RESUMEN
CONTEXT: The COVID-19 pandemic has led a lot of countries worldwide to go on lockdown. Potential collateral damage is the impact of residency. AIMS: The aim of this study is to assess the impact of COVID-19 pandemic on urology training aspects, study habits of residents, and their awareness and training regarding COVID-19. SETTINGS AND DESIGN: A questionnaire aiming to assess the impact of COVID-19 pandemic on different urology training aspects. The questionnaire was sent to all urology residents under the Saudi Commission for Health Specialties (SCFHS) programs. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Urology residents under SCFHS programs, excluding 1st-year residents. The questionnaire included the following sections: demographic data, studying habits during the pandemic, involvement in training before the pandemic, involvement in training during the pandemic, and training related to COVID-19. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS USED: Using the SPSS software, frequencies of all data were calculated, and a Wilcoxon-signed rank test was done to assess the change in ordinal data. RESULTS: A total of 77 residents completed the survey (38% response rate). Most residents (40.5%) reported that they "strongly agree" with the statement that they have more time for reading. There has been a decrease in on-call duties, outpatient visits, diagnostic procedures, endoscopic surgeries urology, minimally-invasive surgeries, and major open surgeries in comparison to before the pandemic, with a decrease in mean scores in all domains, especially in diagnostic procedures. CONCLUSIONS: There has been a decrease in residents' involvement in all training domains, and this has been similar to the results of other studies. E-learning sources, during these times, present themselves as a valuable source to compensate for what has been missed in training.
RESUMEN
[No Abstract Available] Saudi Med J 2020; Vol. 41 (8): 779-790doi: 10.15537/smj.2020.8.25222 How to cite this article:Yaser A. Faden, Nadia A. Alghilan, Samiha H. Alawami, Eman S. Alsulmi, Hythem A. Alsum, Yasir A. Katib, Yasser S. Sabr, Fadwah H. Tahir, Nabeel S. Bondagji. Saudi Society of Maternal-Fetal Medicine guidance on pregnancy and coronavirus disease 2019. Saudi Med J 2020; Vol. 41 (8): 779-790. doi: 10.15537/smj.2020.8.25222.
Asunto(s)
Infecciones por Coronavirus/terapia , Neumonía Viral/terapia , Complicaciones Infecciosas del Embarazo/terapia , Atención Prenatal/métodos , Anticoagulantes/uso terapéutico , Antivirales/uso terapéutico , Betacoronavirus , COVID-19 , Anomalías Congénitas/virología , Infecciones por Coronavirus/tratamiento farmacológico , Infecciones por Coronavirus/transmisión , Enfermedad Crítica , Parto Obstétrico/métodos , Femenino , Heparina/uso terapéutico , Humanos , Hidroxicloroquina/uso terapéutico , Recién Nacido , Transmisión Vertical de Enfermedad Infecciosa , Sulfato de Magnesio/uso terapéutico , Pandemias , Perinatología , Equipo de Protección Personal , Neumonía Viral/transmisión , Atención Posnatal , Embarazo , Resultado del Embarazo , SARS-CoV-2 , Arabia Saudita , Sociedades Médicas , Tromboembolia/prevención & control , Tocolíticos/uso terapéutico , Tratamiento Farmacológico de COVID-19RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: This case-control study aimed to assess the prevalence of symptoms and risk of obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) among Saudi pregnant women. METHODS: The study included consecutive Saudi pregnant women attending the antenatal service between July 2015 and December 2016. Pregnant women were compared with an age-matched group of nonpregnant women. OSA symptoms and risk were assessed using a validated Arabic version of the Berlin questionnaire (BQ). RESULTS: The study included 742 pregnant women and 742 age-matched nonpregnant women. At the time of the survey, 8.2% were in the first trimester; 33.4% in the second trimester; and 58.4%in third trimester. Snoring was reported by 14% of pregnant women, and 5% reported breathing pauses during sleep. Based on the BQ stratification for risk of OSA, 19.3% of pregnant women and 16.6% of the control group were at high risk for OSA. A comparison between the high OSA-risk and low OSA-risk pregnant women revealed that the pregnant women in high risk group were older (30.9 ± 5.9 years vs. 29 ± 5.4 years, P = 0.001), had a higher body mass index (BMI) (34.3 ± 5.2 kg/m2 vs. 28.7 ± 5.8 kg/m2, P < 0.001), and higher parity (1.9 ± 2 vs. 1.5 ± 1.7, P = 0.020). A multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed the following independent variables, BMI (odds ratio [OR] 1.173 [95% confidence interval [CI] 1.129-1.219],P < 0.001), pregnancy-induced hypertension (OR 7.85 [95% CI 1.691-36.447], P = 0.013), and the presence of restless legs syndrome (OR 2.209 [95% CI 1.332-3.279],P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: OSA symptoms and risk were relatively common among Saudi pregnant women. Increasing the awareness among physicians about this association is essential to improve early detection of the disorder.