Time-Series Panel Analysis (TSPA): Multivariate Modeling of Temporal Associations in Psychotherapy Process.

Objective: Processes occurring in the course of psychotherapy are characterized by the simple fact that they unfold in time and that the multiple factors engaged in change processes vary highly between individuals (idiographic phenomena). Previous research, however, has neglected the temporal perspective by its traditional focus on static phenomena, which were mainly assessed at the group level (nomothetic phenomena). To support a temporal approach, the authors introduce time-series panel analysis (TSPA), a statistical methodology explicitly focusing on the quantification of temporal, session-to-session aspects of change in psychotherapy. TSPA-models are initially built at the level of individuals and are subsequently aggregated at the group level, thus allowing the exploration of prototypical models. Method: TSPA is based on vector auto-regression (VAR), an extension of univariate auto-regression models to multivariate time-series data. The application of TSPA is demonstrated in a sample of 87 outpatient psychotherapy patients who were monitored by postsession questionnaires. Prototypical mechanisms of change were derived from the aggregation of individual multivariate models of psychotherapy process. In a 2nd step, the associations between mechanisms of change (TSPA) and pre- to postsymptom change were explored. Results: TSPA allowed a prototypical process pattern to be identified, where patient's alliance and self-efficacy were linked by a temporal feedback-loop. Furthermore, therapist's stability over time in both mastery and clarification interventions was positively associated with better outcomes. Conclusions: TSPA is a statistical tool that sheds new light on temporal mechanisms of change. Through this approach, clinicians may gain insight into prototypical patterns of change in psychotherapy.

Best Practices in Robot-assisted Radical Cystectomy and Urinary Reconstruction: Recommendations of the Pasadena Consensus Panel

CONTEXT Robot-assisted surgery is increasingly used for radical cystectomy (RC) and urinary reconstruction. Sufficient data have accumulated to allow evidence-based consensus on key issues such as perioperative management, comparative effectiveness on surgical complications, and oncologic short- to midterm outcomes. OBJECTIVE A 2-d conference of experts on RC and urinary reconstruction was organized in Pasadena, California, and the City of Hope Cancer Center in Duarte, California, to systematically review existing peer-reviewed literature on robot-assisted RC (RARC), extended lymphadenectomy, and urinary reconstruction. No commercial support was obtained for the conference. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION A systematic review of the literature was performed in agreement with the PRISMA statement. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS Systematic literature reviews and individual presentations were discussed, and consensus on all key issues was obtained. Most operative, intermediate-term oncologic, functional, and complication outcomes are similar between open RC (ORC) and RARC. RARC consistently results in less blood loss and a reduced need for transfusion during surgery. RARC generally requires longer operative time than ORC, particularly with intracorporeal reconstruction. Robotic assistance provides ergonomic value for surgeons. Surgeon experience and institutional volume strongly predict favorable outcomes for either open or robotic techniques. CONCLUSIONS RARC appears to be similar to ORC in terms of operative, pathologic, intermediate-term oncologic, complication, and most functional outcomes. RARC consistently results in less blood loss and a reduced need for transfusion during surgery. RARC can be more expensive than ORC, although high procedural volume may attenuate this difference. PATIENT SUMMARY Robot-assisted radical cystectomy (RARC) is an alternative to open surgery for patients with bladder cancer who require removal of their bladder and reconstruction of their urinary tract. RARC appears to be similar to open surgery for most important outcomes such as the rate of complications and intermediate-term cancer-specific survival. Although RARC has some ergonomic advantages for surgeons and may result in less blood loss during surgery, it is more time consuming and may be more expensive than open surgery.

Early detection of lung cancer: a statement from an expert panel of the Swiss university hospitals on lung cancer screening.

The discussion about setting up a program for lung cancer screening was launched with the publication of the results of the National Lung Screening Trial, which suggested reduced mortality in high-risk subjects undergoing CT screening. However, important questions about the benefit-harm balance and the details of a screening program and its cost-effectiveness remain unanswered. A panel of specialists in chest radiology, respiratory medicine, epidemiology, and thoracic surgery representing all Swiss university hospitals prepared this joint statement following several meetings. The panel argues that premature and uncontrolled introduction of a lung cancer screening program may cause substantial harm that may remain undetected without rigorous quality control. This position paper focuses on the requirements of running such a program with the objective of harmonizing efforts across the involved specialties and institutions and defining quality standards. The underlying statement includes information on current evidence for a reduction in mortality with lung cancer screening and the potential epidemiologic implications of such a program in Switzerland. Furthermore, requirements for lung cancer screening centers are defined, and recommendations for both the CT technique and the algorithm for lung nodule assessment are provided. In addition, related issues such as patient management, registry, and funding are addressed. Based on the current state of the knowledge, the panel concludes that lung cancer screening in Switzerland should be undertaken exclusively within a national observational study in order to provide answers to several critical questions before considering broad population-based screening for lung cancer.