Search

Abstract Background Falls are a common and serious health issue facing the global population, causing an estimated 646,000 deaths per year globally. Wearable devices typically combine accelerometers, gyroscopes and even barometers; using the data collected and inputting this into an algorithm that decides whether a fall has occurred. The purpose of this umbrella review was to provide a comprehensive overview of the systematic reviews on the effectiveness of wearable electronic devices for falls detection in adults. Methods MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR), and CINAHL, were searched from their inceptions until April 2019 for systematic reviews that assessed the accuracy of wearable technology in the detection of falls. Results Seven systematic reviews were included in this review. Due to heterogeneity between the included systematic reviews in their methods and their reporting of results, a meta-analysis could not be performed. Most devices tested used accelerometers, often in combination with gyroscopes. Three systematic reviews reported an average sensitivity of 93.1% or greater and an average specificity of 86.4% or greater for the detection of falls. Placing sensors on the trunk, foot or leg appears to provide the highest accuracy for falls detection, with multiple sensors increasing the accuracy, specificity, and sensitivity of these devices. Conclusions This review demonstrated that wearable device technology offers a low-cost and accurate way to effectively detect falls and summon for help. There are significant differences in the effectiveness of these devices depending on the type of device and its placement. Further high-quality research is needed to confirm the accuracy of these devices in frail older people in real-world settings.

Abstract Objectives To determine the effect of therapeutic anticoagulation, with low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) or unfractionated heparin (UFH, high dose nomogram), compared to standard care in hospitalized patients admitted for COVID-19 with an elevated D-dimer on the composite outcome of intensive care unit (ICU) admission, non-invasive positive pressure ventilation, invasive mechanical ventilation or death up to 28 days. Trial design Open-label, parallel, 1:1, phase 3, 2-arm randomized controlled trial Participants The study population includes hospitalized adults admitted for COVID-19 prior to the development of critical illness. Excluded individuals are those where the bleeding risk or risk of transfusion would generally be considered unacceptable, those already therapeutically anticoagulated and those who have already have any component of the primary composite outcome. Participants are recruited from hospital sites in Brazil, Canada, Ireland, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, and the United States of America. The inclusion criteria are: 1) Laboratory confirmed COVID-19 (diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 via reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction as per the World Health Organization protocol or by nucleic acid based isothermal amplification) prior to hospital admission OR within first 5 days (i.e. 120 hours) after hospital admission; 2) Admitted to hospital for COVID-19; 3) One D-dimer value above the upper limit of normal (ULN) (within 5 days (i.e. 120 hours) of hospital admission) AND EITHER: a. D-Dimer ≥2 times ULN OR b. D-Dimer above ULN and Oxygen saturation ≤ 93% on room air; 4) > 18 years of age; 5) Informed consent from the patient (or legally authorized substitute decision maker). The exclusion criteria are: 1) pregnancy; 2) hemoglobin 1.8 (if testing deemed clinically indicated by the treating physician prior to the initiation of anticoagulation); 6) patient already prescribed intermediate dosing of LMWH that cannot be changed (determination of what constitutes an intermediate dose is to be at the discretion of the treating clinician taking the local institutional thromboprophylaxis protocol for high risk patients into consideration); 7) patient already prescribed therapeutic anticoagulation at the time of screening [low or high dose nomogram UFH, LMWH, warfarin, direct oral anticoagulant (any dose of dabigatran, apixaban, rivaroxaban, edoxaban)]; 8) patient prescribed dual antiplatelet therapy, when one of the agents cannot be stopped safely; 9) known bleeding within the last 30 days requiring emergency room presentation or hospitalization; 10) known history of a bleeding disorder of an inherited or active acquired bleeding disorder; 11) known history of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia; 12) known allergy to UFH or LMWH; 13) admitted to the intensive care unit at the time of screening; 14) treated with non-invasive positive pressure ventilation or invasive mechanical ventilation at the time of screening; 15) Imminent death according to the judgement of the most responsible physician; 16) enrollment in another clinical trial of antithrombotic therapy involving hospitalized patients. Intervention and comparator Intervention: Therapeutic dose of LMWH (dalteparin, enoxaparin, tinzaparin) or high dose nomogram of UFH. The choice of LMWH versus UFH will be at the clinician’s discretion and dependent on local institutional supply. Comparator: Standard care [thromboprophylactic doses of LMWH (dalteparin, enoxaparin, tinzaparin, fondaparinux)] or UFH. Administration of LMWH, UFH or fondaparinux at thromboprophylactic doses for acutely ill hospitalized medical patients, in the absence of contraindication, is generally considered standard care. Main outcomes The primary composite outcome of ICU admission, non-invasive positive pressure ventilation, invasive mechanical ventilation or death at 28 days. Secondary outcomes include (evaluated up to day 28): 1. All-cause death 2. Composite of ICU admission or all-cause death 3. Composite of mechanical ventilation or all-cause death 4. Major bleeding as defined by the ISTH Scientific and Standardization Committee (ISTH-SSC) recommendation; 5. Red blood cell transfusion (>1 unit); 6. Transfusion of platelets, frozen plasma, prothrombin complex concentrate, cryoprecipitate and/or fibrinogen concentrate; 7. Renal replacement therapy; 8. Hospital-free days alive; 9. ICU-free days alive; 10. Ventilator-free days alive; 11. Organ support-free days alive; 12. Venous thromboembolism (defined as symptomatic or incidental, suspected or confirmed via diagnostic imaging and/or electrocardiogram where appropriate); 13. Arterial thromboembolism (defined as suspected or confirmed via diagnostic imaging and/or electrocardiogram where appropriate); 14. Heparin induced thrombocytopenia; 15. Trajectories of COVID-19 disease-related coagulation and inflammatory biomarkers. Randomisation Randomisation will be stratified by site and age (>65 versus ≤65 years) using a 1:1 computer-generated random allocation sequence with variable block sizes. Randomization will occur within the first 5 days (i.e. 120 hours) of participant hospital admission. However, it is recommended that randomization occurs as early as possible after hospital admission. Central randomization using an interactive web response system will ensure allocation concealment. Blinding (masking) No blinding involved. This is an open-label trial. Numbers to be randomised (sample size) 462 patients (231 per group) are needed to detect a 15% risk difference, from 50% in the control group to 35% in the experimental group, with power of 90% at a two-sided alpha of 0.05. Trial Status Protocol Version Number 1.4. Recruitment began on May 11th, 2020. Recruitment is expected to be completed March 2022. Recruitment is ongoing. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04362085 Date of Trial Registration: April 24, 2020 Full protocol The full protocol is attached as an additional file, accessible from the Trials website (Additional file 1). In the interest of expediting dissemination of this material, the familiar formatting has been eliminated; this Letter serves as a summary of the key elements of the full protocol.

