@article{KoehlerHendricksKastneretal.2021, author = {K{\"o}hler, Franziska and Hendricks, Anne and Kastner, Carolin and M{\"u}ller, Sophie and Boerner, Kevin and Wagner, Johanna C. and Lock, Johan F. and Wiegering, Armin}, title = {Laparoscopic appendectomy versus antibiotic treatment for acute appendicitis-a systematic review}, series = {International Journal of Colorectal Disease}, volume = {36}, journal = {International Journal of Colorectal Disease}, number = {10}, issn = {1432-1262}, doi = {10.1007/s00384-021-03927-5}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-266616}, pages = {2283-2286}, year = {2021}, abstract = {Background Over the last years, laparoscopic appendectomy has progressively replaced open appendectomy and become the current gold standard treatment for suspected, uncomplicated appendicitis. At the same time, though, it is an ongoing discussion that antibiotic therapy can be an equivalent treatment for patients with uncomplicated appendicitis. The aim of this systematic review was to determine the safety and efficacy of antibiotic therapy and compare it to the laparoscopic appendectomy for acute, uncomplicated appendicitis. Methods The PubMed database, Embase database, and Cochrane library were scanned for studies comparing laparoscopic appendectomy with antibiotic treatment. Two independent reviewers performed the study selection and data extraction. The primary endpoint was defined as successful treatment of appendicitis. Secondary endpoints were pain intensity, duration of hospitalization, absence from work, and incidence of complications. Results No studies were found that exclusively compared laparoscopic appendectomy with antibiotic treatment for acute, uncomplicated appendicitis. Conclusions To date, there are no studies comparing antibiotic treatment to laparoscopic appendectomy for patients with acute uncomplicated appendicitis, thus emphasizing the lack of evidence and need for further investigation.}, language = {en} } @article{ElHelouBiegnerBodeetal.2019, author = {El-Helou, Sabine M. and Biegner, Anika-Kerstin and Bode, Sebastian and Ehl, Stephan R. and Heeg, Maximilian and Maccari, Maria E. and Ritterbusch, Henrike and Speckmann, Carsten and Rusch, Stephan and Scheible, Raphael and Warnatz, Klaus and Atschekzei, Faranaz and Beider, Renata and Ernst, Diana and Gerschmann, Stev and Jablonka, Alexandra and Mielke, Gudrun and Schmidt, Reinhold E. and Sch{\"u}rmann, Gesine and Sogkas, Georgios and Baumann, Ulrich H. and Klemann, Christian and Viemann, Dorothee and Bernuth, Horst von and Kr{\"u}ger, Renate and Hanitsch, Leif G. and Scheibenbogen, Carmen M. and Wittke, Kirsten and Albert, Michael H. and Eichinger, Anna and Hauck, Fabian and Klein, Christoph and Rack-Hoch, Anita and Sollinger, Franz M. and Avila, Anne and Borte, Michael and Borte, Stephan and Fasshauer, Maria and Hauenherm, Anja and Kellner, Nils and M{\"u}ller, Anna H. and {\"U}lzen, Anett and Bader, Peter and Bakhtiar, Shahrzad and Lee, Jae-Yun and Heß, Ursula and Schubert, Ralf and W{\"o}lke, Sandra and Zielen, Stefan and Ghosh, Sujal and Laws, Hans-Juergen and Neubert, Jennifer and Oommen, Prasad T. and H{\"o}nig, Manfred and Schulz, Ansgar and Steinmann, Sandra and Klaus, Schwarz and D{\"u}ckers, Gregor and Lamers, Beate and Langemeyer, Vanessa and Niehues, Tim and Shai, Sonu and Graf, Dagmar and M{\"u}glich, Carmen and Schmalzing, Marc T. and Schwaneck, Eva C. and Tony, Hans-Peter and Dirks, Johannes and Haase, Gabriele and Liese, Johannes G. and Morbach, Henner and Foell, Dirk and Hellige, Antje and Wittkowski, Helmut and Masjosthusmann, Katja and Mohr, Michael and Geberzahn, Linda and Hedrich, Christian M. and M{\"u}ller, Christiane and R{\"o}sen-Wolff, Angela and Roesler, Joachim and Zimmermann, Antje and Behrends, Uta and Rieber, Nikolaus and Schauer, Uwe and Handgretinger, Rupert and Holzer, Ursula and Henes, J{\"o}rg and Kanz, Lothar and Boesecke, Christoph and Rockstroh, J{\"u}rgen K. and Schwarze-Zander, Carolynne and Wasmuth, Jan-Christian and Dilloo, Dagmar