METHODS: A comprehensive literature search for research articles published between 1950 and 2023 was carried out using major databases, such as Google Scholar, Web of Science, PubMed, Scopus, PsycINFO, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and Medline.
RESULTS: A total of 40 research articles were selected for review. A total of 12 research articles revealed that the prevalence of suicidal behavior among caregivers ranged from 4.7% to 26%. However, the risk of suicidal behavior among people with dementia was inconsistent, as only 17 out of 28 selected studies reported the risk of suicidal behavior among people with dementia. The risk factors associated with suicidal behavior among caregivers of people with dementia could be both self-related and care receiver-related factors, whereas risk factors in people with dementia were self-related factors. Notably, greater cognitive decline, which impairs individuals' ability to carry out complex acts and planning, may lower their suicidal risk. Finally, assessment of the risk of bias indicated that 95% of the selected studies had unclear risk.
CONCLUSION: Self-related and care receiver-related factors should be assessed among caregivers of people with dementia to evaluate the risk of suicidal behavior. In addition, we recommend evaluating suicidal risk in people with dementia in the early phase of dementia when cognitive decline is less severe. However, as the majority of the selected studies had unclear risk of bias, future studies with improved methodologies are warranted to confirm our study findings.
METHODS: 99 adult patients at four training and research hospitals who had undergone an abdominal contrast computed tomography scan in the ED with the final diagnosis of splenic abscess from January 2004 to November 2017 were recruited. Evaluation for sarcopenia was performed via calculating the psoas cross-sectional area at the level of the third lumbar vertebra and normalising for height, before checking it against pre-defined values. Univariate analyses were used to evaluate the differences between survivors and non-survivors. Sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values of the presence of sarcopenia in predicting in-hospital mortality were calculated. Kaplan-Meier methods, log-rank test, and Cox proportional hazards model were also performed to examine survival between groups with sarcopenia versus non-sarcopenia.
RESULTS: Splenic abscess patients with sarcopenia were 7.56 times more at risk of in-hospital mortality than those without sarcopenia (multivariate-adjusted HR: 7.56; 95% CI: 1.55-36.93). Presence of sarcopenia was found to have 84.62% sensitivity and 96.49% negative predictive value in predicting mortality.
CONCLUSION: Sarcopenia is associated with poor prognoses of in-hospital mortality in patients with splenic abscess presenting to the ED. We recommend its use in the ED to rapidly risk stratify and predict outcome to guide treatment strategies.
METHODS: We searched the official Web sites and homepages of the responsible leading patient safety agencies of the three countries. We reviewed all publicly available guidelines, regulatory documents, government reports that included policies, guidelines, strategy papers, reports, evaluation programs, as well as scientific articles and gray literature related to the incident reporting system. We used the World Health Organization components of patient safety reporting system as the guidelines for comparison and analyzed the documents using descriptive comparative analysis.
RESULTS: Taiwan had the most incidents reported, followed by Malaysia and Indonesia. Taiwan Patient Safety Reporting (TPR) and the Malaysian Reporting and Learning System had similar attributes and followed the World Health Organization components for incident reporting. We found differences between the Indonesian system and both of TPR and the Malaysian system. Indonesia did not have an external reporting deadline, analysis and learning were conducted at the national level, and there was a lack of transparency and public access to data and reports. All systems need to establish a clear and structured incident reporting evaluation framework if they are to be successful.
CONCLUSIONS: Compared with TPR and Malaysian system, the Indonesian patient safety incident reporting system seemed to be ineffective because it failed to acquire adequate national incident reporting data and lacked transparency; these deficiencies inhibited learning at the national level. We suggest further research on the implementation at the hospital level to see how far national guidelines and policy have been implemented in each country.
METHODS: Using measures of discrimination and calibration, we tested the performance of the NL-IHRS (n=100 475) and FC-IHRS (n=107 863) for predicting incident CVD in a community-based, prospective study across seven geographic regions: South Asia, China, Southeast Asia, Middle East, Europe/North America, South America and Africa. CVD was defined as the composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke, heart failure or coronary revascularisation.
RESULTS: Mean age of the study population was 50.53 (SD 9.79) years and mean follow-up was 4.89 (SD 2.24) years. The NL-IHRS had moderate to good discrimination for incident CVD across geographic regions (concordance statistic (C-statistic) ranging from 0.64 to 0.74), although recalibration was necessary in all regions, which improved its performance in the overall cohort (increase in C-statistic from 0.69 to 0.72, p<0.001). Regional recalibration was also necessary for the FC-IHRS, which also improved its overall discrimination (increase in C-statistic from 0.71 to 0.74, p<0.001). In 85 078 participants with complete data for both scores, discrimination was only modestly better with the FC-IHRS compared with the NL-IHRS (0.74 vs 0.73, p<0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: External validations of the NL-IHRS and FC-IHRS suggest that regionally recalibrated versions of both can be useful for estimating CVD risk across a diverse range of community-based populations. CVD prediction using a non-laboratory score can provide similar accuracy to laboratory-based methods.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We analysed retrospective data of chest pain patients presenting to ED HUSM from 1st June 2020 till 31st January 2021 based on the patient's history, ECG findings, risk factors, age and troponin level. The patients were stratified as low risk (MHS and HEAR score of 0-3), intermediate risk (MHS and HEAR score of 4-6), and high risk (MHS of 7-10 and HEAR score of 7-8). The association of the MHS and HEAR score with MACE at 6 weeks' time was evaluated using simple logistic regression.
RESULTS: This study included 147 patients in the MHS analysis and 71 patients in HEAR score analysis. The incident rate of MACE in low, intermediate and high risk was 0%,16.3%, and 34.7%, in the MHS group, and 0%, 3.22%, and 6.66% in HEAR score group. The mean difference between MACE and non-MACE in MHS and HEAR score groups was -2.29 (CI: -3.13,1.44, p<0.001) and -2.51(CI: -5.23, 0.21, p=0.070), respectively. There was no significant association between the incidence rate of MACE with modified HEART score (MHS) and HEAR score groups (p>0.95).
CONCLUSION: HEAR score is not feasible to be used as a risk stratification tool for chest pain patients presenting to ED HUSM in comparison to MHS. Further studies are required to validate the results.
METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Hip fracture Accelerated surgical TreaTment And Care tracK (HIP ATTACK) is a multicentre, international, parallel-group randomised controlled trial (RCT). Patients who suffer a hip fracture are randomly allocated to either accelerated medical assessment and surgical repair with a goal of surgery within 6 hours of diagnosis or standard care where a repair typically occurs 24 to 48 hours after diagnosis. The primary outcome of this substudy is the development of AKI within 7 days of randomisation. We anticipate at least 1998 patients will participate in this substudy.
ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: We obtained ethics approval for additional serum creatinine recordings in consecutive patients enrolled at 70 participating centres. All patients provide consent before randomisation. We anticipate reporting substudy results by 2021.
TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02027896; Pre-results.