Analysing COVID-19 outcomes in the context of the 2019 Global Health Security (GHS) Index.

INTRODUCTION: The Global Health Security Index benchmarks countries' capacities to carry out the functions necessary to prevent, detect and respond to biological threats. The COVID-19 pandemic served as an opportunity to evaluate whether the Index contained the correct array of variables that influence countries' abilities to respond to these threats; assess additional variables that may influence preparedness; and examine how the impact of preparedness components change during public health crises. METHODS: Linear regression models were examined to determine the relationship between excess mortality per capita for the first 500 days of countries' COVID-19 pandemic and internal Index variables, as well as external variables including social cohesion; island status; perceived corruption; elderly population size; previous epidemic experience; stringency of non-pharmaceutical interventions; and social and political polarisation. RESULTS: COVID-19 outcomes were significantly associated with sociodemographic, political and governance variables external to the 2019 Index: social cohesion, reduction in social polarisation and reduced perceptions of corruption were consistently correlated with reduced excess mortality throughout the pandemic. The association of other variables assessed by the Index, like epidemiological workforce robustness, changed over time. Fixed country features, including geographic connectedness, larger elderly population and lack of prior coronavirus outbreak experience were detrimental to COVID-19 outcomes. Finally, there was evidence that countries that lacked certain capacities were able to develop these over the course of the pandemic. CONCLUSIONS: Additional sociodemographic, political and governance variables should be included in future indices to improve their ability to characterise preparedness. Fixed characteristics, while not directly addressable, are useful for establishing countries' inherent risk profile and can motivate those at greater risk to invest in preparedness. Particular components of preparedness vary in their impact on outcomes over the course of the pandemic, which may inform resource direction during ongoing crises. Future research should seek to further characterise time-dependent impacts as additional COVID-19 outcome data become available.

Katz and Stirrat hand diagram revisited.

Katz and Stirrat devised a hand diagram, which uses subjective information from the patient for the diagnosis of carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS). They reported a good result. We tested the inter-observer and intra-observer reliability of this hand diagram. Twenty five consecutive patients with a diagnosis of CTS, 25 with other common hand and wrist problems but CTS and 25 healthy individuals were prospectively recruited. Each patient filled in a hand diagram. Two experienced hand surgeon scored the diagrams blindly on two different sittings four-week apart. The intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) and Cohen's Kappa were used for intra and inter-observer reliability respectively. The intra-observer agreement was poor (ICC 95% 0.33-0.65) and inter-observer was fair (Kappa = 0.241). This study does not support the use of Katz and Stirrat Hand Diagram for the diagnosis of carpal tunnel syndrome in place if a thorough clinical examination.