Glycaemic control for patients with severe acute brain injury: Protocol for a systematic review

Background

Hyperglycaemia is common in patients with acute brain injury admitted to an intensive care unit (ICU). Many studies have found associations between development of hyperglycaemia and increased mortality in hospitalised patients. However, the optimal target for blood glucose control is unknown. We want to conduct a systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis to explore the beneficial and harmful effects of restrictive versus liberal glucose control on patient outcomes in adults with severe acute brain injury.

Methods

We will systematically search medical databases including CENTRAL, Embase, MEDLINE and trial registries. We will search the following websites for ongoing or unpublished trials: http://www.controlled-trials.com/ , http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ , www.eudraCT.com , http://centerwatch.com/ , The Cochrane Library's CENTRAL, PubMed, EMBASE, Science Citation Index Expanded and CINAHL. Two authors will independently review and select trials and extract data. We will include randomised trials comparing levels of glucose control in our analyses and observational studies will be included to address potential harms. The primary outcomes are defined as all-cause mortality, functional outcome and health-related quality of life. Secondary outcomes include serious adverse events including hypoglycaemia, length of ICU stay and duration of mechanical ventilation, and explorative outcomes including intracranial pressure and infection. Trial Sequential Analysis will be used to investigate the risk of type I error due to repetitive testing and to further explore imprecision. Quality of trials will be evaluated using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool, and quality of evidence will be assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) approach.

Discussion

The results of the systematic review will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publication. With the review, we hope to inform future randomised clinical trials and improve clinical practice.     

基于罗森塔尔效应的护理干预对脑出血后遗症病人的心理状况和生活质量的影响

目的:探讨基于罗森塔尔效应的护理干预对脑出血后遗症病人的心理状况和生活质量的影响。方法:按照随机数字表法将2019年1月—2021年1月收治的98例脑出血后遗症病人分为对照组和观察组各49例,对照组实施常规护理,观察组在常规护理基础上给予基于罗森塔尔效应的护理干预。干预前后采用卒中量表(NIHSS)、功能独立性评定量表(FIM)、生活活动功能测量量表Barthel指数(BADL)评定两组病人康复情况,采用非精神病性焦虑量表(HADS-A)、非精神病性抑郁量表(HADS-D)、自我效能量表(GSES)评定两组病人心理状态,采用生活质量简明调查表(SF-36)评定两组病人生活质量。结果:观察组病人干预后NIHSS评分低于对照组,FIM和BADL评分高于对照组(P<0.05);观察组病人干预后HADS-A和HADS-D评分低于对照组,GSES评分高于对照组(P<0.05);观察组病人干预后生活质量各维度(躯体功能、躯体角色、肌体疼痛、总体健康、活力、社会功能、情绪角色、心理卫生)评分均明显高于对照组(P<0.05)。结论:基于罗森塔尔效应的护理干预应用于脑出血后遗症病人能有效促进病人康复,改善病人心理状态,提高病人生活质量。     

Process of forgiveness in the recovery of Chinese women survivors of intimate partner violence: Empowerment,transformation, and integration

Forgiveness has been found one substantial element in the recovery for women survivors from intimate partner violence following the termination of the abusive relationship. To further investigate the details of forgiveness in this specific context, the present study explored the process of forgiveness using grounded theory. In-depth and semi-structured interviews were conducted with 25 Chinese women survivors of IPV. The findings suggest that forgiveness is a strength-based process including empowerment, transformation, and integration phases. In the empowerment phase, survivors obtain strength at the intrapersonal, behavioural, and interpersonal levels. In the transformation phase, survivors complete cognitive transformation for their IPV experiences and emotional transformation towards former partners. In the integration phase, survivors—now freed from the past—reflect upon and apply the changes they have undergone. Two trajectories in the process were found. One trajectory is going through stages sequentially and the other trajectory is experiencing back and forth between empowerment and transformation stages before moving into the integration stage. The study's findings broaden our knowledge of the strength-based forgiveness process that women survivors of IPV undergo during recovery. Practitioners and policymakers could develop programmes and policies that support forgiveness by holistically facilitating their recovery and empowerment like assistance in dealing with life difficulties and promoting their reconnection with social networks. To improve the transferability and validity of the findings, the forgiveness of survivors of IPV could be explored in a diverse sample (e.g., survivors with low educational background or live in the rural area).     

