Methods: Data from the Department of Patient Information University of Malaya Medical Centre (UMMC), Malaysia was captured from spina bifida patients (ICD10: Q05 spina bifida). Data involved patients referred to UMMC between 2003 and 2016 and/or born in UMMC within that particular time frame. We filtered and extracted the information according to the data of clinical examination, medical review, and social history provided in the medical records.
Results: A total of 86 patient records with spina bifida were analyzed. Spina bifida prevalence rate in this study ranged from 1.87 to 8.9 per 1,000 live births depending on weightage. We note that ethnicity was a factor whereby the highest numbers of spina bifida were from Malays (n = 36, 41.86%), followed by equal numbers of Chinese and Indians (n = 24, 27.91%). The highest number of diagnoses reported was myelomeningocele type-spina bifida (n = 39, 45.35%). The most common site of the spina bifida lesion was located at the lumbar region irrespective of aperta or occulta types (n = 23, 26.74%). Data on other associated phenotypes of spina bifida such as hydrocephalus and encephalocele was also captured at 37.21% (n = 32) and 1.16% (n = 1), respectively. In terms of mobility, 32.84% (n = 22/67) of patients between the ages 4 and 16 years old were found to be mobile. As many as 36.07% of patients ranging from 5 to 16 years of age (n = 22/61) received formal education ranging from preschool to secondary school.
Conclusion: The prevalence of spina bifida in UMMC is as according to international statistics which is in the range of 0.5-10 per 1,000 live births. Majority of the reported cases were males, Malays, full term babies, and of the myelomeningocele phenotype located at the lumbar region.
METHODS: This cross-sectional study was conducted among patients with tetraplegia who attended the SCI rehabilitation clinic of a tertiary hospital from September 2021 to August 2022. Both upper limbs were assessed using ISCI-UE 1.1.
RESULTS: One hundred patients were included in this study, of whom 80 were men. The mean (SD) age of the patients was 54.30 (16.95) years old. In these patients, most SCIs (62%) were of traumatic origin. Two hundred UEs were evaluated, of which 109 showed good hand function (level 5) and 10 had the poorest hand function (level 1). Meanwhile, 130 UEs showed good shoulder function (level D) and 10 had the poorest shoulder function (level A). A statistically significant association with UE status (reach-and-grasp ability and shoulder function) was found in both the non-traumatic and traumatic SCI groups, with better hand and shoulder functions in the non-traumatic SCI group (right-hand, P = 0.004 and left hand, P = 0.001; right shoulder, P < 0.001 and left shoulder, P = 0.002).
CONCLUSION: ISCI-UE 1.1 is a feasible tool for documenting UE function in patients with tetraplegia. Compared with the individuals with traumatic SCI in this study, those with non-traumatic SCI demonstrated better upper extremity functionality.
METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will search PubMed, CINAHL, Cochrane, EMBASE, PeDRO and PsycInfo from January 1990 to date using a PICOS search strategy (Population: adults with CRDs; Intervention: Home-PR; Comparator: Centre-PR/Usual care; Outcomes: functional exercise capacity and HRQoL; Setting: any setting). The strategy is to search for 'Chronic Respiratory Disease' AND 'Pulmonary Rehabilitation' AND 'Home-PR', and identify relevant randomised controlled trials and controlled clinical trials. Six reviewers working in pairs will independently screen articles for eligibility and extract data from those fulfilling the inclusion criteria. We will use the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to rate the quality of evidence. We will perform meta-analysis or narrative synthesis as appropriate to answer our three research questions: (1) what is the effectiveness of Home-PR compared with Centre-PR or Usual care? (2) what components are used in effective Home-PR studies? and (3) what is the completion rate of Home-PR compared with Centre-PR?
ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Research ethics approval is not required since the study will review only published data. The findings will be disseminated through publication in a peer-reviewed journal and presentation in conferences.
PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020220137.