and H{\"u}lsmann, Brigitte and Sch{\"o}nberger, Stefan and Schreiber, Stefan and Zeuner, Rainald and Ankermann, Tobias and Bismarck, Philipp von and Huppertz, Hans-Iko and Kaiser-Labusch, Petra and Greil, Johann and Jakoby, Donate and Kulozik, Andreas E. and Metzler, Markus and Naumann-Bartsch, Nora and Sobik, Bettina and Graf, Norbert and Heine, Sabine and Kobbe, Robin and Lehmberg, Kai and M{\"u}ller, Ingo and Herrmann, Friedrich and Horneff, Gerd and Klein, Ariane and Peitz, Joachim and Schmidt, Nadine and Bielack, Stefan and Groß-Wieltsch, Ute and Classen, Carl F. and Klasen, Jessica and Deutz, Peter and Kamitz, Dirk and Lassy, Lisa and Tenbrock, Klaus and Wagner, Norbert and Bernbeck, Benedikt and Brummel, Bastian and Lara-Villacanas, Eusebia and M{\"u}nstermann, Esther and Schneider, Dominik T. and Tietsch, Nadine and Westkemper, Marco and Weiß, Michael and Kramm, Christof and K{\"u}hnle, Ingrid and Kullmann, Silke and Girschick, Hermann and Specker, Christof and Vinnemeier-Laubenthal, Elisabeth and Haenicke, Henriette and Schulz, Claudia and Schweigerer, Lothar and M{\"u}ller, Thomas G. and Stiefel, Martina and Belohradsky, Bernd H. and Soetedjo, Veronika and Kindle, Gerhard and Grimbacher, Bodo}, title = {The German national registry of primary immunodeficiencies (2012-2017)}, series = {Frontiers in Immunology}, volume = {10}, journal = {Frontiers in Immunology}, doi = {10.3389/fimmu.2019.01272}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-226629}, year = {2019}, abstract = {Introduction: The German PID-NET registry was founded in 2009, serving as the first national registry of patients with primary immunodeficiencies (PID) in Germany. It is part of the European Society for Immunodeficiencies (ESID) registry. The primary purpose of the registry is to gather data on the epidemiology, diagnostic delay, diagnosis, and treatment of PIDs. Methods: Clinical and laboratory data was collected from 2,453 patients from 36 German PID centres in an online registry. Data was analysed with the software Stata® and Excel. Results: The minimum prevalence of PID in Germany is 2.72 per 100,000 inhabitants. Among patients aged 1-25, there was a clear predominance of males. The median age of living patients ranged between 7 and 40 years, depending on the respective PID. Predominantly antibody disorders were the most prevalent group with 57\% of all 2,453 PID patients (including 728 CVID patients). A gene defect was identified in 36\% of patients. Familial cases were observed in 21\% of patients. The age of onset for presenting symptoms ranged from birth to late adulthood (range 0-88 years). Presenting symptoms comprised infections (74\%) and immune dysregulation (22\%). Ninety-three patients were diagnosed without prior clinical symptoms. Regarding the general and clinical diagnostic delay, no PID had undergone a slight decrease within the last decade. However, both, SCID and hyper IgE-syndrome showed a substantial improvement in shortening the time between onset of symptoms and genetic diagnosis. Regarding treatment, 49\% of all patients received immunoglobulin G (IgG) substitution (70\%-subcutaneous; 29\%-intravenous; 1\%-unknown). Three-hundred patients underwent at least one hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT). Five patients had gene therapy. Conclusion: The German PID-NET registry is a precious tool for physicians, researchers, the pharmaceutical industry, politicians, and ultimately the patients, for whom the outcomes will eventually lead to a more timely diagnosis and better treatment.