DESIGN: Of 541 studies performed worldwide using two different systems (Diversatek, USA, and Laborie, Netherlands), 150 tracings with oesophageal diagnoses, behavioural disorders and study-related artefacts were excluded. The remainder studies were subject to two reviewer consensus analysis, in-person or through video conference, consisting of editing meals and pH drops, identification of impedance reflux and postreflux swallow-induced peristaltic wave (PSPW) using strict pre-established criteria and measurement of distal mean nocturnal baseline impedance (MNBI).
RESULTS: Consensus analysis was performed in 391 tracings (age 32.7 years, range 18-71, 54.2% female). Normative thresholds were significantly different between Diversatek and Laborie (total acid exposure time: 2.8% and 5%; reflux episodes: 55 and 78; MNBI at 3 cm: 1400 and 1500 ohms, at 5 cm: 1400 and 1800 ohms). Males had higher acid exposure, more reflux episodes and lower MNBI. Significant regional differences were identified, including higher PSPW scores in Western countries, and higher MNBI in Asia using Diversatek, and higher acid exposure in the Netherlands, higher MNBI in Asia and South Africa, and lower MNBI in Turkey using Laborie.
CONCLUSION: Normal impedance-pH monitoring thresholds have regional and system-related differences. Clinical interpretation needs to use normal thresholds valid for the system used and world region, following careful editing of the tracings.
OBJECTIVE: This survey aims to assess differences in mental health, knowledge, attitudes, and practices (KAP) of preventive measures for COVID-19 amongst healthcare professionals (HCP) and non-healthcare professionals.
DESIGN: Multi-national cross-sectional study was carried out using electronic surveys between May-June 2020.
SETTING: Multi-national survey was distributed across 36 countries through social media, word-of-mouth, and electronic mail.
PARTICIPANTS: Participants ≥21 years working in healthcare and non-healthcare related professions.
MAIN OUTCOME: Risk factors determining the difference in KAP towards personal hygiene and social distancing measures during COVID-19 amongst HCP and non-HCP.
RESULTS: HCP were significantly more knowledgeable on personal hygiene (AdjOR 1.45, 95% CI -1.14 to 1.83) and social distancing (AdjOR 1.31, 95% CI -1.06 to 1.61) compared to non-HCP. They were more likely to have a positive attitude towards personal hygiene and 1.5 times more willing to participate in the contact tracing app. There was high compliance towards personal hygiene and social distancing measures amongst HCP. HCP with high compliance were 1.8 times more likely to flourish and more likely to have a high sense of emotional (AdjOR 1.94, 95% CI (1.44 to 2.61), social (AdjOR 2.07, 95% CI -1.55 to 2.78), and psychological (AdjOR 2.13, 95% CI (1.59-2.85) well-being.
CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE: While healthcare professionals were more knowledgeable, had more positive attitudes, their higher sense of total well-being was seen to be more critical to enhance compliance. Therefore, focusing on the well-being of the general population would help to enhance their compliance towards the preventive measures for COVID-19.
AIMS: We evaluated the performance of machine learning (ML) and non-patented scores for ruling out SF among NAFLD/MASLD patients.
METHODS: Twenty-one ML models were trained (N = 1153), tested (N = 283), and validated (N = 220) on clinical and biochemical parameters of histologically-proven NAFLD/MASLD patients (N = 1656) collected across 14 centres in 8 Asian countries. Their performance for detecting histological-SF (≥F2fibrosis) were evaluated with APRI, FIB4, NFS, BARD, and SAFE (NPV/F1-score as model-selection criteria).
RESULTS: Patients aged 47 years (median), 54.6% males, 73.7% with metabolic syndrome, and 32.9% with histological-SF were included in the study. Patients with SFvs.no-SF had higher age, aminotransferases, fasting plasma glucose, metabolic syndrome, uncontrolled diabetes, and NAFLD activity score (p 140) was next best in ruling out SF (NPV of 0.757, 0.724 and 0.827 in overall, test and validation set).
CONCLUSIONS: ML with clinical, anthropometric data and simple blood investigations perform better than FIB-4 for ruling out SF in biopsy-proven Asian NAFLD/MASLD patients.
METHODS: A population of 295 consecutive patients undergoing HRM and pH-study for persistent typical or atypical GERD symptoms was prospectively enrolled to build a model and a nomogram that provides a risk score for AET > 6%. Collected HRM data included IEM, EGJ-CI, EGJ type and SLR. A supplemental cohort of patients undergoing HRM and pH-study was also prospectively enrolled in 13 high-volume esophageal function laboratories across the world in order to validate the model. Discrimination and calibration were used to assess model's accuracy. Gastroesophageal reflux disease was defined as acid exposure time >6%.
RESULTS: Out of the analyzed variables, SLR response and EGJ subtype 3 had the highest impact on the score (odd ratio 18.20 and 3.87, respectively). The external validation cohort consisted of 233 patients. In the validation model, the corrected Harrel c-index was 0.90. The model-fitting optimism adjusted calibration slope was 0.93 and the integrated calibration index was 0.07, indicating good calibration.
