Search

IntroductionAs useful tools for clinical decision-making, diagnostic tests require careful interpretation in order to prevent underdiagnosis, overdiagnosis or misdiagnosis. The aim of this study was to explore primary care practitioners’ understanding and interpretation of the probability of disease before and after test results for six common clinical scenarios.MethodsThis cross-sectional study was conducted with 414 family physicians who were working at primary care in Istanbul via face-to-face interviews held between November 2021 and March 2022. The participants were asked to estimate the probability of diagnosis in six clinical scenarios provided to them. Clinical scenarios were about three cancer screening cases (breast, cervical and colorectal), and three infectious disease cases (pneumonia, urinary tract infection, and COVID-19). For each scenario participants estimated the probability of the diagnosis before application of a diagnostic test, after a positive test result, and after a negative test result. Their estimates were compared with the true answers derived from relevant guidelines.ResultsFor all scenarios, physicians’ estimates were significantly higher than the scientific evidence range. The minimum overestimation was positive test result for COVID-19 and maximum was pre-test case for cervical cancer. In the hypothetical control question for prevalence and test accuracy, physicians estimated disease probability as 95.0% for a positive test result and 5.0% for a negative test result while the correct answers were 2.0 and 0%, respectively (p

IntroductionFever is both a sign of various diseases (chief of which are infectious in nature) and an adverse effect of certain interventions (e.g. vaccines, drugs) in the pediatric population. It elicits anxiety among caregivers and healthcare professionals alike resulting in non-evidence based practices, adverse medication administration events, waste of scarce resources and overutilization of health facilities. The determinants of these practices among caregivers in the domiciliary contexts have not been well characterized in developing settings.MethodsWe assessed the knowledge and practices of childhood fever and their determinants among caregivers in domiciliary settings in Northern Nigeria using a 41-item questionnaire between August 2020 and February 2021.ResultsThe questionnaire is reliable (knowledge: Cronbach's Alpha = 0.689; practice: Cronbach's Alpha = 0.814) and collected data on a total of 2,400 caregiver-child pairs, who participated in the study. Over two-third (68.3%; 1,640) of the caregivers expressed fever phobic tendencies. Paracetamol was the most commonly used medication and constituted 31.3% of medication administration adverse events reported by the caregivers. Only one out of every six knowledgeable caregivers engaged in evidence-based home childhood fever management practices (7% vs. 41.6%) with being a primary caregiver [Knowledge: odd ratio (OR): 2.81, 95% CI: 0.38; 5.68; p value: 0.04; Practice: OR: 1.65, 95% CI: 0.09; 7.33; 0.02] and having a child/children aged ≤3 years (knowledge: OR: 7.03, 95% CI: 4.89; 9.67, p value: 0.003; practice OR: 3.11, 95% CI: 1.27; 8.59, 0.007) determining both the knowledge and practices of childhood fever management in a household.ConclusionsThe knowledge and practice of childhood fever management among caregivers were sub-optimal with being a primary caregiver and having a child/children aged ≤3 years being the significant determinants of each domain. These gaps underscore the dire need for targeted strategies aimed at improving childhood fever management by educating caregivers.

Background and objectivesAlthough several repurposed antiviral drugs have been used for the treatment of COVID-19, only a few such as remdesivir and molnupiravir have shown promising effects. The objectives of our study were to investigate the association of repurposed antiviral drugs with COVID-19 morbidity.MethodsPatients admitted to 26 different hospitals located in 16 different provinces between March 11–July 18, 2020, were enrolled. Case definition was based on WHO criteria. Patients were managed according to the guidelines by Scientific Board of Ministry of Health of Turkey. Primary outcomes were length of hospitalization, intensive care unit (ICU) requirement, and intubation.ResultsWe retrospectively evaluated 1,472 COVID-19 adult patients; 57.1% were men (mean age = 51.9 ± 17.7years). A total of 210 (14.3%) had severe pneumonia, 115 (7.8%) were admitted to ICUs, and 69 (4.7%) were intubated during hospitalization. The median (interquartile range) of duration of hospitalization, including ICU admission, was 7 (5–12) days. Favipiravir (n = 328), lopinavir/ritonavir (n = 55), and oseltamivir (n = 761) were administered as antiviral agents, and hydroxychloroquine (HCQ, n = 1,382) and azithromycin (n = 738) were used for their immunomodulatory activity. Lopinavir/ritonavir (β [95% CI]: 4.71 [2.31–7.11]; p = 0.001), favipiravir (β [95% CI]: 3.55 [2.56–4.55]; p = 0.001) and HCQ (β [95% CI]: 0.84 [0.02–1.67]; p = 0.046) were associated with increased risk of lengthy hospital stays. Furthermore, favipiravir was associated with increased risks of ICU admission (OR [95% CI]: 3.02 [1.70–5.35]; p = 0.001) and invasive mechanical ventilation requirement (OR [95% CI]: 2.94 [1.28–6.75]; p = 0.011).ConclusionOur findings demonstrated that antiviral drugs including lopinavir, ritonavir, and favipiravir were associated with negative clinical outcomes such as increased risks for lengthy hospital stay, ICU admission, and invasive mechanical ventilation requirement. Therefore, repurposing such agents without proven clinical evidence might not be the best approach for COVID-19 treatment.