Search

Background: The Lafontaine criteria are the most commonly cited criteria for predicting unstable distal radius fractures. However, formal validation of the performance of these criteria remains limited. Therefore, we aimed to evaluate the Lafontaine criteria as a diagnostic prediction rule for distal radius fractures, assess the inter-rater reliability and predictive ability of various parameters for distal radius instability, and develop new criteria for fracture instability using reliable and highly predictive factors. Methods: This retrospective study included 274 adult patients with acute distal radius fractures treated with closed reduction and immobilisation between January 2019 and December 2022. Patients who underwent immediate surgery, were lost to follow-up before 4 weeks, or had unacceptable alignment after reduction were excluded. The Lafontaine criteria were validated using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC). Criteria with an AUROC > 0.7 were considered acceptable. The criteria were updated using risk factors with stronger associations in the multivariable logistic regression analysis, and the inter-rater reliability of potential predictors was evaluated. Results: The median age of the patients was 63 years; 78% were female. Redisplacement occurred in 39% of the cases. The AUROC for the Lafontaine criteria was 0.65 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.57–0.74). Multivariable logistic regression showed that age 56–74 years (odds ratio [OR] 3.92, 95% CI 1.82–9.16, p < 0.001) age > 74 years (OR 6.34, 95% CI 2.66–16.2, p < 0.001), associated ulna fracture (OR 1.61, 95% CI 0.92–2.84, p = 0.10), and initial radial shortening > 3 mm (OR 5.78, 95% CI 3.11–11.2, p < 0.001) were the strongest predictive factors of fracture instability. These predictors demonstrated substantial inter-rater reliability, making them suitable for clinical use. Updating the model with these risk factors resulted in an AUROC of 0.74 (95% CI 0.66–0.82). Conclusions: The performance of the Lafontaine criteria in discriminating unstable distal radius fractures was unacceptable in our study cohort. The updated criteria using age group (< 56 years, 56–74 years, and > 74 years), associated ulnar fractures, and initial radial shortening > 3 mm was found to have moderate discrimination; however, further research is warranted to improve the prediction and measurement reliability of fracture instability. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The need for invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) is linked to significant morbidity and mortality in patients with influenza-related pneumonia (Flu-p). We aimed to develop an assessment tool to predict IMV among Flu-p patients within 14 days of admission.Methods: In total, 1107 Flu-p patients from five teaching hospitals were retrospectively enrolled from January 2012 to December 2019, including 895 patients in the derivation cohort and 212 patients in the validation cohort. The predictive model was established based on independent risk factors for IMV in the Flu-p patients from the derivation cohort.Results: Overall, 10.6% (117/1107) of patients underwent IMV within 14 days of admission. Multivariate regression analyses revealed that the following factors were associated with IMV: early neuraminidase inhibitor use (- 3 points), lymphocytes < 0.8 × 109/L (1 point), multi-lobar infiltrates (1 point), systemic corticosteroid use (1 point), age ≥ 65 years old (1 points), PaO2/FiO2 < 300 mmHg (2 points), respiratory rate ≥ 30 breaths/min (3 points), and arterial PH < 7.35 (4 points). A total score of five points was used to identify patients at risk of IMV. This model had a sensitivity of 85.5%, a specificity of 88.8%, and exhibited better predictive performance than the ROX index (AUROC = 0.909 vs. 0.594, p = 0.004), modified ROX index (AUROC = 0.909 vs. 0.633, p = 0.012), and HACOR scale (AUROC = 0.909 vs. 0.622, p < 0.001) using the validation cohort.Conclusions: Flu-IV score is a valuable prediction rule for 14-day IMV rates in Flu-p patients. However, it should be validated in a prospective study before implementation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The pneumonia severity index (PSI) and the CURB-65 (confusion, urea, respiratory rate, blood pressure, age ≥ 65 years) score have been shown to predict mortality in community-acquired pneumonia. Their ability to predict influenza-related pneumonia, however, is less well-established.Methods: A total of 693 laboratory-confirmed FluA-p patients diagnosed between Jan 2013 and Dec 2018 and recruited from five teaching hospitals in China were included in the study. The sample included 494 patients in the derivation cohort and 199 patients in the validation cohort. The prediction rule was established based on independent risk factors for 30-day mortality in FluA-p patients from the derivation cohort.Results: The 30-day mortality of FluA-p patients was 19.6% (136/693). The FluA-p score was based on a multivariate logistic regression model designed to predict mortality. Results indicated the following significant predictors (regression statistics and point contributions toward total score in parentheses): blood urea nitrogen > 7 mmol/L (OR 1.604, 95% CI 1.150-4.492, p = 0.040; 1 points), pO2/FiO2 ≤ 250 mmHg (OR 2.649, 95% CI 1.103-5.142, p = 0.022; 2 points), cardiovascular disease (OR 3.967, 95% CI 1.269-7.322, p < 0.001; 3 points), arterial PH < 7.35 (OR 3.959, 95% CI 1.393-7.332, p < 0.001; 3 points), smoking history (OR 5.176, 95% CI 2.604-11.838, p = 0.001; 4 points), lymphocytes < 0.8 × 109/L (OR 8.391, 95% CI 3.271-16.212, p < 0.001; 5 points), and early neurominidase inhibitor therapy (OR 0.567, 95% CI 0.202-0.833, p = 0.005; - 2 points). Seven points was used as the cut-off value for mortality risk stratification. The model showed a sensitivity of 0.941, a specificity of 0.762, and overall better predictive performance than the PSI risk class (AUROC = 0.908 vs 0.560, p < 0.001) and the CURB-65 score (AUROC = 0.908 vs 0.777, p < 0.001).Conclusions: Our results showed that a FluA-p score was