Abstract Background The objective this study was to investigate the influence of clinical conditions, socioeconomic status, home environment, subjective perceptions of parents and schoolchildren about general and oral health on schoolchildren's oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL). Methods A sample of 515 schoolchildren, aged 12 years was randomly selected by conglomerate analysis from public and private schools in the city of Juiz de Fora, Brazil. The schoolchildren were clinically examined for presence of caries lesions (DMFT and dmft index), dental trauma, enamel defects, periodontal status (presence/absence of bleeding), dental treatment and orthodontic treatment needs (DAI). The SiC index was calculated. The participants were asked to complete the Brazilian version of Child Perceptions Questionnaire (CPQ11-14) and a questionnaire about home environment. Questions were asked about the presence of general diseases and children's self-perception of their general and oral health status. In addition, a questionnaire was sent to their parents inquiring about their socioeconomic status (family income, parents' education level, home ownership) and perceptions about the general and oral health of their school-aged children. The chi-square test was used for comparisons between proportions. Poisson's regression was used for multivariate analysis with adjustment for variances. Results Univariate analysis revealed that school type, monthly family income, mother's education, family structure, number of siblings, use of cigarettes, alcohol and drugs in the family, parents' perception of oral health of schoolchildren, schoolchildren's self perception their general and oral health, orthodontic treatment needs were significantly associated with poor OHRQoL (p < 0.001). After adjusting for potential confounders, variables were included in a Multivariate Poisson regression. It was found that the variables children's self perception of their oral health status, monthly family income, gender, orthodontic treatment need, mother's education, number of siblings, and household overcrowding showed a strong negative effect on oral health-related quality of life. Conclusions It was concluded that the clinical, socioeconomic and home environment factors evaluated exerted a negative impact on the oral health-related quality of life of schoolchildren, demonstrating the importance of health managers addressing all these factors when planning oral health promotion interventions for this population.