METHOD: We conducted a cross-sectional analysis to compare ChatGPT, Google Bard, and medical students in mass casualty incident (MCI) triage using the Simple Triage And Rapid Treatment (START) method. A validated questionnaire with 15 diverse MCI scenarios was used to assess triage accuracy and content analysis in four categories: "Walking wounded," "Respiration," "Perfusion," and "Mental Status." Statistical analysis compared the results.
RESULT: Google Bard demonstrated a notably higher accuracy of 60%, while ChatGPT achieved an accuracy of 26.67% (p = 0.002). Comparatively, medical students performed at an accuracy rate of 64.3% in a previous study. However, there was no significant difference observed between Google Bard and medical students (p = 0.211). Qualitative content analysis of 'walking-wounded', 'respiration', 'perfusion', and 'mental status' indicated that Google Bard outperformed ChatGPT.
CONCLUSION: Google Bard was found to be superior to ChatGPT in correctly performing mass casualty incident triage. Google Bard achieved an accuracy of 60%, while chatGPT only achieved an accuracy of 26.67%. This difference was statistically significant (p = 0.002).
OBJECTIVE: This study aims to determine the total cost of managing COVID-19 in-patients in Kuwait.
METHOD: A cross-sectional design was employed for this study. A total of 485 COVID-19 patients admitted to a general hospital responsible for COVID-19 cases management were randomly selected for this study from May 1st to September 31st, 2021. Data on sociodemographic information, length of stay (LOS), discharge status, and comorbidities were obtained from the patients' medical records. The data on costs in this study cover administration, utility, pharmacy, radiology, laboratory, nursing, and ICU costs. The unit cost per admission was calculated using a step-down costing method with three levels of cost centers. The unit cost was then multiplied by the individual patient's length of stay to determine the cost of care per patient per admission.
FINDINGS: The mean cost of COVID-19 in-patient care per admission was KD 2,216 (SD = 2,018), which is equivalent to USD 7,344 (SD = 6,688), with an average length of stay of 9.4 (SD = 8.5) days per admission. The total treatment costs for COVID-19 in-patients (n = 485) were estimated to be KD 1,074,644 (USD 3,561,585), with physician and nursing care costs constituting the largest share at 42.1%, amounting to KD 452,154 (USD 1,498,529). The second and third-largest costs were intensive care (20.6%) at KD 221,439 (USD 733,893) and laboratory costs (10.2%) at KD 109,264 (USD 362,123). The average cost for severe COVID-19 patients was KD 4,626 (USD 15,332), which is almost three times higher than non-severe patients of KD 1,544 (USD 5,117).
CONCLUSION: Managing COVID-19 cases comes with substantial costs. This cost information can assist hospital managers and policymakers in designing more efficient interventions, especially for managing high-risk groups.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a cross-sectional study of 400 women from registered non-government organisations (NGOs) in Malaysia who voluntarily answered questionnaires distributed through Google form via emails. Data were analysed using descriptive statistics, independent t-test and one-way ANOVA test.
RESULTS: Four hundred respondents participated in this study. The mean age was 40.42 years old (SD=12.566). The mean score for the studied population was 4.96 (SEM 0.124). Only 58 (14.5%) respondents obtained a score of eight or more, and 235 (58.8%) respondents scored between 4 and 7. The rest of 107 (26.7%) respondents scored 3 and less. There were statistically significant differences in the mean score for level of awareness between marital statuses, menopausal status, number of children and occupation. There were only 273 (68%) respondents who will seek treatment if they experience symptoms of POP. The most frequent reasons for not seeking treatment were unawareness of the availability of medical treatment for POP (69 %).
CONCLUSION: Majority of the respondents have an inadequate level of awareness on POP. Although more than half of the respondents will seek treatment if they experience symptoms of POP, concerns raised by those who chose not to seek treatment should be addressed by a more effective public awareness programme. This includes the unawareness of the availability of medical treatment and the embarrassment to see medical practitioners.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Full-text articles of case report, case control, cohort and cross-sectional studies that were published from 1st January 2012 until 30th June 2022, were searched using PubMed, CINAHL and Scopus. Periodontal related diseases were excluded in this review due to its wellknown associated disease with P. gingivalis. A comparison studies of detection methods were also excluded in this review.
RESULTS: Out of 612 articles that were screened, only 106 met the eligibility criteria to be selected for further review. Risk of bias was performed using FEAT principles and reviewers' discussion. A total of 21 final articles that were reviewed showed significant correlation with P. gingivalis and were classified into several clinical domains. Twelve out of 13 detection methods showed high sensitivity and specificity with short duration analysis.
CONCLUSION: Due to asymptomatic periodontal disease and the high prevalence of P. gingivalis-associated clinical diseases, this review suggests the need for oral public health awareness and early screening for the bacterium detection especially among elderly groups to maintain their quality of life.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted among children who received the COVID-19 vaccine between 3 February and 8 May 2022. Data were collected using a self-administered questionnaire filled out by the parent or legal guardian.
