Introduction Although hospitals are key health service providers, their financial ties to drug companies are little understood. We examine non-research pharmaceutical industry payments to English National Health Service (NHS) trusts—hospital groupings providing secondary and tertiary care. Methods We extracted data from the industry-run Disclosure UK database, analysing it descriptively and using the Jonckheere-Terpstra test to establish whether a statistically significant time trend existed in the median values of individual payments. We explained payment value and number per trust with random effects models, using selected trust characteristics as predictors. Results Drug companies reported paying £60,253,421 to 234 trusts, representing between 90.0% and 92.0% of all trusts in England between 2015 and 2018. As a share of payments to all healthcare organisations, the number of payments rose from 38.6% to 39.5%, but their value dropped from 33.0% to 23.6%. The number of payments for fees for service and consultancy and contributions to costs of events increased by 61.5% and 29.4%. The median payment value decreased significantly for trusts overall (from £2,250.8 to £1,758.5), including those with lower autonomy from central government; providing acute services; and from half of England’s regions. The random effects model showed that acute trusts received significantly more money on average than trusts with all other service profiles; and trusts from East England received significantly less than those from London. However, trusts enjoying greater autonomy from government did not receive significantly more money than others. Trusts also received significantly less money in 2018 than in 2015. Conclusion NHS trusts had extensive pharmaceutical industry ties but were losing importance as payment targets relative to other healthcare organisations. Industry payment strategies shifted towards events sponsorship, consultancies, and smaller payments. Trusts with specific service and geographical profiles were prioritised. Understanding corporate payments across the health system requires more granular disclosure data. 

Pharmaceutical industry payments to NHS trusts in England: A four-year analysis of the Disclosure UK database

Many surgeons in low- and middle-income countries have described performing surgery using gasless (lift) laparoscopy due to inaccessibility of carbon dioxide and reliable electricity, but the safety and feasibility of the technique has not been well documented. We describe preclinical testing of the in vivo safety and utility of KeyLoop, a laparoscopic retractor system to enable gasless laparoscopy.Experienced laparoscopic surgeons completed a series of four laparoscopic tasks in a porcine model: laparoscopic exposure, small bowel resection, intracorporeal suturing with knot tying, and cholecystectomy. For each participating surgeon, the four tasks were completed in a practice animal using KeyLoop. Surgeons then completed these tasks using standard-of-care (SOC) gas laparoscopy and KeyLoop in block randomized order to minimize learning curve effect. Vital signs, task completion time, blood loss and surgical complications were compared between SOC and KeyLoop using paired nonparametric tests. Surgeons completed a survey on use of KeyLoop compared to gas laparoscopy. Abdominal wall tissue was evaluated for injury by a blinded pathologist.Five surgeons performed 60 tasks in 15 pigs. There were no significant differences in times to complete the tasks between KeyLoop and SOC. For all tasks, there was a learning curve with task completion times related to learning the porcine model. There were no significant differences in blood loss, vital signs or surgical complications between KeyLoop and SOC. Eleven surgeons from the United States and Singapore felt that KeyLoop could be used to safely perform several common surgical procedures. No abdominal wall tissue injury was observed for either KeyLoop or SOC.Procedure times, blood loss, abdominal wall tissue injury and surgical complications were similar between KeyLoop and SOC gas laparoscopy for basic surgical procedures. This data supports KeyLoop as a useful tool to increase access to laparoscopy in low- and middle-income countries. 

/pdf/keyloop-retractor-for-global-gasless-laparoscopy-evaluation-261budg7.pdf

KeyLoop retractor for global gasless laparoscopy: evaluation of safety and feasibility in a porcine model

The minimally invasive surgery uses a small instrument with camera and light to fit the tiny cut in the skin. The selection of the light depends on the power and driving current of the circuit. It can also help in the standardization of the camera and capture the tissues' true-colour image. This paper presents the LED source analysis used in the clinical endoscopes for surgery and thehuman body's medical examination. Initially, a LED source selection mechanism generating intense illuminance in a visibleband is proposed. A low-cost prototype model is developed to analyze the wavelength and illuminance of three different LEDs types. Aneffect on variation in LED illumination is investigated by changing the distance between the Borescope and LED source. True-colour image generation and tissue contrast are more important in medical diagnostics. Therefore, a sigmoid function improving the whole contrast ratio of the captured image in real-time is presented. The results of spectrum and wavelength for a current variation are presented. Type 3 LED produces higher illumination (i.e., 395 Klux) and peak wavelength (i.e., 622.05 nm) than other LEDs, while type-2 LED has better FWHM for the blue colour spectrum. The modification in the sigmoid function enhances the image with 34.25peak PSNR producing a true-colour image.

