Materials and Methods: An online survey of 35 questions was conducted to evaluate impact on (i) general orthopaedic practice (ii) hospital protocols (iii) out-patient practice (iv) surgical practice (v) personal protective equipment (PPE) use and (vi) post-lockdown preparedness.
Results: A total number of 588 practising orthopaedic surgeons from India completed the survey. Majority (88.3%) found severe impact (>50%) on trauma surgery and non-trauma surgery with significant reduction in out -patient attendance compared to corresponding time in 2019. There were significant changes made in individual hospital protocols (91.7 %). Appropriate required PPE was available in majority of the hospitals (74.3%). No remodelling or upgrading of the existing operating theatre infrastructure was done by most surgeons (89.5%).
Conclusion: This pan India survey of orthopaedic surgeons has indicated that COVID-19 has had a profound impact on their outpatient and surgical trauma and non-trauma practice, due to the lockdown and resulted in significant changes to hospital protocols. Preparedness to resume clinical and surgical practice was associated with anxiety in two-thirds of the respondents. Majority of the orthopaedic practitioners felt that they would continue to conduct pre-operative COVID-19 screening and use PPE even after the lockdown is over.
Method: This study was conducted between November and December 2016 at two primary care clinics that offered integrated diabetes care at the time. These sites were selected to assess the discriminative validity of the PACIC. Site 1 is a Malaysian Ministry of Health-run primary care clinic while site 2 is a university-run hospital-based primary care clinic. Only site 1 annually monitors patient performance and encourages them to achieve their HbA1c targets using a standard checklist. Patients with diabetes mellitus who understood English were recruited. Participants were asked to fill out the PACIC at baseline and two weeks later.
Results: A total of 200 out of the 212 invited agreed to participate (response rate=94.3%). Confirmatory factor analysis confirmed the 5-factor structure of the PACIC. The overall PACIC score and the score in two of the five domains were significantly higher at site 1 than at site 2. The overall Cronbach's alpha was 0.924. At test-retest, intra-class correlation coefficient values ranged from 0.641 to 0.882.
Conclusion: The English version of the PACIC was found to be a valid and reliable instrument to assess the quality of care among patients with diabetes mellitus in Malaysia.
Methods: A database search was performed up to July 2019 inclusive for all studies that compared H. pylori infection in IBD patients vs. non-IBD controls. The relative risk (RR) was used to quantify the association between IBD and H. pylori, and the effects were combined across studies using a mixed-effects meta-regression model, which included IBD subtype and geographic region as categorical moderator variables.
Results: Our meta-regression model exhibited moderate heterogeneity (I2=48.74%). Pooled RR depended on both region (P=0.02) and subtype (P<0.001). Pooled RRs were <1 for all subtype and region combinations, indicative of a protective effect of H. pylori against IBD. The pooled RR was 28% (9%, 50%; P=0.001) greater for UC vs. CD and 43% (4%, 96%; P=0.02) greater for Mediterranean countries vs. East Asia. The pooled RR was 18% (-13%, 60%; P=0.48) greater for Europe vs. East Asia and 21% (-13%, 68%; P=0.42) greater for Mediterranean vs. Europe, though these differences were not statistically significant.
Conclusions: The protective effect of H. pylori on IBD varied by both subtype (more protection against CD vs. UC) and region (East Asia more protected than Mediterranean regions). Variation due to these effects could provide insight into IBD etiology.