}, language = {en} } @article{SteuerCostaVanderAuweraGlocketal.2019, author = {Steuer Costa, Wagner and Van der Auwera, Petrus and Glock, Caspar and Liewald, Jana F. and Bach, Maximilian and Sch{\"u}ler, Christina and Wabnig, Sebastian and Oranth, Alexandra and Masurat, Florentin and Bringmann, Henrik and Schoofs, Liliane and Stelzer, Ernst H. K. and Fischer, Sabine C. and Gottschalk, Alexander}, title = {A GABAergic and peptidergic sleep neuron as a locomotion stop neuron with compartmentalized Ca2+ dynamics}, series = {Nature Communications}, volume = {10}, journal = {Nature Communications}, doi = {10.1038/s41467-019-12098-5}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-223273}, year = {2019}, abstract = {Animals must slow or halt locomotion to integrate sensory inputs or to change direction. In Caenorhabditis elegans, the GABAergic and peptidergic neuron RIS mediates developmentally timed quiescence. Here, we show RIS functions additionally as a locomotion stop neuron. RIS optogenetic stimulation caused acute and persistent inhibition of locomotion and pharyngeal pumping, phenotypes requiring FLP-11 neuropeptides and GABA. RIS photoactivation allows the animal to maintain its body posture by sustaining muscle tone, yet inactivating motor neuron oscillatory activity. During locomotion, RIS axonal Ca2+ signals revealed functional compartmentalization: Activity in the nerve ring process correlated with locomotion stop, while activity in a branch correlated with induced reversals. GABA was required to induce, and FLP-11 neuropeptides were required to sustain locomotion stop. RIS attenuates neuronal activity and inhibits movement, possibly enabling sensory integration and decision making, and exemplifies dual use of one cell across development in a compact nervous system.}, language = {en} } @article{d'AlquenDeBoeckBradleyetal.2012, author = {d'Alquen, Daniela and De Boeck, Kris and Bradley, Judy and V{\´a}vrov{\´a}, Věra and Dembski, Brigit and Wagner, Thomas O.F. and Pfalz, Annette and Hebestreit, Helge}, title = {Quality assessment of expert answers to lay questions about cystic fibrosis from various language zones in Europe: the ECORN-CF project}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-75072}, year = {2012}, abstract = {Background: The European Centres of Reference Network for Cystic Fibrosis (ECORN-CF) established an Internet forum which provides the opportunity for CF patients and other interested people to ask experts questions about CF in their mother language. The objectives of this study were to: 1) develop a detailed quality assessment tool to analyze quality of expert answers, 2) evaluate the intra- and inter-rater agreement of this tool, and 3) explore changes in the quality of expert answers over the time frame of the project. Methods: The quality assessment tool was developed by an expert panel. Five experts within the ECORN-CF project used the quality assessment tool to analyze the quality of 108 expert answers published on ECORN-CF from six language zones. 25 expert answers were scored at two time points, one year apart. Quality of answers was also assessed at an early and later period of the project. Individual rater scores and group mean scores were analyzed for each expert answer. Results: A scoring system and training manual were developed analyzing two quality categories of answers: content and formal quality. For content quality, the grades based on group mean scores for all raters showed substantial agreement between two time points, however this was not the case for the grades based on individual rater scores. For formal quality the grades based on group mean scores showed only slight agreement between two time points and there was also poor agreement between time points for the individual grades. The inter-rater agreement for content quality was fair (mean kappa value 0.232 ± 0.036, p < 0.001) while only slight agreement was observed for the grades of the formal quality (mean kappa value 0.105 ± 0.024, p < 0.001). The quality of expert answers was rated high (four language zones) or satisfactory (two language zones) and did not change over time. Conclusions: The quality assessment tool described in this study was feasible and reliable when content quality was assessed by a group of raters. Within ECORN-CF, the tool will help ensure that CF patients all over Europe have equal possibility of access to high quality expert advice on their illness.}, subject = {ECORN-CF Projekt}, language = {en} }