Search

Introduction: The ketogenic diet is a very low carbohydrate diet known for its ability to reduce weight and counteract hyperglycaemia. However, ketogenic diets recommend an increased intake of fats, raising concerns about cardiometabolic risk in adults. Due to the higher intake of fats in the ketogenic diet, there is significant variability in outcomes of lipid metabolism in the population. Interventions have reported improvements in lipid profile while other studies did not find changes, and there are reports of increased low density lipoprotein (LDL) and triglyceride values. Hence, this is a protocol for a systematic review of the published literature and a summary of the effect of ketogenic diets on lipid metabolism in adults., Methods and Analysis: Five databases (PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane Library and Web of Science) will be searched for studies on ketogenic diets in adult populations. Studies will be included if they report results from ketogenic diet interventions among adults. Exclusion is populations with diagnosed neurological disorders. Two reviewers will independently screen retrieved citations, extract data and appraise the risk of bias. Quantitative estimates (eg, standardised mean difference) measuring the change in the total cholesterol, LDL and triglyceride concentration will be pooled using random effects meta-analysis to produce one summarised weighted estimate. Sources of heterogeneity will be explored using subgroup analysis. This protocol follows the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis for Protocols (PRISMA), and the final review will be reported following the PRISMA 2020 guidelines., Ethics and Dissemination: The present protocol and the systematic review to be carried out do not require ethics clearance. The data source will be published studies. This review will provide estimates to inform the public about the effect of ketogenic diets on lipid metabolism and the possible peril of increasing cardiometabolic risk. The results will be published in a peer-reviewed journal., Prospero Registration Number: CRD42022309665., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objectives: To describe the productivity, performance, and impact of medical research in the Arab world countries., Methods: We carried out a bibliometric analysis using Clarivate Analytics databases from January 2017 to March 2023. We reported research productivity, national and international research collaboration patterns, impact of Arab medical research output compared to the global average, top medical journals publishing Arab-affiliated research, and performance of the most productive Arab institutions., Results: The Arab world contributed 2.72% to global medical research publication, with a citation impact of 11.98 compared to the global impact of 12.02. Qatar, Lebanon, and Saudi Arabia led medical research publications per million population among Arab countries, ranking 26th, 36th, and 37th globally. Medical research publications increased by 87% annually from 2017-2022, with 70% of research originating from Saudi Arabia and Egypt. National collaborations accounted for 15% of Arab world publications, while international collaborations represented 66%. The median impact factor across the top 20 medical journals with Arab-affiliated authors was 5.14, with 50% being quartile one journals. The top 10 Arab-origin medical journals had a median impact factor of 3.13. Approximately 80% of the top 20 Arab institutions were academic, with a median publication count of 3,162.5 and a median citation impact of 14.5., Conclusion: The study provides insights into the state of medical research in the Arab countries, indicating room for improvement in the region's medical research., (Copyright: © Saudi Medical Journal.)

Eosinophilic esophagitis is a newly recognized disease first described about 50 years ago. The definition, diagnosis, and management have evolved with new published consensus guidelines and newly approved treatment available to pediatricians, enabling a better understanding of this disease and more targeted treatment for patients. We describe the definition, presentation, and diagnosis of eosinophilic esophagitis including management, challenges, and future directions in children. The definition, diagnosis, and management of eosinophilic esophagitis have evolved over the last 50 years. Consensus guidelines and newly approved biologic treatment have enabled pediatricians to better understand this disease and allow for more targeted treatment for patients. We describe the definition, presentation, diagnosis, management, and treatment in addition to the challenges and future directions of eosinophilic esophagitis management in children., Competing Interests: Conflict-of-interest statement: The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare., (©The Author(s) 2022. Published by Baishideng Publishing Group Inc. All rights reserved.)

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) was first identified in respiratory samples and was found to commonly cause cough and pneumonia. However, non-respiratory symptoms including gastrointestinal disorders are also present and a big proportion of patients test positive for the virus in stools for a prolonged period. In this cross-sectional study, we investigated viral load trends in stools and nasopharyngeal swabs and their correlation with multiple demographic and clinical factors. The study included 211 laboratory-confirmed cases suffering from a mild form of the disease and completing their isolation period at a non-hospital center in the United Arab Emirates. Demographic and clinical information was collected by standardized questionnaire and from the medical records of the patient. Of the 211 participants, 25% tested negative in both sample types at the time of this study and 53% of the remaining patients had detectable viral RNA in their stools. A positive fecal viral test was associated with male gender, diarrhea as a symptom, and hospitalization during infection. A positive correlation was also observed between a delayed onset of symptoms and a positive stool test. Viral load in stools positively correlated with, being overweight, exercising, taking antibiotics in the last 3 months and blood type O. The viral load in nasopharyngeal swabs, on the other hand, was higher for blood type A, and rhesus positive (Rh factor). Regression analysis showed no correlation between the viral loads measured in stool and nasopharyngeal samples in any given patient. The results of this work highlight the factors associated with a higher viral count in each sample. It also shows the importance of stool sample analysis for the follow-up and diagnosis of recovering COVID-19 patients., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

