Clinical evaluation of brushing time and plaque removal potential of two manual toothbrushes

Abstract: Aim: To compare plaque removal efficacy of Oral‐B CrossAction (CA) used for 1 min with an American Dental Association (ADA) manual toothbrush used for 2 or 5 min in an examiner‐blind, three‐treatment, six‐period crossover study. Materials and methods: After refraining from all oral hygiene procedures for 23–25 h, subjects were randomly assigned to one of nine possible six‐period (visit) treatment sequences. Plaque was assessed at baseline (Rustogi Modified Navy Plaque Index). Post‐brushing scores were recorded after brushing with a marketed dentifrice and the assigned toothbrush for the specified duration. The same procedure was followed at each of six subsequent visits. Clinical measurements were carried out by the same examiner. Results: Forty subjects completed the study. All three treatments effectively removed plaque from the whole mouth, along the gingival margin and from approximal surfaces. Whole mouth and gingival margin plaque removal scores with CA for 1 min did not differ significantly from scores with the ADA toothbrush used for 2 min. The ADA brush used for 5 min showed significantly greater whole mouth (P < 0.001) and gingival margin (P < 0.001) plaque reduction than the two other treatments. Approximal plaque removal scores did not differ between the three treatments. Conclusions: Efficient plaque removal can be achieved after 1 min of brushing with CA. The amount of plaque removed did not differ significantly from that achieved with the ADA brush after 2 min of brushing. Greater whole mouth and gingival margin plaque removal scores were seen with the ADA brush after 5 min.     

Discoid lupus erythematosus

Discoid lupus erythematosus is a manifestation of chronic cutaneous lupus erythematosus with a small risk of systemic involvement. In this review article, the role of predisposing factors such as haplotype, hormones, antibodies and sunlight are discussed. The clinical features, including variants and associations, and management options are presented.     

Coagulation factor activity and clinical bleeding severity in rare bleeding disorders: results from the European Network of Rare Bleeding Disorders

Summary. Background: The European Network of Rare Bleeding Disorders (EN‐RBD) was established to bridge the gap between knowledge and practise in the care of patients with RBDs. Objectives: To explore the relationship between coagulation factor activity level and bleeding severity in patients with RBDs. Patients/Methods: Cross‐sectional study using data from 489 patients registered in the EN‐RBD. Coagulation factor activity levels were retrieved. Clinical bleeding episodes were classified into four categories according to severity. Results: The mean age of patients at data collection was 31 years (range, 7 months to 95 years), with an equal sex distribution. On linear regression analysis, there was a strong association between coagulation factor activity level and clinical bleeding severity for fibrinogen, factor (F) X, FXIII, and combined FV and FVIII deficiencies. A weaker association was present for FV and FVII deficiencies. There was no association between coagulation factor activity level and clinical bleeding severity for FXI. The coagulation factor activity levels that were necessary for patients to remain asymptomatic were: fibrinogen, > 100 mg dL^?1; FV, 12 U dL^?1; combined FV + VIII, 43 U dL^?1; FVII, 25 U dL^?1; FX, 56 U dL^?1; FXI, 26 U dL^?1; FXIII, 31 U dL^?1. Moreover, coagulation factor activity levels that corresponded with Grade III bleeding were: undetectable levels for fibrinogen, FV and FXIII, < 15 U dL^?1 for combined FV + VIII; < 8 U dL^?1 for FVI; < 10 U dL^?1 for FX; and < 25 U dL^?1 for FXI. Conclusions: There is a heterogeneous association between coagulation factor activity level and clinical bleeding severity in different RBDs. A strong association is only observed in fibrinogen, FX and FXIII deficiencies.     

Validation of the ICD/AIS MAP for pediatric use.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the performance of the ICD/AIS MAP (EJ MacKenzie et al) as a method of classifying injury severity for children. METHODS: Data on all children less than 16 years of age admitted to all designated trauma centers in Pennsylvania from January 1994 through October 1996 were obtained from the state trauma registry. The ICD/AIS MAP was used to convert all injury related ICD-9-CM diagnosis codes into abbreviated injury scale (AIS) score and injury severity score (ISS). Agreement between trauma registry AIS and ISS scores and MAP generated scores was assessed using the weighted kappa (kappaw) coefficient for ordered data and the intraclass correlation coefficient for continuous data. RESULTS: Agreement in ISS scores was excellent, both overall (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.86, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.84 to 0.89)), and when grouped into three levels of severity (kappaw= 0.86, 95% CI 0.85 to 0.87). Agreement in AIS scores across all body regions and ages was also excellent, (kappaw= 0.86 (95% CI 0.83 to 0.87). Agreement increased with age (kappaw= 0.78 for children <2 years; kappaw= 0.86 for older children) and varied by body region, though was excellent across all regions. CONCLUSIONS: The performance of the ICD/AIS MAP in assessing severity of pediatric injuries was equal to or better than previous assessments of its performance on primarily adult patients. Its performance was excellent across the pediatric age range and across nearly all body regions of injury.     

儿童输注ABO主侧不合血小板的效果弱于输注血型相合的血小板

由于血小板只有5天的保存期,库存压力导致经常输注ABO血型不合的血小板.为了避免血小板过期,首先输注的是库存时间最长的血小板,包括输注ABO血型不合的血小板.AABB和英国血液学标准委员会建议,输注红细胞时必须要求ABO主侧相合,而输注血小板并没有要求ABO血型匹配.     

Racial Disparities in Emergency Department Length of Stay for Admitted Patients in the United States

Objectives: Recent studies have demonstrated the adverse effects of prolonged emergency department (ED) boarding times on outcomes. The authors sought to examine racial disparities across U.S. hospitals in ED length of stay (LOS) for admitted patients, which may serve as a proxy for boarding time in data sets where the actual time of admission is unavailable. Specifically, the study estimated both the within‐ and among‐hospital effects of black versus non–black race on LOS for admitted patients. Methods: The authors studied 14,516 intensive care unit (ICU) and non‐ICU admissions in 408 EDs in the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NHAMCS; 2003–2005). The main outcomes were ED LOS (triage to transfer to inpatient bed) and proportion of patients with prolonged LOS (>6 hours). The effects of black versus non–black race on LOS were decomposed to distinguish racial disparities between patients at the same hospital (within‐hospital component) and between hospitals that serve higher proportions of black patients (among‐hospital component). Results: In the unadjusted analyses, ED LOS was significantly longer for black patients admitted to ICU beds (367 minutes vs. 290 minutes) and non‐ICU beds (397 minutes vs. 345 minutes). For admissions to ICU beds, the within‐hospital estimates suggested that blacks were at higher risk for ED LOS of >6 hours (odds ratio [OR] = 1.42, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.01 to 2.01), while the among‐hospital differences were not significant (OR = 1.08 for each 10% increase in the proportion of black patients, 95% CI = 0.96 to 1.23). By contrast, for non‐ICU admissions, the within‐hospital racial disparities were not significant (OR = 1.12, 95% CI = 0.94 to 1.23), but the among‐hospital differences were significant (OR = 1.13, 95% CI = 1.04 to 1.22) per 10% point increase in the percentage of blacks admitted to a hospital. Conclusions: Black patients who are admitted to the hospital through the ED have longer ED LOS compared to non–blacks, indicating that racial disparities may exist across U.S. hospitals. The disparity for non‐ICU patients might be accounted for by among‐hospital differences, where hospitals with a higher proportion of blacks have longer waits. The disparity for ICU patients is better explained by within‐hospital differences, where blacks have longer wait times than non–blacks in the same hospital. However, there may be additional unmeasured clinical or socioeconomic factors that explain these results.