Background: People with HIV have a higher risk of developing non-AIDS-defining cancers in older age, leading to a significant population living with two conditions, HIV and cancer. There is an increasing interest in cannabis use for symptom management in people with chronic conditions; in 2023, the American Nurses Association officially recognised cannabis nursing as a specialty nursing practice focusing on the care of individuals seeking education/guidance in the therapeutic use of cannabis, supporting the urgency of its research. However, the scientific literature lacks a synthesised review in the focused populations. Aim: To explore observational research on cannabis use for symptom management among people with HIV and/or cancer and identify gaps in current knowledge to inform future research and policy development. Methods: Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) checklist, a literature search of relevant articles was conducted in the databases PubMed (n = 552), PsycInfo (n = 204), CINAHL (n = 164) and Embase (n = 976). Upon screening 1738 articles, 142 were identified for full-text review and 51 were retained for data extraction. Results: There were more studies evaluating cannabis use among people with cancer than with HIV and no studies among people living with comorbid HIV and cancer. Most studies were cross-sectional with limited metrics on the perceived effectiveness and safety of cannabis use for symptom management and its dosing/mode of delivery for reducing symptoms. While studies focused on cannabis therapy under the provision of healthcare providers, individuals reported obtaining information about cannabis from friends/family/the Internet. Implications for cannabis nursing: This body of research could be strengthened by rigorous longitudinal study designs to build causal relationships on the therapeutic effects of cannabis use and the inclusion of reliable and valid symptom assessment measures over time, which facilitates developing clinical practice guidance and policymaking in cannabis nursing. Patient or public contribution: No patient or public contribution.

Background Malaria is one of the most serious global problems. The objective of this study is to assess whether intermittent preventive treatment (IPT) using artemisinin-based combination therapies (ACTs) was a promising alternative to IPT with sulphadoxine-pyrimethamine (IPT-SP). Methods We searched the following sources up to 12 August 2020: PubMed, The Cochrane Library, Embase, Web of Science, CNKI, CBM, VIP and WanFang Database from inception. The randomized controlled trials comparing SP with ACTs for malaria were included. Data were pooled using Stata.14 software. We performed subgroup analysis based on the different types of ACTs groups and participants. Results A total of 13 studies comprising 5180 people were included. The meta-analysis showed that ACTs had the lower risk of number of any parasitemia (RR=0.46; 95% CI 0.22 to 0.96, p=0.039; I-2=90.50%, p<0.001), early treatment failure (RR=0.17; 95% CI 0.06 to 0.48, pI(2)=66.60%, p=0.011) and late treatment failure (RR=0.34; 95% CI 0.13 to 0.92, pI(2)=87.80%, p<0.001) compared with SP. There was no significant difference in adequate clinical response, average hemoglobin and adverse neonatal outcomes. Conclusion Combinations with ACTs appear promising as suitable alternatives for IPT-SP.

BACKGROUND: This meta-analysis was conducted to compare the clinical safety and efficacy of robot-assisted pancreaticoduodenectomy (RAPD) or robot-assisted distal pancreatectomy (RADP) with open surgery. METHODS: Multiple databases (PubMed, Medline, EMBASE and Cochrane Library) were searched to identify studies comparing the outcomes of RAPD and open pancreaticoduodenectomy (OPD) or RADP and open distal pancreatectomy (ODP) (up to December 31, 2017). Fixed and random effects models were applied according to different conditions. RESULTS: Fifteen non-randomized controlled trials (11 RAPD vs. OPD and 4 RADP vs. ODP) involving 3690 patients were included. Robot-assisted surgery had longer operative time (RAPD vs. OPD: P=0.0005; RADP vs. ODP: P<0.00001) but lesser blood loss than open surgery (RAPD vs. OPD: P=0.0009; RADP vs. ODP: P=0.0007). RAPD was associated with less wound infection, a lower positive margin rate, lower overall complications, and faster postoperative off-bed activity. There was no significant difference in the lymph node yield, the rate of pancreatic fistula, delayed gastric emptying, reoperation, length of hospital stay and mortality between the two groups. Compared with ODP, RADP was associated with less blood transfusion, fewer lymph nodes harvested, lower complications and shorter hospital stay. There was no significant difference between the two groups in the rate of spleen preservation, positive margin, pancreatic fistula, and mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Robot-assisted surgery is a safe and feasible alternative to OPD and ODP with regard to perioperative outcomes. However, due to the lack of high-quality randomized controlled trials, the evidence is still limited.