Search

Introduction: Treatment of mild to moderate hypokalemia is a high potassium-containing diet and oral pharmaceutical potassium products. However, several medical centers in Iran use injectable dosage forms orally, which is not a confirmed method by reliable guidelines. Objectives: This study investigated the advantages and side effects of oral tablets versus injection vials of potassium chloride orally. Patients and Methods: This descriptive-analytical cross-sectional study was performed from March 2022 to June 2022. Thirty patients received tablets (“potassium chloride tablet” group), and thirty patients received injection vials (“potassium chloride vials orally” group) of potassium chloride orally. The variables, including age, gender, clinical side effects, and serum level of potassium, were regularly recorded. Results: The mean duration of serum potassium normalization was 42.00 hours for the “potassium chloride tablet” group and 84.57 hours for the “potassium chloride vials orally” group. The mean total potassium intake was 127.20 mEq/L in the “potassium chloride tablet” group and 280.03 mEq/L for the “potassium chloride vials orally” group. No significant difference was observed in gastrointestinal complications, including esophagitis, bloating, stomach ache, and nausea. None of the patients have required endoscopy due to esophagitis. Conclusion: Our result suggested that prescribing oral potassium chloride tablets has superior benefits over injection vials. However, more detailed research is needed to reveal the other aspects of this problem. Study Registration: This study was retrospectively registered in Research Registry UIN (UIN: reviewregistry1668). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Byline: Mehdi. Sayyah, Kiarash. Shirbandi, Fakher. Rahim, Reza. Ganji Migraine is a severe primary headache disorder that affects about 12% of the population, and it often occurs along with nausea, [...]

Acute Venous Thromboembolism (VTE) is a common disease associated with the significant morbidity and mortality. We reviewed clinical outcomes systematically with Dabigatran as a direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC) for treatment of acute VTE. We used Ovide, PubMed, Cochrane (CENTRAL), EMBASE, Scopus, Science Direct, LILAC(for article written not English) and also Iranian database; Magiran, Isc, Iran Medex, Iran DOC, Doaj up to May 2014 to identify randomized clinical trials of Dabigatran compared with conventional treatment for VTE. Two investigators extracted data independently. Number of 5107 patients including two trails were selected. The risk of recurrent VTE was similar with the Dabigatran and standard treatment (Hazard Ratio, 95% confidence interval 1.09 (0.76-1.57). Dabigatran reduced the risk of minor bleeding in comparison with standard treatment; Warfarin (0.62) (0.50-0.76). Finally-in minor bleeding-the Dabigatran seemed as effective as, and probably safer than standard treatment of acute VTE. But in some aspects such as adherence to treatment, pregnant patient, impact on quality of life, new researches are needed to be clarified. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Knee pain is one of the most common reasons patients visit their physician. In this regard Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) is the tool of preference for diagnosis. The aim of this study was to determine appropriate guidelines for knee MRI administration using the RAND Appropriateness Method (RAM)-2013., Methods: This qualitative study was done in the Mashhad University of Medical Sciences in 2013. The most appropriate approved knee MRI administration clinical guidelines were evaluated using Guidelines Evaluation and Research Appraisal (AGREE). Panel members consisting of six orthopedic and three rheumatologic doctors gave scores ranging from 1 to 9 for each scenario. The indications were grouped as appropriate, equivocal and inappropriate. Data were analyzed by descriptive statistics and SPSS ver. 18 software., Results: Sixty-three scenarios were extracted from the guidelines and then the scenarios were evaluated in 26 indications. Thirty-two (50.79%) cases were considered appropriate, 12 (19.04%) cases uncertain and 19 (30.1%) cases inappropriate., Conclusions: The RAND appropriateness method is helpful in identifying the opinion of stakeholders in health care systems. Moreover, making practical use of clinical guidelines can improve patients' quality of care and prevent unnecessary costs.