METHODS: A steering group was formed to review the existing guideline and propose amendments to the 17-item checklist. A Delphi consensus exercise was utilised to determine agreement across a list of proposed modifications to the STROCSS 2017 guideline. An expert panel of 46 surgeons were invited to assess the proposed updates via Google Forms.
RESULTS: The response rate was 91% (n = 42/46). High agreement was reached across all the items and the guideline was finalised in the first round. The checklist maintained 17-items, with modifications primarily considered to improve content and readability.
CONCLUSIONS: The STROCSS 2019 guideline is hereby presented as a considered update to improve reporting of cohort, cross-sectional and case-control studies in surgery.
Settings and Design: This was a cross-sectional study conducted in a Neurological Centre at Hospital Tengku Ampuan Afzan, Kuantan, Pahang, Malaysia, from January 2016 to December 2016.
Subjects and Methods: A total of 209 patients; 133 males and 76 females, in the age range of 16-84 years, were randomly recruited for this study. All the selected patients were subjected to the checklist for diagnosis of PCS as per International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems 10th edition classification at a 2-week interval.
Statistical Analysis Used: Descriptive statistic and Multivariable Logistic Regression Model were used for frequency and percentage analyses of categorical variables, using SPSS version 23.0.
Results: Only 20 patients were identified with PCS. There were more female (70%) patients with PCS than the male (30%) patients. The prevalence of PCS for 2 weeks, 3 and 6 months since injuries were 9.6%, 8.1%, and 8.1% respectively. Majority (80%) of the patients were found to have PCS due to road traffic accidents, while the remaining were attributed to assault (15%), and falls (5%). Among the sample population, 25% were smokers, while 10% of them had either skull fracture or premorbidity.
Conclusion: Less than 10% of patients with MTBI had PCS after 6 months' following trauma. None of the variables tested were significant factors for the development of PCS symptoms.
METHODS: A cross-sectional randomized intervention study over 12 months' duration was conducted in university hospital simulation lab. ACLS-certified medical doctors were assigned to run 2 standardized simulated resuscitation code as RTL from a head-end position (HEP) and leg-end position (LEP). They were evaluated on leadership qualities including situational attentiveness (SA), errors detection (ED), and decision making (DM) using a standardized validated resuscitation-code-checklist (RCC). Performance was assessed live by 2 independent raters and was simultaneously recorded. RTL self-perceived performance was compared to measured performance.
RESULTS: Thirty-four participants completed the study. Mean marks for SA were 3.74 (SD ± 0.96) at HEP and 3.54 (SD ± 0.92) at LEP, P = .48. Mean marks for ED were 2.43 (SD ± 1.24) at HEP and 2.21 (SD ± 1.14) at LEP, P = .40. Mean marks for DM were 4.53 (SD ± 0.98) at HEP and 4.47 (SD ± 0.73) at LEP, P = .70. The mean total marks were 10.69 (SD ± 1.82) versus 10.22 (SD ± 1.93) at HEP and LEP respectively, P = .29 which shows no significance difference in all parameters. Twenty-four participants (71%) preferred LEP for the following reasons, better visualization (75% of participants); more room for movement (12.5% of participants); and better communication (12.5% of participants). RTL's perceived performance did not correlate with actual performance CONCLUSION:: The physical position either HEP or LEP appears to have no influence on performance of RTL in simulated cardiac resuscitation. RTL should be aware of the advantages and limitations of each position.