DESIGN: AVERT is a prospective, parallel group, assessor-blinded randomised clinical trial. This paper presents data assessing the generalisability of AVERT.
SETTING: Acute stroke units at 44 hospitals in 8 countries.
PARTICIPANTS: The first 20,000 patients screened for AVERT, of whom 1158 were recruited and randomised.
MODEL: We use the Proximal Similarity Model, which considers the person, place, and setting and practice, as a framework for considering generalisability. As well as comparing the recruited patients with the target population, we also performed an exploratory analysis of the demographic, clinical, site and process factors associated with recruitment.
RESULTS: The demographics and stroke characteristics of the included patients in the trial were broadly similar to population-based norms, with the exception that AVERT had a greater proportion of men. The most common reason for non-recruitment was late arrival to hospital (ie, >24 h). Overall, being older and female reduced the odds of recruitment to the trial. More women than men were excluded for most of the reasons, including refusal. The odds of exclusion due to early deterioration were particularly high for those with severe stroke (OR=10.4, p<0.001, 95% CI 9.27 to 11.65).
CONCLUSIONS: A model which explores person, place, and setting and practice factors can provide important information about the external validity of a trial, and could be applied to other clinical trials.
TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12606000185561) and Clinicaltrials.gov (NCT01846247).
METHODS: Data related to the number of cases involving dengue fever (DF), dengue hemorrhagic fever (DHF), dengue shock syndrome (DSS) or severe dengue infections caused by different serotypes of dengue virus were obtained by using the SCOPUS, the PUBMED and the OVID search engines with the keywords "(dengue* OR dengue virus*) AND (severe dengue* OR severity of illness index* OR severity* OR DF* OR DHF* OR DSS*) AND (serotypes* OR serogroup*)", according to the MESH terms suggested by PUBMED and OVID.
RESULTS: Approximately 31 studies encompassing 15,741 cases reporting on the dengue serotypes together with their severity were obtained, and meta-analysis was carried out to analyze the data. This study found that DENV-3 from the Southeast Asia (SEA) region displayed the greatest percentage of severe cases in primary infection (95% confidence interval (CI), 31.22-53.67, 9 studies, n = 598, I2 = 71.53%), whereas DENV-2, DENV-3, and DENV-4 from the SEA region, as well as DENV-2 and DENV-3 from non-SEA regions, exhibited the greatest percentage of severe cases in secondary infection (95% CI, 11.64-80.89, 4-14 studies, n = 668-3,149, I2 = 14.77-96.20%). Moreover, DENV-2 and DENV-4 from the SEA region had been found to be more highly associated with dengue shock syndrome (DSS) (95% CI, 10.47-40.24, 5-8 studies, n = 642-2,530, I2 = 76.93-97.70%), while DENV-3 and DENV-4 from the SEA region were found to be more highly associated with dengue hemorrhagic fever (DHF) (95% CI, 31.86-54.58, 9 studies, n = 674-2,278, I2 = 55.74-88.47%), according to the 1997 WHO dengue classification. Finally, DENV-2 and DENV-4 from the SEA region were discovered to be more highly associated with secondary infection compared to other serotypes (95% CI, 72.01-96.32, 9-12 studies, n = 671-2,863, I2 = 25.01-96.75%).
CONCLUSION: This study provides evidence that the presence of certain serotypes, including primary infection with DENV-3 from the SEA region and secondary infection with DENV-2, DENV-3, and DENV-4 also from the SEA region, as well as DENV-2 and DENV-3 from non SEA regions, increased the risk of severe dengue infections. Thus, these serotypes are worthy of special consideration when making clinical predictions upon the severity of the infection.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42015026093 (http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO).
METHODS: A cross-sectional study used to collect the data via an online cross using a form created from a google questionnaire forms. A total of 1,802 respondents were gathered at a single point in time. The authors used the Health Belief Model (HBM) approach to measure and create a model for the prevention of local transmission of COVID-19.
RESULTS: This study found that more than half of the respondents still had low perceived susceptibility (16%) and severity (43%). There were only 3% respondents with perceived barriers and 19% with strong self-efficacy. The findings showed that self-efficacy and perceived barriers had statistically significant relationships with preventive behavior (p-value <0.05). The goodness of fit index showed that the proposed model was not fit for the data (RMSE<0.080, GFI>0.950, AGFI>0.950, SRMR<0.100), which means that it was not fit to describe the empirical phenomenon under study.
CONCLUSIONS: This study found that more than half of the respondents still had low perceived susceptibility (84%) and severity (67%), but more than half had high perceived benefits (54%). Only a few respondents had significant barriers to implementing COVID-19 transmission prevention behaviours (3%). Still, most respondents had low perceived self-efficacy (81%), and only 60% had good behaviours related to COVID-19 prevention. In the context of COVID-19 preventive behaviour, we recommended to improve perceived susceptibility and severity by providing the correct information (which contain information about how people susceptible to the virus and the impact of infected by the virus) with the local cultural context.
DESIGN: Prospective multicenter observational study from June 2020 to September 2022.
SETTING: Fifteen PICUs in PACCMAN.
PATIENTS: All children younger than 18 years old diagnosed with pneumonia and admitted to the PICU.
INTERVENTIONS: None.
MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Clinical, microbiologic, and outcome data were recorded. The primary outcome was PICU mortality. Univariate and multivariable logistic regression was performed to investigate associations between PICU mortality and explanatory risk factors on presentation to the PICU. Among patients screened, 846 of 11,778 PICU patients (7.2%) with a median age of 1.2 years (interquartile range, 0.4-3.7 yr) had pneumonia. Respiratory syncytial virus was detected in 111 of 846 cases (13.1%). The most common bacteria were Staphylococcus species (71/846 [8.4%]) followed by Pseudomonas species (60/846 [7.1%]). Second-generation cephalosporins (322/846 [38.1%]) were the most common broad-spectrum antibiotics prescribed, followed by carbapenems (174/846 [20.6%]). Invasive mechanical ventilation and noninvasive respiratory support was provided in 438 of 846 (51.8%) and 500 of 846 (59.1%) patients, respectively. PICU mortality was 65 of 846 (7.7%). In the multivariable logistic regression model, age (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.08; 95% CI, 1.00-1.16), Pediatric Index of Mortality 3 score (aOR, 1.03; 95% CI, 1.02-1.05), and drowsiness (aOR, 2.73; 95% CI, 1.24-6.00) were associated with greater odds of mortality.
CONCLUSIONS: In the PACCMAN contributing PICUs, pneumonia is a frequent cause for admission (7%) and is associated with a greater odds of mortality.
PURPOSE: This study aimed to assess factors affecting knowledge of symptomatic knee osteoarthritis (knee OA) among Malaysian railway workers.
METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted among 513 railway workers involving eight major states within Peninsular Malaysia using population-based sampling. The assessment instrument was a face-validated, prepiloted, self-administered instrument with sociodemographics and knowledge items on knee OA.
RESULTS: Mean (± SD) age of the respondents was 41.4 (± 10.7), with the majority aged 50 years or older (34.9%). Of the total respondents, 53.6% had low levels of knowledge of knee OA disease. Multivariate analysis found that four demographic predictors, age ≥ 50 years, family history of knee OA, self-awareness, and clinical diagnosis of the disease entity, were significantly associated with knowledge scores.
CONCLUSION: The finding of a low level knee OA knowledge among Malaysian railway workers points to an urgent need for massive information to be disseminated among the workers at risk to foster primary prevention and self-care.
METHODS: We systematically reviewed the published studies to assess the association of RAS inhibitors with mortality as well as disease severity in COVID-19 patients. A systematic literature search was performed to retrieve relevant original studies investigating mortality and severity (severe/critical disease) in COVID-19 patients with and without exposure to RAS inhibitors.
RESULTS: A total of 59 original studies were included for qualitative synthesis. Twenty-four studies that reported adjusted effect sizes (24 studies reported mortality outcomes and 16 studies reported disease severity outcomes), conducted in RAS inhibitor-exposed and unexposed groups, were pooled in random-effects models to estimate overall risk. Quality assessment of studies revealed that most of the studies included were of fair quality. The use of an ACEI/ARB in COVID-19 patients was significantly associated with lower odds (odds ratio [OR] = 0.73, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.56-0.95; n = 18,749) or hazard (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.75, 95% CI 0.60-0.95; n = 26,598) of mortality compared with non-use of ACEI/ARB. However, the use of an ACEI/ARB was non-significantly associated with lower odds (OR = 0.91, 95% CI 0.75-1.10; n = 7446) or hazard (HR = 0.73, 95% CI 0.33-1.66; n = 6325) of developing severe/critical disease compared with non-use of an ACEI/ARB.
DISCUSSION: Since there was no increased risk of harm, the use of RAS inhibitors for hypertension and other established clinical indications can be maintained in COVID-19 patients.
METHODOLOGY: A community-based cross-sectional study was conducted among 640 indigenous Temiar OA participants from a remote settlement in Gua Musang, Kelantan, Malaysia. Data was collected using face-to-face interviews with a standardised pretested questionnaire and through blood samples collected for haemoglobin (Hb) testing. Anaemia status was determined using the Hb level cut-off established by the World Health Organization (WHO). Descriptive analysis was used to determine the prevalence of anaemia, while multiple logistic regression was used to determine factors associated with anaemia.
RESULTS: The overall anaemia prevalence was 44.7% (286/640), and the prevalence rates of mild, moderate and severe anaemia were 42.7, 50.7 and 6.6%, respectively. Anaemia-specific prevalence varied significantly by age group (p 40 (aOR 0.25, p
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This descriptive retrospective study featured 221 patients diagnosed with clinically critical COVID-19 from August 2021 to March 2022 in the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) of RSUP Dr. M. Djamil, Padang, Indonesia. The study employed a total sampling technique to collect data from medical records in the hospital. Patients aged 18 years or older who underwent testing for leukocytes, platelets, neutrophils, and lymphocytes were included in the study. We analysed the data using descriptive univariate analysis. Then, the NLR and PLR of the patients were statistically compared based on comorbidities and coincidence.
RESULTS: According to the study, most patients with critically ill COVID-19 exhibited high levels of NLR (88.2%) and PLR (71.1%). The severe COVID-19 patients with comorbidity of kidney disease had the highest NLR (Mean ± SD) of 31.74 ± 27.95 (p-value <0.001) and the highest mean PLR (Mean ± SD) of 469.33 ± 362.95 (p-value 0.001).
CONCLUSION: Our findings showed a significantly higher NLR and PLR in patients with critically ill COVID-19, particularly in patients with comorbidity of kidney disease. Thus, elevated levels of NLR and PLR were identified as potential prognostic markers for predicting disease severity in COVID-19 patients, especially those with kidney comorbidity.