METHOD: This retrospective study included patients with major trauma injuries reported to a trauma centre of Hospital Sultanah Aminah over a 6-year period from 2011 and 2017. Model validation was examined using the measures of discrimination and calibration. Discrimination was assessed using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) and 95% confidence interval (CI). The Hosmer-Lemeshow (H-L) goodness-of-fit test was used to examine calibration capabilities. The predictive validity of both MTOS-TRISS and NTrD-TRISS models were further evaluated by incorporating parameters such as the New Injury Severity Scale and the Injury Severity Score.
RESULTS: Total patients of 3788 (3434 blunt and 354 penetrating injuries) with average age of 37 years (standard deviation of 16 years) were included in this study. All MTOS-TRISS and NTrD-TRISS models examined in this study showed adequate discriminative ability with AUCs ranged from 0.86 to 0.89 for patients with blunt trauma mechanism and 0.89 to 0.99 for patients with penetrating trauma mechanism. The H-L goodness-of-fit test indicated the NTrD-TRISS model calibrated as good as the MTOS-TRISS model for patients with blunt trauma mechanism.
CONCLUSION: For patients with blunt trauma mechanism, both the MTOS-TRISS and NTrD-TRISS models showed good discrimination and calibration performances. Discrimination performance for the NTrD-TRISS model was revealed to be as good as the MTOS-TRISS model specifically for patients with penetrating trauma mechanism. Overall, this validation study has ascertained the discrimination and calibration performances of the NTrD-TRISS model to be as good as the MTOS-TRISS model particularly for patients with blunt trauma mechanism.
DESIGN AND METHODS: A systematic literature review was conducted on 10 electronic databases for articles describing Road Traffic Accident(RTA) mortality in older adults until September 2016. A random-effects meta-regression analyses was conducted to estimate the pooled rates of road traffic accidents and death.
RESULTS: A total 5018 studies were identified and 23 studies were included. Most of the reported older adults were aged between 60 and 74 years, with majority being male gender and sustained minor trauma due to Motor-Vehicle Collision (MVC). The overall pooled mortality rate was 14% (95% Confidence Interval, CI: 11%, 16%), with higher mortality rates in studies conducted in North America (15%, 95% CI: 12%, 18%) and older adults admitted to trauma centers (17%, 95% CI: 14%, 21%). Secondary analysis showed that the very elderly adults (aged >75years) and pedestrians had higher odds of mortality death (Odds Ratio, OR: 2.05, 95% CI: 1.25, 3.38; OR: 2.08, 95% CI: 1.63, 2.66, respectively).
IMPLICATION: A new comprehensive trauma management guidelines tailored to older adults should be established in low and middle-income countries where such guidelines are still lacking.
METHODS: We systematically searched 12 online databases for qualitative studies exploring the experiences of older adults aged 60 years and above on their decision to self-regulate their driving. Thematic synthesis was performed to identify elements influencing driving reduction and cessation. The confidence profile of each findings from the meta-synthesis was appraised using the Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research (CERQual) tool.
RESULTS: A total of 17 studies representing views of 712 older adults from four countries were included. Three major themes were identified with each representing a transition phase that can either facilitate or hinder older drivers from ceasing completely or reducing their driving, when transitioning from pre-decision phase to post-cessation phase.
CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that there is a mismatch between the current traffic collation prevention measures, such as age-specific mandatory license renewal system and travel needs of older adults. As such, it is time for the authorities, researchers, and public from various fields and perspectives to collaborate, sustain, and improve safety and mobility in older adults. Practical applications: Adequate regulations and guidelines from the medical community and legal authorities are warranted to assist older adults and caregivers. Social support (e.g., feedback, assurance, or transportation support) from family members, friends, and healthcare professionals are crucial for a smooth transition. Provision of alternative transportations in rural areas are needed and future interventions should focus on engaging and educating older adults to consider alternative transportation modes for mobility. Age-specific mandatory license renewal procedure can be useful in screening for at-risk groups.
METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed on 11 online databases for quantitative studies describing self-regulation of driving amongst older adults aged 60 years and above from database inception until December 2018. Data were described narratively and, where possible, data were pooled using random-effects meta-analysis.