Out of the boxes,out of the silos: The need of interdisciplinary collaboration to reduce poor-quality medical products in the supply chain

In this paper, we argue that understanding and addressing the problem of poor-quality medical products requires a more interdisciplinary approach than has been evident to date. While prospective studies based on rigorous standardized methodologies are the gold standard for measuring the prevalence of poor-quality medical products and understanding their distribution nationally and internationally, they should be complemented by social science research to unpack the complex set of social, economic, and governance factors that underlie these patterns. In the following sections, we discuss specific examples of prospective quality surveys and of social science studies, highlighting the value of cross-sector partnerships in driving high-quality, policy-relevant research in this area.     

慢阻肺急性加重期患者延迟就医与家庭动力学的相关性研究

目的研究慢阻肺急性加重期患者延迟就医与家庭动力学的相关性,希望能够为慢阻肺急性加重期患者拟定护理措施提供科学依据。方法选取2017年1月-2019年12月我院240例诊断为慢阻肺急性加重期的患者为研究对象。根据患者入院就医的时间进行分组,时间≥24h的延迟就医的患者为观察组,时间<24h的及时就医患者为对照组。结果两组患者在文化水平、家庭年收入、在职状态、医疗保险和婚姻状况和APACHEⅡ评分比较(P<0.05)。观察组患者疾病观念、个性化、系统逻辑和家庭氛围得分比对照组高(P<0.05)。Pearman的相关性分析结果显示:慢阻肺急性加重期患者延迟就医时间与各个层面分数以及家庭动力总分呈现负相关性(P<0.05)。应变量为延迟就医为应变量,患者的一般资料为自变量,经Logistic回归分析结果表明:延迟就医的影响因素为文化水平、家庭动力评分、职业状态、家庭收入、婚姻状况和APACHEⅡ评分。结论慢阻肺急性加重期患者家庭动力总分与疾病观念、个性化、系统逻辑和家庭氛围得分与延迟就医时间呈现负相关性,患者延迟就医的影响因素是家庭动力学评分。     

Variability in non-core vaccination rates of dogs and cats in veterinary clinics across the United States

Vaccination guidelines for dogs and cats indicate that core vaccines (for dogs, rabies, distemper, adenovirus, parvovirus; for cats, feline parvovirus, herpes virus-1, calicivirus) are essential to maintain health, and that non-core vaccines be administered according to a clinician’s assessment of a pet’s risk of exposure and susceptibility to infection. A reliance on individual risk assessment introduces the potential for between-practice inconsistencies in non-core vaccine recommendations. A study was initiated to determine non-core vaccination rates of dogs (Leptospira, Borrelia burgdorferi, Bordetella bronchiseptica, canine influenza virus) and cats (feline leukemia virus) in patients current for core vaccines in veterinary practices across the United States. Transactional data for 5,531,866 dogs (1,670 practices) and 1,914,373 cats (1,661 practices) were retrieved from practice management systems for the period November 1, 2016 through January 1, 2020, deidentified and normalized. Non-core vaccination status was evaluated in 2,798,875 dogs and 788,772 cats that were core-vaccine current. Nationally, median clinic vaccination rates for dogs were highest for leptospirosis (70.5%) and B. bronchiseptica (68.7%), and much lower for canine influenza (4.8%). In Lyme-endemic states, the median clinic borreliosis vaccination rate was 51.8%. Feline leukemia median clinic vaccination rates were low for adult cats (34.6%) and for kittens and 1-year old cats (36.8%). Individual clinic vaccination rates ranged from 0 to 100% for leptospirosis, B. bronchiseptica and feline leukemia, 0–96% for canine influenza, and 0–94% for borreliosis. Wide variation in non-core vaccination rates between clinics in similar geographies indicates that factors other than disease risk are driving the use of non-core vaccines in pet dogs and cats, highlighting a need for veterinary practices to address gaps in patient protection. Failure to implement effective non-core vaccination strategies leaves susceptible dogs and cats unprotected against vaccine-preventable diseases.