The 2021 Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines provided evidence-based recommendations for adult patients with sepsis and septic shock. This iteration of the guidelines placed increased emphasis on a diverse, global perspective, as well as on the long-term sequelae of sepsis experienced by patients and their families. The guidelines encompassed the following sections: 1) screening and early treatment; 2) infection; 3) hemodynamic management; 4) ventilation; 5) additional therapies; and 6) goals of care and long-term outcomes. In this review, we provide a summary of key recommendations of interest to the practicing clinician, which are either novel or require a change in practice, as well as those for which the evidence has substantially evolved in the 5 years since the 2016 iteration of the Guidelines. Rather than reviewing the underlying evidence, we emphasize the practical aspects of interpretation, dissemination, and implementation of these recommendations in the clinical setting.

Background: The impact of clinical proficiency on individual student scores on the National Board of Medical Examiners (NBME) Subject Examinations remains uncertain. We hypothesised that increasing the length of time spent in a clinical environment would augment students' performance., Methods: Performance on the NBME Subject Examination in Internal Medicine (NBME-IM) of three student cohorts was observed longitudinally. Scores at the end of two unique internal medicine clerkships held at the third and fourth years were compared. The score differences between the two administrations were compared using paired t -tests, and the effect size was measured using Cohen's d . Moreover, linear regression was used to assess the correlation between the NBME-IM score gains and performance on a pre-clinical Comprehensive Basic Science Examination (CBSE). A two-tailed p -value <0.05 was considered significant., Results: Of the 236 students enrolled during the third year, age, gender, CBSE, and NBME-IM scores were similar across all cohorts. The normalised score gain on the NBME-IM at the fourth year was 9.5% (range -38 to +45%) with a Cohen's d of 0.47. However, a larger effect size with a Cohen's d value of 0.96 was observed among poorly scoring students. Performance on the CBSE was a significant predictor of score gain on the NBME-IM ( R 0.51, R 2 0.26, p -value < 0.001)., Conclusions: Despite the increased length of clinical exposure, modest improvement in students' performance on repeated NBME-IM examination was observed. Medical educators need to reconsider how the NBME-IM is used in clerkship assessments., Competing Interests: Conflict of InterestThe authors declare no competing interests., (© The Author(s) under exclusive licence to International Association of Medical Science Educators 2022.)

