Objective: To investigate the validity and pattern of DSM-5-defined BQ use disorder (BUD) and its association with oral potentially malignant disorder (OPMD) among Asian populations.
Design, Setting, and Participants: In-person interviews were conducted from January 1, 2009, to February 28, 2010, among a random sample of 8922 noninstitutionalized adults from the Asian Betel-quid Consortium study, an Asian representative survey of 6 BQ-endemic populations. Statistical analysis was performed from January 1, 2015, to December 31, 2016.
Main Outcomes and Measures: Participants were evaluated for BUD using DSM-5 criteria for substance use disorder and for OPMD using a clinical oral examination. Current users of BQ with 0 to 1 symptoms were classified as having no BUD, those with 2 to 3 symptoms as having mild BUD, those with 4 to 5 symptoms as having moderate BUD, and those with 6 or more symptoms as having severe BUD.
Results: Among the 8922 participants (4564 women and 4358 men; mean [SD] age, 44.2 [0.2] years), DSM-5 symptoms showed sufficient unidimensionality to act as a valid measure for BUD. The 12-month prevalence of DSM-5-defined BUD in the 6 study populations was 18.0% (mild BUD, 3.2%; moderate BUD, 4.3%; and severe BUD, 10.5%). The 12-month proportion of DSM-5-defined BUD among current users of BQ was 86.0% (mild BUD, 15.5%; moderate BUD, 20.6%; and severe BUD, 50.0%). Sex, age, low educational level, smoking, and drinking were significantly associated with BUD. Among individuals who used BQ, family use, high frequency of use, and amount of BQ used were significantly linked to moderate to severe BUD. Compared with individuals who did not use BQ, those who used BQ and had no BUD showed a 22.0-fold (95% CI, 4.3-112.4) risk of OPMD (P
METHODS: We conducted a multinational retrospective cohort study involving adult trauma patients admitted to emergency departments in the included countries from 2016 to 2020. Prehospital and hospital data were reviewed from the Pan-Asia Trauma Outcomes Study database. Patients aged ≥18 years transported by emergency medical services were included. Patients lacking data regarding age, sex, physiological criteria, or injury severity scores were excluded. We examined the performance of sFTS in all age groups and fine-tuned physiological criteria to improve sFTS performance in identifying high-risk trauma patients in different age groups.
RESULTS: The sensitivity and specificity of the physiological and anatomical criteria for identifying major trauma (injury severity score ≥ 16) were 80.6% and 58.8%, respectively. The modified sFTS showed increased sensitivity and decreased specificity, with more pronounced changes in the young age group. Adding the shock index further increased sensitivity in both age groups.
CONCLUSIONS: sFTS using only physiological and anatomical criteria is suboptimal for Asian adult patients with trauma of all age groups. Adjusting the physiological criteria and adding a shock index as a triage tool can improve the sensitivity of severely injured patients, particularly in young age groups. A swift field triage process can maintain acceptable sensitivity and specificity in severely injured patients.