Online Health Information-Seeking Behavior Among Korean American Immigrants in Rural Alabama: Dose Discrimination Matter?

Journal of Immigrant and Minority Health - Little attention has been paid to online health information seeking (OHIS) among immigrants residing in rural areas. This study examines the intensity of...     

Measuring Psychological Inflexibility of Suicidal Thoughts: The Acceptance and Action Questionnaire for Suicidal Ideation (AAQ-SI)

Cognitive Therapy and Research - Despite interest in psychological inflexibility as a marker of suicide risk, no measure of psychological inflexibility specific to SI exists. The present study...     

超微经皮肾镜取石术在直径1.5～2.5 cm肾及输尿管上段结石患者中的应用

目的探讨超微经皮肾镜取石术(UMP)应用于直径1.5~2.5 cm肾及输尿管上段结石患者中的安全性和有效性。方法回顾性分析2018年6月-2020年6月宿迁市第一人民医院收治的60例直径为1.5~2.5 cm肾及输尿管上段结石患者的临床资料,均采用UMP治疗,分析患者手术时间、住院时间、手术成功率、结石清除率、并发症发生率及额外镇痛药使用情况。结果60例患者均一期建立通道并顺利完成手术。所有患者均未行单通道手术,未接受输血,无毗邻脏器损伤(肠道、肝脏和脾脏等),无血气胸发生;存在尿外渗或者有明显症状的腹膜后灌注液患者3例(5.0%),均行保守治疗好转;发热(体温高于38℃)5例(8.3%),均对症治疗后好转;无感染性休克患者。手术时间为35~98 min,平均(56.1±21.3)min;术后住院天数为3~8 d,平均(4.1±1.8)d;术后立即评估结石清除率为85.0%(51/60),术后1个月评估结石清除率为91.7%(55/60);术后镇痛药使用率为15.0%(9/60)。结论UMP是治疗直径1.5~2.5 cm肾及输尿管上段结石安全、有效的治疗方法之一,值得临床推广。     

PREDICT-GTN 1: Can we improve the FIGO scoring system in gestational trophoblastic neoplasia?

Gestational trophoblastic neoplasia (GTN) patients are treated according to the eight-variable International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) scoring system, that aims to predict first-line single-agent chemotherapy resistance. FIGO is imperfect with one-third of low-risk patients developing disease resistance to first-line single-agent chemotherapy. We aimed to generate simplified models that improve upon FIGO. Logistic regression (LR) and multilayer perceptron (MLP) modelling (n = 4191) generated six models (M1-6). M1, all eight FIGO variables (scored data); M2, all eight FIGO variables (scored and raw data); M3, nonimaging variables (scored data); M4, nonimaging variables (scored and raw data); M5, imaging variables (scored data); and M6, pretreatment hCG (raw data) + imaging variables (scored data). Performance was compared to FIGO using true and false positive rates, positive and negative predictive values, diagnostic odds ratio, receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves, Bland-Altman calibration plots, decision curve analysis and contingency tables. M1-6 were calibrated and outperformed FIGO on true positive rate and positive predictive value. Using LR and MLP, M1, M2 and M4 generated small improvements to the ROC curve and decision curve analysis. M3, M5 and M6 matched FIGO or performed less well. Compared to FIGO, most (excluding LR M4 and MLP M5) had significant discordance in patient classification (McNemar's test P < .05); 55-112 undertreated, 46-206 overtreated. Statistical modelling yielded only small gains over FIGO performance, arising through recategorisation of treatment-resistant patients, with a significant proportion of under/overtreatment as the available data have been used a priori to allocate primary chemotherapy. Streamlining FIGO should now be the focus.