Experimental Evaluation and Analysis of LED Illumination Source for Endoscopy Imaging

Our website uses cookies to enhance your experience. By continuing to use our site, or clicking "Continue," you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy | Continue JAMA Surgery HomeNew OnlineCurrent IssueFor Authors Podcast Publications JAMA JAMA Network Open JAMA Cardiology JAMA Dermatology JAMA Health Forum JAMA Internal Medicine JAMA Neurology JAMA Oncology JAMA Ophthalmology JAMA Otolaryngology–Head & Neck Surgery JAMA Pediatrics JAMA Psychiatry JAMA Surgery Archives of Neurology & Psychiatry (1919-1959) JN Learning / CMESubscribeJobsInstitutions / LibrariansReprints & Permissions Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Accessibility Statement 2023 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved Search All JAMA JAMA Network Open JAMA Cardiology JAMA Dermatology JAMA Forum Archive JAMA Health Forum JAMA Internal Medicine JAMA Neurology JAMA Oncology JAMA Ophthalmology JAMA Otolaryngology–Head & Neck Surgery JAMA Pediatrics JAMA Psychiatry JAMA Surgery Archives of Neurology & Psychiatry Input Search Term Sign In Individual Sign In Sign inCreate an Account Access through your institution Sign In Purchase Options: Buy this article Rent this article Subscribe to the JAMA Surgery journal 

Improving Access to Laparoscopic Surgery in Low- and Middle-Income Countries.

pdf/open-versus-laparoscopic-appendectomy-a-literature-review-5di4wll45h.pdf

Open versus Laparoscopic Appendectomy: A Literature Review

Laparoscopic surgery is the standard of care in high-income countries for many procedures in the chest and abdomen. It avoids large incisions by using a tiny camera and fine instruments manipulated through keyhole incisions, but it is generally unavailable in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) due to the high cost of installment, lack of qualified maintenance personnel, unreliable electricity, and shortage of consumable items. Patients in LMICs would benefit from laparoscopic surgery, as advantages include decreased pain, improved recovery time, fewer wound infections, and shorter hospital stays. To address this need, we developed an accessible laparoscopic system, called the ReadyView laparoscope for use in LMICs. The device includes an integrated camera and LED light source that can be displayed on any monitor. The ReadyView laparoscope was evaluated with standard optical imaging targets to determine its performance against a state-of-the-art commercial laparoscope. The ReadyView laparoscope has a comparable resolving power, lens distortion, field of view, depth of field, and color reproduction accuracy to a commercially available endoscope, particularly at shorter, commonly-used working distances (3-5 cm). Additionally, the ReadyView has a cooler temperature profile, decreasing the risk for tissue injury and operating room fires. The ReadyView features a waterproof design, enabling sterilization by submersion, as commonly performed in LMICs. A custom desktop software was developed to view the video on a laptop computer with a frame rate greater than 30 frames per second and to white balance the image, which is critical for clinical use. The ReadyView laparoscope is capable of providing the image quality and overall performance needed for laparoscopic surgery. This portable low-cost system is well suited to increase access to laparoscopic surgery in LMICs.

An Accessible Laparoscope for Surgery in Low- and Middle- Income Countries

Abstract Objective: Research on complications with peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) lines that are placed for the treatment of prosthetic joint infection (PJI) after total hip arthroplasty (THA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is scarce. We investigated the timing, frequency, and risk factors for PICC complications during treatment of PJI after THA and TKA. Methods: We retrospectively queried an institutional database for THA and TKA patients from January 2015 through December 2020 that developed a PJI and required PICC placement at an academic, tertiary-care referral center. Results: The study included 889 patients (48.3% female) with a mean age of 64.6 years (range, 18.7–95.2) who underwent 435 THAs and 454 TKAs that were revised for PJI. The cohort had 275 90-day ED visits (30.9%), and 51 (18.5%) were PICC related. The average time from discharge to PICC ED visit was 26.2 days (range, 0.3–89.4). The most common reasons for a 90-day ED visit were issues related to the joint replacement or wound site (musculoskeletal or MSK; n = 116, 42.2%) and PICC complaints (n = 51, 18.5%). A multivariable logistic regression demonstrated that non-White race (odds ratio [OR], 2.24; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.24–4.04; P = .007) and younger age (OR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.95–1.00; P = .035) were associated with PICC-related ED visits. Malposition/readjustment (41.2%) and occlusion (35.3%) were the most common PICC complications leading to ED presentation. Conclusions: PICC complications are common after PJI treatment, accounting for nearly 20% of 90-day ED visits.