RESULTS: Of the 1556 studies identified, 54 studies met the inclusion criteria and 46 studies were included in the meta-analyses. All included studies examined car drivers only. Older adults who were single or female were found to be at higher odds of driving cessation. Physical fitness, mental health, social influence, and support systems received by older adults were important driving forces influencing mobility and adjustments made in their travel patterns.
CONCLUSIONS: Driving self-regulation amongst older adults is a multifaceted decision, impacting mobility and mental health. Therefore, future interventions and support systems should not only create opportunities for retaining mobility for those who have ceased driving, but also promote better psychological and social well-being for regulators and for those who are transitioning from driving to non-driving status. Practical applications: (a) Engage and educate older adults about self-regulation, including strategies that can be adopted and non-car mobility options available. (b) Expand the research focus to explore potential interactions of factors facilitating or hindering the transition process to develop a more comprehensive framework of self-regulation. (c) Encourage ongoing research to formulate, monitor, and evaluate the effectiveness of policies and interventions implemented. (d) Expand the research horizon to explore and understand the perspectives of older adults from developing countries.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This qualitative descriptive study was conducted amongst married older adults aged 60 years and above. All interview responses were transcribed verbatim and examined using thematic approach and interpretative description method.
RESULTS: A total of 11 married couples were interviewed. Three major themes emerged: [1] Our roles in driving; [2] Challenges to continue driving; and, [3] Our driving strategies to ensure continued driving. Older couples adopted driving strategies and regulated their driving patterns to ensure they continued to drive safely. Male partners often took the active driving role as the principal drivers, while the females adopted a more passive role, including being the passenger to accompany the principal drivers or becoming the co-driver to help in navigation. Other coping strategies include sharing the driving duties as well as using public transportation or mixed mode transportation.
DISCUSSION: Our findings suggest spouse play a significant role in their partners' decision to self-regulate driving. This underscores a need to recognise the importance of interdependency amongst couples and its impact on their driving decisions and outcomes.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of interventions for people with type 2 diabetes fasting during Ramadan.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, WHO ICTRP and ClinicalTrials.gov (29 June 2022) without language restrictions.
SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) conducted during Ramadan that evaluated all pharmacological or behavioural interventions in Muslims with T2DM.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors screened and selected records, assessed risk of bias and extracted data independently. Discrepancies were resolved by a third author. For meta-analyses we used a random-effects model, with risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences (MDs) for continuous outcomes with their associated 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS: We included 17 RCTs with 5359 participants, with a four-week study duration and at least four weeks of follow-up. All studies had at least one high-risk domain in the risk of bias assessment. Four trials compared dipeptidyl-peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors with sulphonylurea. DPP-4 inhibitors may reduce hypoglycaemia compared to sulphonylureas (85/1237 versus 165/1258, RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.68; low-certainty evidence). Serious hypoglycaemia was similar between groups (no events were reported in two trials; 6/279 in the DPP-4 versus 4/278 in the sulphonylurea group was reported in one trial, RR 1.49, 95% CI 0.43 to 5.24; very low-certainty evidence). The evidence was very uncertain about the effects of DPP-4 inhibitors on adverse events other than hypoglycaemia (141/1207 versus 157/1219, RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.54) and HbA1c changes (MD -0.11%, 95% CI -0.57 to 0.36) (very low-certainty evidence for both outcomes). No deaths were reported (moderate-certainty evidence). Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and treatment satisfaction were not evaluated. Two trials compared meglitinides with sulphonylurea. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect on hypoglycaemia (14/133 versus 21/140, RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.40 to 1.28) and HbA1c changes (MD 0.38%, 95% CI 0.35% to 0.41%) (very low-certainty evidence for both outcomes). Death, serious hypoglycaemic events, adverse events, treatment satisfaction and HRQoL were not evaluated. One trial compared sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors with sulphonylurea. SGLT-2 may reduce hypoglycaemia compared to sulphonylurea (4/58 versus 13/52, RR 0.28, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.79; low-certainty evidence). The evidence was very uncertain for serious hypoglycaemia (one event reported in both groups, RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.06 to 13.97) and adverse events other than hypoglycaemia (20/58 versus 18/52, RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.67) (very low-certainty evidence for both outcomes). SGLT-2 inhibitors result in little or no difference in HbA1c (MD 0.27%, 95% CI -0.04 to 0.58; 1 trial, 110 participants; low-certainty evidence). Death, treatment satisfaction and HRQoL were not evaluated. Three trials compared glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) analogues with sulphonylurea. GLP-1 analogues may reduce hypoglycaemia compared to sulphonylurea (20/291 versus 48/305, RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.74; low-certainty evidence). The evidence was very uncertain for serious hypoglycaemia (0/91 versus 1/91, RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.99; very low-certainty evidence). The evidence suggests that GLP-1 analogues result in little to no difference in adverse events other than hypoglycaemia (78/244 versus 55/255, RR 1.50, 95% CI 0.86 to 2.61; very low-certainty evidence), treatment satisfaction (MD -0.18, 95% CI -3.18 to 2.82; very low-certainty evidence) or change in HbA1c (MD -0.04%, 95% CI -0.45% to 0.36%; 2 trials, 246 participants; low-certainty evidence). Death and HRQoL were not evaluated. Two trials compared insulin analogues with biphasic insulin. The evidence was very uncertain about the effects of insulin analogues on hypoglycaemia (47/256 versus 81/244, RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.13 to 1.40) and serious hypoglycaemia (4/131 versus 3/132, RR 1.34, 95% CI 0.31 to 5.89) (very low-certainty evidence for both outcomes). The evidence was very uncertain for the effect of insulin analogues on adverse effects other than hypoglycaemia (109/256 versus 114/244, RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.56; very low-certainty evidence), all-cause mortality (1/131 versus 0/132, RR 3.02, 95% CI 0.12 to 73.53; very low-certainty evidence) and HbA1c changes (MD 0.03%, 95% CI -0.17% to 0.23%; 1 trial, 245 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Treatment satisfaction and HRQoL were not evaluated. Two trials compared telemedicine with usual care. The evidence was very uncertain about the effect of telemedicine on hypoglycaemia compared with usual care (9/63 versus 23/58, RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.74; very low-certainty evidence), HRQoL (MD 0.06, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.15; very low-certainty evidence) and HbA1c change (MD -0.84%, 95% CI -1.51% to -0.17%; very low-certainty evidence). Death, serious hypoglycaemia, AEs other than hypoglycaemia and treatment satisfaction were not evaluated. Two trials compared Ramadan-focused patient education with usual care. The evidence was very uncertain about the effect of Ramadan-focused patient education on hypoglycaemia (49/213 versus 42/209, RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.66; very low-certainty evidence) and HbA1c change (MD -0.40%, 95% CI -0.73% to -0.06%; very low-certainty evidence). Death, serious hypoglycaemia, adverse events other than hypoglycaemia, treatment satisfaction and HRQoL were not evaluated. One trial compared drug dosage reduction with usual care. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of drug dosage reduction on hypoglycaemia (19/452 versus 52/226, RR 0.18, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.30; very low-certainty evidence). No participants experienced adverse events other than hypoglycaemia during the study (very low-certainty evidence). Death, serious hypoglycaemia, treatment satisfaction, HbA1c change and HRQoL were not evaluated.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is no clear evidence of the benefits or harms of interventions for individuals with T2DM who fast during Ramadan. All results should be interpreted with caution due to concerns about risk of bias, imprecision and inconsistency between studies, which give rise to low- to very low-certainty evidence. Major outcomes, such as mortality, health-related quality of life and severe hypoglycaemia, were rarely evaluated. Sufficiently powered studies that examine the effects of various interventions on these outcomes are needed.
METHOD: Participants were 11,806 undergraduate students from seven provinces in China, of which 237 reported a non-fatal suicide attempt. We used the random numbers generator function within the SPSS to randomly select a control subset of 1185 participants to be used as the comparison group based on a 1:5 case-control ratio. Scores on three commonly used risk measures (depression, hopelessness, and psychache) and three protective measures (social support, self-esteem, and purpose in life) for suicidality were adopted to compare the responses of the two groups.
RESULTS: Suicide attempters had indicated higher Median scores for all three risk factor measurements. Suicide attempters also reported significantly lower Median scores for all three protective factor measurements compared to non-suicide attempters. The results suggest that the suicide attempters' group had higher risks of suicidality compared to the non-attempter group.
CONCLUSIONS: Suicide attempters continued to report higher scores of risk factors and lower scores of protective factors, indicating that they may continue to be at a higher likelihood of a suicide attempt. Key protective factors should be identified for each individual in order to deliver appropriate clinical interventions to reduce their risk of reattempting.