Internal and emergency medicine
-
The global pandemic caused by SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) has led to significant morbidity and mortality, and unprecedented economic and health system disruption. Non-pharmacologic interventions (NPIs) such as masking and physical distancing have formed the underpinnings of COVID-19 infection control strategies. ⋯ These associations give rise to a number of testable hypotheses regarding the efficacy of NPIs in reducing the substantial burden of NCRIs. Here, we review emerging perspectives on the role of NPIs in NCRI prevention with the ultimate goal of informing future research and public policy development as we move into what may be the endemic phase of the COVID-19 pandemic.
-
Review
The effectiveness of Glasgow-Blatchford Score in early risk assessment of hemodialysis patients.
In the emergency departments (ED), the incidence of admission is increasing gradually due to gastrointestinal system (GIS) complications of hemodialysis (HD) patients. With this increasing number of patients, there are many classification systems developed in early risk assessment before endoscopy. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the Glasgow-Blatchford Score's (GBS) effectiveness in HD patients with suspected GIS hemorrhage in the ED. ⋯ When the patients were evaluated according to GBS parameters, a significant difference was found between the two groups in terms of pulse pressure, systolic blood pressure, hemoglobin value, melena, and accompanying comorbid diseases (p < 0.05). Of the 16 patients who presented to the ED due to syncope, 2 were in the GIS hemorrhage (+) group, and 14 patients were in the control group. In this study, we aimed to show that the increase in the number of admissions in the ED due to complications secondary to HD treatment and the accompanying serious changes in laboratory parameters may cause misleading results in patients with suspected GIS hemorrhage, and it is necessary to plan comprehensive and multi-center studies on new alternative scoring systems to GBS in specific patient groups such as HD patients.
-
Review
Analysis of common methodological flaws in the highest cited e-cigarette epidemiology research.
The prevalence of vaping, also known as using e-cigarettes, vapes and vape pens, has prompted a demand for reliable, evidence-based research. However, published literature on the topic of vaping often raises concerns, characterized by serious flaws and a failure to adhere to accepted scientific methodologies. In this narrative review, we analyze popular vaping studies published in medical journals that purport to evaluate the association of vaping and smoking cessation, smoking initiation or health outcomes. ⋯ Herein, we identify the common flaws in the study design, methodology, and implementation found in published vaping studies. We present our summary recommendations for future vaping research. Our aim is to prompt future researchers to adhere to scientific methods to produce more reliable findings and conclusions in the field of vaping research.
-
Hypertension is the most common cardiovascular (CV) risk factor, strongly and independently associated with an increased risk of major CV outcomes, including myocardial infarction, stroke, congestive heart failure, renal disease and death due to CV causes. Effective control of hypertension is of key importance for reducing the risk of hypertension-related CV complications, as well as for reducing the global burden of CV mortality. However, several studies reported relatively poor rates of control of high blood pressure (BP) in a setting of real-life practice. ⋯ Indeed, proper assessment of individual BP profile, including home, clinic and 24-h ambulatory BP levels, may improve awareness of the disease, ensure high level of adherence to prescribed medications in treated hypertensive patients, and thus contribute to ameliorate BP control in treated hypertensive outpatients. In line with these purposes, recent European guidelines have released practical recommendations and clear indications on how, when and how properly measuring BP levels in different clinical settings, with different techniques and different methods. This review aimed at discussing current applications and potential limitations of European guidelines on how to measure BP in office and out-of-office conditions, and their potential implications in the daily clinical management of hypertension.