Hospitalized patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), particularly those admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) are at high risk of morbidity and mortality. Several observational studies have described hemostatic derangements and thrombotic complications in patients with COVID-19. The aim of this review article is to summarize the current evidence on pathologic findings, pathophysiology, coagulation and hemostatic abnormalities, D-dimer's role in prognostication epidemiology and risk factors of thrombotic complications, and the role of prophylactic and therapeutic anticoagulation in patients with COVID-19. While existing evidence is limited in quality, COVID-19 appears to increase micro-and macro-vascular thrombosis rates in hospitalized and critically ill patients, which may contribute to the burden of disease. D-dimer can be used for risk stratification of hospitalized patients, but its role to guide anticoagulation therapy remains unclear. Evidence of higher quality is needed to address the role of therapeutic anticoagulation or high-intensity venous thromboembolism prophylaxis in COVID-19 patients. TAKE-HOME POINTS., (Copyright © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: The rapid increase in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) cases during the subsequent waves in Saudi Arabia and other countries prompted the Saudi Critical Care Society (SCCS) to put together a panel of experts to issue evidence-based recommendations for the management of COVID-19 in the intensive care unit (ICU)., Methods: The SCCS COVID-19 panel included 51 experts with expertise in critical care, respirology, infectious disease, epidemiology, emergency medicine, clinical pharmacy, nursing, respiratory therapy, methodology, and health policy. All members completed an electronic conflict of interest disclosure form. The panel addressed 9 questions that are related to the therapy of COVID-19 in the ICU. We identified relevant systematic reviews and clinical trials, then used the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach as well as the evidence-to-decision framework (EtD) to assess the quality of evidence and generate recommendations., Results: The SCCS COVID-19 panel issued 12 recommendations on pharmacotherapeutic interventions (immunomodulators, antiviral agents, and anticoagulants) for severe and critical COVID-19, of which 3 were strong recommendations and 9 were weak recommendations., Conclusion: The SCCS COVID-19 panel used the GRADE approach to formulate recommendations on therapy for COVID-19 in the ICU. The EtD framework allows adaptation of these recommendations in different contexts. The SCCS guideline committee will update recommendations as new evidence becomes available., (Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Objective: To examine the association between plasma levels of the soluble urokinase plasminogen activator receptor (suPAR) and the incidence of severe complications of COVID-19., Methods: 403 RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 patients were recruited and prospectively followed-up at a major hospital in the United Arab Emirates. The primary endpoint was time from admission until the development of a composite outcome, including acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), intensive care unit (ICU) admission, or death from any cause. Patients discharged alive were considered as competing events to the primary outcome. Competing risk regression was used to quantify the association between suPAR and the incidence of the primary outcome., Results: 6.2% of patients experienced ARDS or ICU admission, but none died. Taking into account competing risk, the incidence of the primary outcome was 11.5% (95% confidence interval [CI], 6.7-16.3) in patients with suPAR levels >3.91 ng/mL compared to 2.9% (95% CI, 0.4-5.5) in those with suPAR ≤3.91 ng/mL. Also, an increase by 1 ng/mL in baseline suPAR resulted in a 58% rise in the hazard of developing the primary outcome (hazard ratio 1.6, 95% CI, 1.2-2.1, p = 0.003)., Conclusion: suPAR has an excellent prognostic utility in predicting severe complications in hospitalised COVID-19 patients., (Copyright © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Populations such as healthcare workers (HCW) that are unable to practice physical distancing are at high risk of acquiring Coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19). In these cases pharmacological prophylaxis would be a solution to reduce severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS CoV-2) transmission. Hydroxychloroquine has in vitro antiviral properties against SARS CoV-2. We therefore sought to determine the efficacy and safety of hydroxychloroquine as prophylaxis for COVID-19., Methods and Findings: We electronically searched EMBASE, MEDLINE, the Cochrane COVID-19 Register of Controlled Trials, Epistemonikos COVID-19, clinicaltrials.gov, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform up to September 28th, 2020 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We calculated pooled relative risks (RRs) for dichotomous outcomes with the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using a random-effect model. We identified four RCTs (n = 4921) that met our eligibility criteria. The use of hydroxychloroquine, compared to placebo, did not reduce the risks of developing COVID-19 (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.04, moderate certainty), hospitalization (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.34 to 1.50, moderate certainty), or mortality (RR 3.26, 95% CI 0.13 to 79.74, low certainty), however, hydroxychloroquine use increased the risk of adverse events (RR 2.76, 95% CI 1.38 to 5.55, moderate certainty)., Conclusion: Although pharmacologic prophylaxis is an attractive preventive strategy against COVID-19, the current body of evidence failed to show clinical benefit for prophylactic hydroxychloroquine and showed a higher risk of adverse events when compared to placebo or no prophylaxis., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Background: Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS) is caused by a coronavirus (MERS-CoV) and is characterized by hypoxemic respiratory failure. The objective of this study is to compare the outcomes of MERS-CoV patients before and after the availability of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) as a rescue therapy in severely hypoxemic patients who failed conventional strategies., Methods: We collected data retrospectively on MERS-CoV patients with refractory respiratory failure from April 2014 to December 2015 in 5 intensive care units (ICUs) in Saudi Arabia. Patients were classified into two groups: ECMO versus conventional therapy. Our primary outcome was in-hospital mortality; secondary outcomes included ICU and hospital length of stay., Results: Thirty-five patients were included; 17 received ECMO and 18 received conventional therapy. Both groups had similar baseline characteristics. The ECMO group had lower in-hospital mortality (65 vs. 100%, P = 0.02), longer ICU stay (median 25 vs. 8 days, respectively, P < 0.01), and similar hospital stay (median 41 vs. 31 days, P = 0.421). In addition, patients in the ECMO group had better PaO2/FiO2 at days 7 and 14 of admission to the ICU (124 vs. 63, and 138 vs. 36, P < 0.05), and less use of norepinephrine at days 1 and 14 (29 vs. 80%; and 36 vs. 93%, P < 0.05)., Conclusions: ECMO use, as a rescue therapy, was associated with lower mortality in MERS patients with refractory hypoxemia. The results of this, largest to date, support the use of ECMO as a rescue therapy in patients with severe MERS-CoV.

