2022 Publications

Permanent URI for this collection


Recent Submissions

Now showing 1 - 5 of 357
  • Item
    The effect of changes to AFOs when walking in children with cerebral palsy.
    (AT Today, 2022-12) Eddison, Nicola
    The authors discuss their findings from the past decade about how gait is affected by changes to the design of ankle-foot orthoses and whether these changes affect the amount of energy used by the child when walking.
  • Item
    The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the NHS orthotic services.
    (AT Today, 2022-11-16) Eddison, Nicola
    In March 2020, the World Health Organization declared that Europe was the epi-centre of the COVID-19 pandemic (1). The UK Government declared a national lockdown, in light of rapidly escalating circumstances within UK hospitals. Social distancing restrictions were implemented as avoiding unnecessary in-person patient evaluations became essential, (2-4) causing outpatient services to reconfigure how they could continue to provide treatment interventions to their patients. The main focus of healthcare services switched to intensive care units and other emergency services. This resulted in significant changes to routine clinical care and outpatient services. Orthotic services and the provision of assistive technology were some of the many services affected.
  • Item
    Comment on: women in ophthalmology - an upsurge!
    (Wolvers Kluwer, 2022-06-01) Kurian, Merina
    No abstract available.
  • Item
    Infections in relapsed myeloma patients treated with isatuximab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone during the COVID-19 pandemic: initial results of a UK-wide real-world study.
    (Taylor and Francis., 2022-12-01) Karim, Farheen
    Objectives: There are no real-world data describing infection morbidity in relapsed/refractory myeloma (RRMM) patients treated with anti-CD38 isatuximab in combination with pomalidomide and dexamethasone (IsaPomDex). In this UK-wide retrospective study, we set out to evaluate infections experienced by routine care patients who received this novel therapy across 24 cancer centres during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: The primary endpoint was infection morbidity (incidence, grading, hospitalization) as well as infection-related deaths. Secondary outcomes were clinical predictors of increased incidence of any grade (G2-5) and high grade (≥G3) infections. Results: In a total cohort of 107 patients who received a median (IQR) of 4 cycles (2-8), 23.4% of patients experienced ≥1 any grade (G2-5) infections (total of 31 episodes) and 18.7% of patients experienced ≥1 high grade (≥G3) infections (total of 22 episodes). Median time (IQR) from start of therapy to first episode was 29 days (16-75). Six patients experienced COVID-19 infection, of whom 5 were not vaccinated and 1 was fully vaccinated. The cumulative duration of infection-related hospitalizations was 159 days. The multivariate (MVA) Poisson Regression analysis demonstrated that a higher co-morbidity burden with Charlson Co-morbidity Index (CCI) score ≥4 (incidence rate ratio (IRR) = 3, p = 0.012) and sub-optimal myeloma response less than a partial response (
  • Item
    Colonoscopy surveillance following adenoma removal to reduce the risk of colorectal cancer: a retrospective cohort study.
    (NIHR Journals Library, 2022-05-01) Veitch, Andrew
    Background: Colonoscopy surveillance is recommended for some patients post polypectomy. The 2002 UK surveillance guidelines classify post-polypectomy patients into low, intermediate and high risk, and recommend different strategies for each classification. Limited evidence supports these guidelines. Objectives: To examine, for each risk group, long-term colorectal cancer incidence by baseline characteristics and the number of surveillance visits; the effects of interval length on detection rates of advanced adenomas and colorectal cancer at first surveillance; and the cost-effectiveness of surveillance compared with no surveillance. Design: A retrospective cohort study and economic evaluation. Setting: Seventeen NHS hospitals. Participants: Patients with a colonoscopy and at least one adenoma at baseline. Main outcome measures: Long-term colorectal cancer incidence after baseline and detection rates of advanced adenomas and colorectal cancer at first surveillance. Data sources: Hospital databases, NHS Digital, the Office for National Statistics, National Services Scotland and Public Health England. Methods: Cox regression was used to compare colorectal cancer incidence in the presence and absence of surveillance and to identify colorectal cancer risk factors. Risk factors were used to stratify risk groups into higher- and lower-risk subgroups. We examined detection rates of advanced adenomas and colorectal cancer at first surveillance by interval length. Cost-effectiveness of surveillance compared with no surveillance was evaluated in terms of incremental costs per colorectal cancer prevented and per quality-adjusted life-year gained. Results: Our study included 28,972 patients, of whom 14,401 (50%), 11,852 (41%) and 2719 (9%) were classed as low, intermediate and high risk, respectively. The median follow-up time was 9.3 years. Colorectal cancer incidence was 140, 221 and 366 per 100,000 person-years among low-, intermediate- and high-risk patients, respectively. Attendance at one surveillance visit was associated with reduced colorectal cancer incidence among low-, intermediate- and high-risk patients [hazard ratios were 0.56 (95% confidence interval 0.39 to 0.80), 0.59 (95% confidence interval 0.43 to 0.81) and 0.49 (95% confidence interval 0.29 to 0.82), respectively]. Compared with the general population, colorectal cancer incidence without surveillance was similar among low-risk patients and higher among high-risk patients [standardised incidence ratios were 0.86 (95% confidence interval 0.73 to 1.02) and 1.91 (95% confidence interval 1.39 to 2.56), respectively]. For intermediate-risk patients, standardised incidence ratios differed for the lower- (0.70, 95% confidence interval 0.48 to 0.99) and higher-risk (1.46, 95% confidence interval 1.19 to 1.78) subgroups. In each risk group, incremental costs per colorectal cancer prevented and per quality-adjusted life-year gained with surveillance were lower for the higher-risk subgroup than for the lower-risk subgroup. Incremental costs per quality-adjusted life-year gained were lowest for the higher-risk subgroup of high-risk patients at £7821. Limitations: The observational design means that we cannot assume that surveillance caused the reductions in cancer incidence. The fact that some cancer staging data were missing places uncertainty on our cost-effectiveness estimates. Conclusions: Surveillance was associated with reduced colorectal cancer incidence in all risk groups. However, in low-risk patients and the lower-risk subgroup of intermediate-risk patients, colorectal cancer incidence was no higher than in the general population without surveillance, indicating that surveillance might not be necessary. Surveillance was most cost-effective for the higher-risk subgroup of high-risk patients. Future work: Studies should examine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of post-polypectomy surveillance without prior classification of patients into risk groups.