CONCLUSIONS: A novel HRM score for GERD diagnosis has been created and validated. The MS might be a useful screening tool to stratify the risk and the severity of GERD, allowing a more comprehensive pathophysiologic assessment of the anti-reflux barrier.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov (Identifier: NCT05851482).
METHODS: Data were collected via the Internet in 24 countries, personal interviews in 7 countries, and both in 2 countries, using the Rome IV diagnostic questionnaire, Rome III irritable bowel syndrome questions, and 80 items to identify variables associated with FGIDs. Data collection methods differed for Internet and household groups, so data analyses were conducted and reported separately.
RESULTS: Among the 73,076 adult respondents (49.5% women), diagnostic criteria were met for at least 1 FGID by 40.3% persons who completed the Internet surveys (95% confidence interval [CI], 39.9-40.7) and 20.7% of persons who completed the household surveys (95% CI, 20.2-21.3). FGIDs were more prevalent among women than men, based on responses to the Internet survey (odds ratio, 1.7; 95% CI, 1.6-1.7) and household survey (odds ratio, 1.3; 95% CI, 1.3-1.4). FGIDs were associated with lower quality of life and more frequent doctor visits. Proportions of subjects with irritable bowel syndrome were lower when the Rome IV criteria were used, compared with the Rome III criteria, in the Internet survey (4.1% vs 10.1%) and household survey (1.5% vs 3.5%).
CONCLUSIONS: In a large-scale multinational study, we found that more than 40% of persons worldwide have FGIDs, which affect quality of life and health care use. Although the absolute prevalence was higher among Internet respondents, similar trends and relative distributions were found in people who completed Internet vs personal interviews.
METHODS: The two RFGES survey methods are described in detail, and differences in DGBI findings summarized for household versus Internet surveys globally, and in more detail for China and Turkey. Logistic regression analysis was used to elucidate factors contributing to these differences.
RESULTS: Overall, DGBI were only half as prevalent when assessed with household vs Internet surveys. Similar patterns of methodology-related DGBI differences were seen within both China and Turkey, but prevalence differences between the survey methods were dramatically larger in Turkey. No clear reasons for outcome differences by survey method were identified, although greater relative reduction in bowel and anorectal versus upper gastrointestinal disorders when household versus Internet surveying was used suggests an inhibiting influence of social sensitivity.
CONCLUSIONS: The findings strongly indicate that besides affecting data quality, manpower needs and data collection time and costs, the choice of survey method is a substantial determinant of symptom reporting and DGBI prevalence outcomes. This has important implications for future DGBI research and epidemiological research more broadly.
METHODS: The GI-COVID-19 is a prospective, multicenter, controlled study. Patients with and without COVID-19 diagnosis were recruited at hospital admission and asked for GI symptoms at admission and after 1 month, using the validated Gastrointestinal Symptom Rating Scale questionnaire.
RESULTS: The study included 2036 hospitalized patients. A total of 871 patients (575 COVID+ and 296 COVID-) were included for the primary analysis. GI symptoms occurred more frequently in patients with COVID-19 (59.7%; 343/575 patients) than in the control group (43.2%; 128/296 patients) (P < 0.001). Patients with COVID-19 complained of higher presence or intensity of nausea, diarrhea, loose stools, and urgency as compared with controls. At a 1-month follow-up, a reduction in the presence or intensity of GI symptoms was found in COVID-19 patients with GI symptoms at hospital admission. Nausea remained increased over controls. Factors significantly associated with nausea persistence in COVID-19 were female sex, high body mass index, the presence of dyspnea, and increased C-reactive protein levels.
DISCUSSION: The prevalence of GI symptoms in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 is higher than previously reported. Systemic and respiratory symptoms are often associated with GI complaints. Nausea may persist after the resolution of COVID-19 infection.
DESIGN: GI-COVID-19 is a prospective, multicentre, controlled study. Patients with and without COVID-19 diagnosis were evaluated on hospital admission and after 1, 6 and 12 months post hospitalisation. Gastrointestinal symptoms, anxiety and depression were assessed using validated questionnaires.
RESULTS: The study included 2183 hospitalised patients. The primary analysis included a total of 883 patients (614 patients with COVID-19 and 269 controls) due to the exclusion of patients with pre-existing gastrointestinal symptoms and/or surgery. At enrolment, gastrointestinal symptoms were more frequent among patients with COVID-19 than in the control group (59.3% vs 39.7%, p<0.001). At the 12-month follow-up, constipation and hard stools were significantly more prevalent in controls than in patients with COVID-19 (16% vs 9.6%, p=0.019 and 17.7% vs 10.9%, p=0.011, respectively). Compared with controls, patients with COVID-19 reported higher rates of irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) according to Rome IV criteria: 0.5% versus 3.2%, p=0.045. Factors significantly associated with IBS diagnosis included history of allergies, chronic intake of proton pump inhibitors and presence of dyspnoea. At the 6-month follow-up, the rate of patients with COVID-19 fulfilling the criteria for depression was higher than among controls.
CONCLUSION: Compared with controls, hospitalised patients with COVID-19 had fewer problems of constipation and hard stools at 12 months after acute infection. Patients with COVID-19 had significantly higher rates of IBS than controls.
TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04691895.