RESULTS: The mean age of the study participants was 9 years old and 43.1% were males. Out of the 195 participants in the study, 62 (31.8%) reported side effects after vaccination. The most frequently reported side effects were pain at the injection site (29.7%, n=58), fever (15.9%, n=31), localised inflammation (10.8%, n=21) and arthralgia/myalgia (9.2%, n=18). There were no reported severe adverse events such as anaphylaxis or myocarditis. Most side effects occurred within the first two days post-vaccination. There was a higher proportion of side effects among children with underlying co-morbidities. No significant differences were observed based on age, weight, ethnicity and the presence of allergies, or the use of premedication.
CONCLUSION: The BNT162b2 vaccine was generally welltolerated in children, with most side effects being mild and self-limiting. These findings support the safety of the COVID-19 vaccine and would guide healthcare professionals, parents and policy-makers in making informed decisions about COVID-19 vaccination, especially among high-risk groups.
OBJECTIVE: Currently there is limited evidence and guidance on the management of mild degenerative cervical myelopathy (DCM) and asymptomatic spinal cord compression (ASCC). Anecdotal evidence suggest variance in clinical practice. The objectives of this study were to assess current practice and to quantify the variability in clinical practice.
METHODS: Spinal surgeons and some additional health professionals completed a web-based survey distributed by email to members of AO Spine and the Cervical Spine Research Society (CSRS) North American Society. Questions captured experience with DCM, frequency of DCM patient encounters, and standard of practice in the assessment of DCM. Further questions assessed the definition and management of mild DCM, and the management of ASCC.
RESULTS: A total of 699 respondents, mostly surgeons, completed the survey. Every world region was represented in the responses. Half (50.1%, n = 359) had greater than 10 years of professional experience with DCM. For mild DCM, standardised follow-up for non-operative patients was reported by 488 respondents (69.5%). Follow-up included a heterogeneous mix of investigations, most often at 6-month intervals (32.9%, n = 158). There was some inconsistency regarding which clinical features would cause a surgeon to counsel a patient towards surgery. Practice for ASCC aligned closely with mild DCM. Finally, there were some contradictory definitions of mild DCM provided in the form of free text.
CONCLUSIONS: Professionals typically offer outpatient follow up for patients with mild DCM and/or asymptomatic ASCC. However, what this constitutes varies widely. Further research is needed to define best practice and support patient care.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a cross-sectional, observational study on empathy among doctors practicing in the private, public hospital sector and faculty at a medical university in Negeri Sembilan, Malaysia that utilised convenience sampling for data collection. The Toronto Empathy Questionnaire (TEQ) a validated tool was used to measure empathy.
RESULTS: The questionnaire was completed by 127 doctors, 52% (n= 66) were males and 48% (n=61) females. There was no significant difference in empathy between male (M=46.44; SD=6.01) and female (M=45.05, SD=5.69) doctors; t (123) = 1.326, p=0.187. Pearson correlation coefficient was computed to assess the linear relationship between age and empathy and revealed no correlation between the two variables: r (125) =0.15, p=0.099. Medical-based doctors (M= 47.47, SD=5.98) demonstrated more empathy than surgicalbased (M=44.32, SD=5.41); t (123) =-3.09, p=0.002. Those already specialised in their fields (M=47.38, SD=4.57) had more empathy than those who had not (M= 44.36, SD=6.52); t (123) =-2.96, p = 0.004. Doctors in the university (M=47.97, SD=4.31) tended to have more empathy than those in the public hospitals (M= 44.63, SD=6.27); t (117) =-2.91, p=0.004. Academicians had more empathy than non-academicians but there was no difference between those who were in clinical practice and not.
CONCLUSION: Our findings indicate that medical-based doctors demonstrate more empathy than surgical-based doctors, and there appeared to be no correlation between age and empathy. However, clinical experience and growth within the specialty seem to improve empathy. Doctors teaching in the university setting demonstrated more empathy than those practicing in the hospital setting. Inclusion of empathy-related sessions in the undergraduate and post-graduate curriculum could bridge the gap in empathy noted with age, discipline, and experience in practice. Further research on empathy among doctors using a wider population in Malaysia and a TEQ questionnaire validated to the Asian population would provide better insight regarding this area of medical practice. Future research on outcomes of inclusion of programmes targeted at improving empathy to create awareness during practice would support patient satisfaction and safety.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted in Luyang Health Clinic from 1st June 2020 to 3rd September 2020. A self-interviewed questionnaire comprises of three sections; sociodemographic, Wake Forest Physician Trust Scale (WFS) and Adherence to Refills and Medications Scale (ARMS) was completed by 281 respondents. Glycaemic control is based on the latest Hba1c profile of the respondents. Descriptive and nonparametric bivariate analysis were performed using IBM SPSS version 26.
RESULTS: The median (IQR) level of trust in physician was 43(8) out of a possible score range of 10 to 50. Trust in physician was correlated with treatment adherence (r=-0.12, p=0.048). There was no significant association between trust in physician with sociodemographic factors, which include age (p=0.33), gender (p=0.46), ethnicity (p=0.70), education level (p=0.50), and household income (p=0.37). Similarly, there was no significant association between the level of trust in physician with glycaemic control (p=0.709).
CONCLUSION: In conclusion, trust in physician was associated with treatment adherence but not with glycaemic control. In our local context, the glycaemic control could be due to other factors. Further studies should include a multicentre population to assess other potential factors that could contribute to glycaemic control.