Background: Patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) often require urgent or emergent esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) and are at risk of complications such as aspiration of gastric content or blood. The role of prophylactic endotracheal intubation (PEI) in the absence of usual respiratory status-related indications is not well established., Methods: We searched Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane Library's Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and SCOPUS from inception through July 2017 without date or language of publication restriction. We included studies that compared PEI with usual care (UC) in patients with acute UGIB, and reported any of the following outcomes: aspiration, pneumonia, mortality and length of stay. We excluded studies in which majority of included patients required intubation due to respiratory failure or decreased level of consciousness. We used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to assess the quality of evidence for each outcome., Results: We did not identify any randomized trials on this topic. We included 10 observational studies ( n = 6068). We were not able to perform any adjusted analyses. PEI was associated with a significant increase in aspiration (OR 3.85, 95% CI, 1.46, 10.25; P = 0.01; I 2 = 56%; low-quality evidence), pneumonia (OR 4.17, 95% CI, 1.82, 9.57; P = 0.0007; I 2 =52%; low-quality evidence) and hospital length of stay (mean difference 0.86 days, 95% CI 0.13, 1.59; P = 0.02; I 2 = 0; low-quality evidence), without clear effect on mortality (OR 1.92, 95% CI, 0.71, 5.23; P = 0.2; I 2 = 95%; very low-quality evidence)., Conclusions: Low- to very low-quality evidence from observational studies suggests that PEI in the setting of UGIB may be associated with higher rates of respiratory complications and, less likely, with increased mortality. Although the results are alarming, the lack of higher quality evidence calls for randomized trials to inform practice., Competing Interests: There are no conflicts of interest

Background: Intolerance to enteral nutrition is common in critically ill adults, and may result in significant morbidity including ileus, abdominal distension, vomiting and potential aspiration events. Prokinetic agents are prescribed to improve gastric emptying. However, the efficacy and safety of these agents in critically ill patients is not well-defined. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the efficacy and safety of prokinetic agents in critically ill patients., Methods: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library from inception up to January 2016. Eligible studies included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of critically ill adults assigned to receive a prokinetic agent or placebo, and that reported relevant clinical outcomes. Two independent reviewers screened potentially eligible articles, selected eligible studies, and abstracted pertinent data. We calculated pooled relative risk (RR) for dichotomous outcomes and mean difference for continuous outcomes, with the corresponding 95 % confidence interval (CI). We assessed risk of bias using Cochrane risk of bias tool, and the quality of evidence using grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation (GRADE) methodology., Results: Thirteen RCTs (enrolling 1341 patients) met our inclusion criteria. Prokinetic agents significantly reduced feeding intolerance (RR 0.73, 95 % CI 0.55, 0.97; P = 0.03; moderate certainty), which translated to 17.3 % (95 % CI 5, 26.8 %) absolute reduction in feeding intolerance. Prokinetics also reduced the risk of developing high gastric residual volumes (RR 0.69; 95 % CI 0.52, 0.91; P = 0.009; moderate quality) and increased the success of post-pyloric feeding tube placement (RR 1.60, 95 % CI 1.17, 2.21; P = 0.004; moderate quality). There was no significant improvement in the risk of vomiting, diarrhea, intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay or mortality. Prokinetic agents also did not significantly increase the rate of diarrhea., Conclusion: There is moderate-quality evidence that prokinetic agents reduce feeding intolerance in critically ill patients compared to placebo or no intervention. However, the impact on other clinical outcomes such as pneumonia, mortality, and ICU length of stay is unclear.

Background: The relative efficacy and safety of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) compared to histamine-2-receptor antagonists (H2RAs) should guide their use in reducing bleeding risk in the critically ill., Methods: We searched the Cochrane library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, ACPJC, clinical trials registries, and conference proceedings through November 2015 without language or publication date restrictions. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of PPIs vs H2RAs for stress ulcer prophylaxis in critically ill adults for clinically important bleeding, overt gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding, nosocomial pneumonia, mortality, ICU length of stay and Clostridium difficile infection were included. We used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to assess our confidence in the evidence for each outcome., Results: In 19 trials enrolling 2117 patients, PPIs were more effective than H2RAs in reducing the risk of clinically important GI bleeding (RR 0.39; 95 % CI 0.21, 0.71; P = 0.002; I (2) = 0 %, moderate confidence) and overt GI bleeding (RR 0.48; 95 % CI 0.34, 0.66; P < 0.0001; I (2) = 3 %, moderate confidence). PPI use did not significantly affect risk of pneumonia (RR 1.12; 95 % CI 0.86, 1.46; P = 0.39; I (2) = 2 %, low confidence), mortality (RR 1.05; 95 % CI 0.87, 1.27; P = 0.61; I (2) = 0 %, moderate confidence), or ICU length of stay (mean difference (MD), -0.38 days; 95 % CI -1.49, 0.74; P = 0.51; I (2) = 30 %, low confidence). No RCT reported Clostridium difficile infection., Conclusions: PPIs were superior to H2RAs in preventing clinically important and overt GI bleeding, without significantly increasing the risk of pneumonia or mortality. Their impact on Clostridium difficile infection is yet to be determined.