and TEVA. These are outside of the submitted work
Levetiracetam in epilepsy and autism spectrum disorder: analysis of safety, tolerability, and efficacy.
No full text© 2025 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).Purpose: One in five people with autism spectrum disorder have epilepsy and take Anti-Seizure Medications (ASM). However, the impact of ASM on people with autism is under researched. This study evaluates the efficacy and tolerability of Levetiracetam (LEV) for autistic people and epilepsy.
Method: Data was derived from the English Epilepsy Research Database Register which compares ASM responses in those with neurodevelopmental disorders to those without. Age range was 18-50 years as there were no autistic research participants with autism prescribed LEV over 50. Twelve-month ASM data, including withdrawal rate, seizure frequency and adverse effects were compared. Fisher's exact test was used to assess univariate associations between outcomes and autism with significance accepted as p < 0.05. Logistic regression was used to assess autism group differences after adjustment for potential confounders (age, gender, presence of baseline physical and mental health conditions).
Results: Of 175 (aged 18-50) research participants across 18 NHS Trusts, prescribed LEV between 2000 and 2020, 40 were autistic. There was no significant association between withdrawal rate (P = 0.626), or grouped side effects (physical P = 0.165, mental health P = 0.791). Autism was significantly associated with aggression with LEV in univariable analysis but this association was no longer significant after accounting for multiple testing A significant non-linear relationship between efficacy and the autism group (P < 0.001) was found.
Conclusions: This study supports the use of LEV for people with autism and epilepsy as there is no difference in response noted to those without autism. However, they may have less prominent changes in efficacy.This work was funded by the UK Charity Autistica (Grant ID: 7624)
with recruitment and data collection at Data Collection Centres sup ported by the National Institute of Health (NIHR portfolio 31484
Factors limiting nurses’ ability to recognize or act on early warning signs/risks for falls and/or patient deterioration: education and behaviour (evidence summary)
No full textThis is an evidence summary produced by the Somerset NHS Foundation Trust Knowledge and Library Service
Disclaimer: We will endeavour to use the best, most appropriate and most recent sources available to ensure that the information supplied is accurate, up-to-date and evidence-based. It is the responsibility of the requestor to determine the accuracy, validity and interpretation of the search results. No responsibility can be taken by the library for any action taken on the basis of this information. New evidence may have been published since the date this evidence summary was created