easy to derive and that it served as a reliable prediction rule for 30-day mortality in FluA-p patients. The score could also effectively stratify FluA-p patients into relevant risk categories and thereby help treatment providers to make more rational clinical decisions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The management of minor and moderate head trauma in children differs widely between countries. Presently, there are no existing guidelines for management of these children in Scandinavia. The purpose of this study was to produce new evidence-based guidelines for the initial management of head trauma in the paediatric population in Scandinavia. The primary aim was to detect all children in need of neurosurgical intervention. Detection of any traumatic intracranial injury on CT scan was an important secondary aim.Methods: General methodology according to the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system was used. Systematic evidence-based review was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) methodology and based upon relevant clinical questions with respect to patient-important outcomes. Quality ratings of the included studies were performed using Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS)-2 and Centre of Evidence Based Medicine (CEBM)-2 tools. Based upon the results, GRADE recommendations, a guideline, discharge instructions and in-hospital observation instructions were drafted. For elements with low evidence, a modified Delphi process was used for consensus, which included relevant clinical stakeholders.Results: The guidelines include criteria for selecting children for CT scans, in-hospital observation or early discharge, and suggestions for monitoring routines and discharge advice for children and guardians. The guidelines separate mild head trauma patients into high-, medium- and low-risk categories, favouring observation for mild, low-risk patients as an attempt to reduce CT scans in children.Conclusions: We present new evidence and consensus based Scandinavian Neurotrauma Committee guidelines for initial management of minor and moderate head trauma in children. These guidelines should be validated before extensive clinical use and updated within four years due to rapid development of new diagnostic tools within paediatric neurotrauma. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Identification of patients experiencing poor outcomes following total knee arthroplasty (TKA) before the intervention could allow better case selection, patient preparation and, likely, improved outcomes. The objective was to develop a preliminary prediction rule (PR) to identify patients enrolled on surgical wait lists who are at the greatest risk of poor outcomes 6 months after TKA. Methods: 141 patients scheduled for TKA were recruited prospectively from the wait lists of 3 hospitals in Quebec City, Canada. Knee pain, stiffness and function were measured 6 months after TKA with the Western Ontario and McMaster Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) and participants in the lowest quintile for the WOMAC total score were considered to have a poor outcome. Several variables measured at enrolment on the wait lists (baseline) were considered potential predictors: demographic, socioeconomic, psychosocial, and clinical factors including pain, stiffness and functional status measured with the WOMAC. The prediction rule was built with recursive partitioning. Results: The best prediction was provided by 5 items of the baseline WOMAC. The rule had a sensitivity of 82.1% (95% CI: 66.7-95.8), a specificity of 71.7% (95% CI: 62.8-79.8), a positive predictive value of 41.8% (95% CI: 29.7-55.0), a negative predictive value of 94.2% (95% CI: 87.1-97.5) and positive and negative likelihood ratios of 2.9 (95% CI: 1.8-4.7) and 0.3 (95% CI: 0.1-0.6) respectively. Conclusions: The developed PR is a promising tool to identify patients at risk of worse outcomes 6 months after TKA as it could help improve the management of these patients. Further validation of this rule is however warranted before clinical use. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Limited information is available about predictors of short-term outcomes in patients with exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (eCOPD) attending an emergency department (ED). Such information could help stratify these patients and guide medical decision-making. The aim of this study was to develop a clinical prediction rule for short-term mortality during hospital admission or within a week after the index ED visit. Methods This was a prospective cohort study of patients with eCOPD attending the EDs of 16 participating hospitals. Recruitment started in June 2008 and ended in September 2010. Information on possible predictor variables was recorded during the time the patient was evaluated in the ED, at the time a decision was made to admit the patient to the hospital or discharge home, and during follow-up. Main short-term outcomes were death during hospital admission or within 1 week of discharge to home from the ED, as well as at death within 1 month of the index ED visit. Multivariate logistic regression models were developed in a derivation sample and validated in a validation sample. The score was compared with other published prediction rules for patients with stable COPD. Results In total, 2,487 patients were included in the study. Predictors of death during hospital admission, or within 1 week of discharge to home from the ED were patient age, baseline dyspnea, previous need for long-term home oxygen therapy or non-invasive mechanical ventilation, altered mental status, and use of inspiratory accessory muscles or paradoxical breathing upon ED arrival (area under the curve (AUC) = 0.85). Addition of arterial blood gas parameters (oxygen and carbon dioxide partial pressures (PO2 and PCO2)) and pH) did not improve the model. The same variables were predictors of death at 1 month (AUC = 0.85). Compared with other commonly used tools for predicting the severity of COPD in stable patients, our rule was significantly better. Conclusions Five clinical predictors easily available in the ED, and also in the primary care setting, can be used to create a simple and easily obtained score that allows clinicians to stratify patients with eCOPD upon ED arrival and guide the medical decision-making process. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The management of minimal, mild and moderate head injuries is still controversial. In 2000, the Scandinavian Neurotrauma Committee (SNC) presented evidence-based guidelines for initial management of these injuries. Since then, considerable new evidence has emerged. Methods: General methodology according to the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II framework and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system. Systematic evidence-based review according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta- Analyses (PRISMA) methodology, based upon relevant clinical questions with respect to patient-important outcomes, including Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS) and Centre of Evidence Based Medicine (CEBM) quality ratings. Based upon the results, GRADE recommendations, guidelines and discharge instructions were drafted. A modified Delphi approach was used for consensus and relevant clinical stakeholders were consulted. Conclusions: We present the updated SNC guidelines for initial management of minimal, mild and moderate head injury in adults including criteria for computed tomography (CT) scan selection, admission and discharge with suggestions for monitoring routines and discharge advice for patients. The guidelines are designed to primarily detect neurosurgical intervention with traumatic CT findings as a secondary goal. For elements lacking good evidence, such as in-hospital monitoring, routines were largely based on consensus. We suggest external validation of the guidelines before widespread clinical use is recommended. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) is a frequent cause of complicated skin and skin structure infections (cSSSI). Patients with MRSA require different empiric treatment than those with non-MRSA infections, yet no accurate tools exist to aid in stratifying the risk for a MRSA cSSSI. We sought to develop a simple bedside decision rule to tailor empiric coverage more accurately. Methods: We conducted a large multicenter (N=62 hospitals) retrospective cohort study in a US-based database between April 2005 and March 2009. All adult initial admissions with ICD-9-CM codes specific to cSSSI were included. Patients admitted with MRSA vs. non-MRSA were compared with regard to baseline demographic, clinical and hospital characteristics. We developed and validated a model to predict the risk of MRSA, and compared its performance via sensitivity, specificity and other classification statistics to the healthcare-associated (HCA) infection risk factors. Results: Of the 7,183 patients with cSSSI, 2,387 (33.2%) had MRSA. Factors discriminating MRSA from non-MRSA were age, African-American race, no evidence of diabetes mellitus, cancer or renal dysfunction, and prior history of cardiac dysrhythmia. The score ranging from 0 to 8 points exhibited a consistent dose-response relationship. A MRSA score of 5 or higher was superior to the HCA classification in all characteristics, while that of 4 or higher was superior on all metrics except specificity. Conclusions: MRSA is present in 1/3 of all hospitalized cSSSI. A simple bedside risk score can help discriminate the risk for MRSA vs. other pathogens with improved accuracy compared to the HCA definition. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Heart failure (HF) is a chronic and common condition with a rising prevalence, especially in the elderly. Morbidity and mortality rates in people with HF are similar to those with common forms of cancer. Clinical guidelines highlight the need for more detailed prognostic information to optimise treatment and care planning for people with HF. Besides proven prognostic biomarkers and numerous newly developed prognostic models for HF clinical outcomes, no risk stratification models have been adequately established. Through a number of linked systematic reviews, we aim to assess the quality of the existing models with biomarkers in HF and summarise the evidence they present., Methods: We will search MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science Core Collection, and the prognostic studies database maintained by the Cochrane Prognosis Methods Group combining sensitive published search filters, with no language restriction, from 1990 onwards. Independent pairs of reviewers will screen and extract data. Eligible studies will be those developing, validating, or updating any prognostic model with biomarkers for clinical outcomes in adults with any type of HF. Data will be extracted using a piloted form that combines published good practice guidelines for critical appraisal, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment of prediction modelling studies. Missing information on predictive performance measures will be sought by contacting authors or estimated from available information when possible. If sufficient high quality and homogeneous data are available, we will meta-analyse the predictive performance of identified models. Sources of between-study heterogeneity will be explored through meta-regression using pre-defined study-level covariates. Results will be reported narratively if study quality is deemed to be low or if the between-study heterogeneity is high. Sensitivity analyses for risk of bias impact will be performed., Discussion: This project aims to appraise and summarise the methodological conduct and predictive performance of existing clinically homogeneous HF prognostic models in separate systematic reviews.Registration: PROSPERO registration number CRD42019086990., Competing Interests: Competing interestsCT declares speaker fees from Novartis and Vifor outside the submitted work and non-financial support from Roche outside the submitted work. All other authors declare that they have no competing interests., (© The Author(s) 2020.)