An analysis of 90-day emergency department visits after peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) placement for prosthetic joint infection

1582 Background: Payments from the pharmaceutical industry to US health care providers were made public through Open Payments in 2013. Since then, industry payments to individual physicians have been studied extensively, but payments to hospitals remain uncharacterized. The goal of this study was to examine trends in industry payments to US cancer centers. Methods: We identified all US cancer centers that were National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) members or were National Cancer Institute (NCI) comprehensive cancer center as of 2019. Each institution was manually mapped to Open Payments, which contains industry payment data. Where applicable, subsidiary hospitals were included with the parent center. Among the NCCN centers, we used National Plan and Provider Enumeration System data to identify medical oncologists practicing there. Oncologists were linked to Open Payments by name and address. We analyzed “research payments” (RP), which include payments related to preclinical and clinical research, and “general payments” (GP), which include non-research-related payments in categories such as speaker fees, consulting fees, meals, grants, charitable contributions, and licensing fees. We ascertained public research support from NIH data, and included all research project grants. We used correlation analysis and linear regression models to assess the association between industry payments to a cancer center and to oncologists practicing at that center. All dollar values were inflation-adjusted to 2019 dollars using the Consumer Price Index for medical care from the US Bureau of Labor Statistics. Results: Overall industry RP to US cancer centers increased from $527 million in 2014 to $653 million in 2019, while GP increased from $346 million to $786 million. NCI research funding increased from $1,397 million in 2014 to $1,583 million in 2019 (13.3% increase) while overall industry payments (RP+GP) increased from $873 million to $1,439 million (64.8% increase). Industry payments were highest as a portion of total income (industry + NCI) at MD Anderson (64.2%) and lowest at St. Jude (0.1%). Among NCCN institutions, industry payments to cancer centers and the oncologists practicing at those centers were correlated (coefficient = 0.382). A $1,000 increase in GP to a cancer center from a given pharmaceutical company was associated with a $1.00 ($0.61 - $1.30) increase in GP from that company to oncologists at that cancer center. Conclusions: From 2014-2019, cancer center funding from industry sources grew quickly, driven by an increase in non-research payments, and now approaches the amount of public research funding cancer centers receive. Cancer center acceptance of industry payments is associated with increased industry payments to its employed physicians, which are known to sway prescribing practices. These trends raise concerns regarding the ability of these institutions to fulfill their public missions.

Financial payments from the pharmaceutical industry to U.S. cancer centers, 2014-2019.

Handle everyday research tasks with reliable, citation-backed results

Your personal Research Agent to handle research tasks with citation-backed results

Popular Tasks used by Researchers

How can I help with your research?

Meet SciSpace

Get more enhanced response by uploading the PDFs you want me to reference.

No relevant PDFs in your library

SciSpace is the AI research assistant for academics. Run systematic literature reviews on 280M+ papers, and write papers with cited sources. Trusted by 1M+ students, PhDs & researchers.

SciSpace | AI for Research

Analyze PDFs

Code & Manuscripts

Funding & Grants

Literature & Patents

Medical & Clinical Data

Systematic Review

Visualize & Present

Web & Data

Build a Google Scholar-like website for your research.

Build a website

Create charts and images for your research

Create a Chart

Write a paper for submission to a journal

Draft a manuscript

Patent Search

Design eye-catching scientific posters in minutes.

Scientific Poster Generation

Systematic Literature Review

One task is running at the moment. Your messages will be shown right after.

Drag and drop or click here to browse

Loved by <highlight>1 million+</highlight> researchers

Extract a list of specific topics and their sources from unstructured text

Topics

Compare and analyze relevant papers that matches with your search

Papers

Get insights from PDFs and bookmarked papers from your library

My library

Recent searches

Try searching for:

Catch AI-generated content in scholarly and non-scholarly content

{ai} Detector

Ai Writer

Get PDF Summaries, highlighted text explanations 

Chat with PDF

Effortlessly create in-text citations and bibliographies in APA and 2,500 other formats

Citation generator

Get explanations, summaries, and answers on academic papers

Ease up your research workflow with {scispace}'s cohort of exciting AI tools

Elevate your academic writing skills and convey your ideas the way you want

Paraphraser

Explore our range of reading and writing tools

Your file is being prepared and should be ready in a few minutes. If it's a large file, it might take a bit longer. You can close this window, and we'll email you the file when it's done.

You have reached a maximum limit of <strong>{limit}</strong> columns in the table. Remove at least <strong>1</strong> column to add or create another one.

Meredith Brown

Author Tools

Chat about Author

Papers

An Accessible Laparoscope for Surgery in Low- and Middle- Income Countries

An analysis of 90-day emergency department visits after peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) placement for prosthetic joint infection

Financial payments from the pharmaceutical industry to U.S. cancer centers, 2014-2019.