Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 12 de 12
Filter
Add more filters










Publication year range
1.
Bioengineering (Basel) ; 10(10)2023 Oct 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37892885

ABSTRACT

Pulmonary auscultation is essential for detecting abnormal lung sounds during physical assessments, but its reliability depends on the operator. Machine learning (ML) models offer an alternative by automatically classifying lung sounds. ML models require substantial data, and public databases aim to address this limitation. This systematic review compares characteristics, diagnostic accuracy, concerns, and data sources of existing models in the literature. Papers published from five major databases between 1990 and 2022 were assessed. Quality assessment was accomplished with a modified QUADAS-2 tool. The review encompassed 62 studies utilizing ML models and public-access databases for lung sound classification. Artificial neural networks (ANN) and support vector machines (SVM) were frequently employed in the ML classifiers. The accuracy ranged from 49.43% to 100% for discriminating abnormal sound types and 69.40% to 99.62% for disease class classification. Seventeen public databases were identified, with the ICBHI 2017 database being the most used (66%). The majority of studies exhibited a high risk of bias and concerns related to patient selection and reference standards. Summarizing, ML models can effectively classify abnormal lung sounds using publicly available data sources. Nevertheless, inconsistent reporting and methodologies pose limitations to advancing the field, and therefore, public databases should adhere to standardized recording and labeling procedures.

2.
Mayo Clin Proc ; 98(5): 736-747, 2023 05.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37028977

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: To develop and validate an updated lung injury prediction score for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) (c-LIPS) tailored for predicting acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) in COVID-19. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This was a registry-based cohort study using the Viral Infection and Respiratory Illness Universal Study. Hospitalized adult patients between January 2020 and January 2022 were screened. Patients who qualified for ARDS within the first day of admission were excluded. Development cohort consisted of patients enrolled from participating Mayo Clinic sites. The validation analyses were performed on remaining patients enrolled from more than 120 hospitals in 15 countries. The original lung injury prediction score (LIPS) was calculated and enhanced using reported COVID-19-specific laboratory risk factors, constituting c-LIPS. The main outcome was ARDS development and secondary outcomes included hospital mortality, invasive mechanical ventilation, and progression in WHO ordinal scale. RESULTS: The derivation cohort consisted of 3710 patients, of whom 1041 (28.1%) developed ARDS. The c-LIPS discriminated COVID-19 patients who developed ARDS with an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.79 compared with original LIPS (AUC, 0.74; P<.001) with good calibration accuracy (Hosmer-Lemeshow P=.50). Despite different characteristics of the two cohorts, the c-LIPS's performance was comparable in the validation cohort of 5426 patients (15.9% ARDS), with an AUC of 0.74; and its discriminatory performance was significantly higher than the LIPS (AUC, 0.68; P<.001). The c-LIPS's performance in predicting the requirement for invasive mechanical ventilation in derivation and validation cohorts had an AUC of 0.74 and 0.72, respectively. CONCLUSION: In this large patient sample c-LIPS was successfully tailored to predict ARDS in COVID-19 patients.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Lung Injury , Respiratory Distress Syndrome , Adult , Humans , COVID-19/complications , Cohort Studies , Lung , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/diagnosis , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/etiology
3.
Crit Care Explor ; 4(12): e0822, 2022 Dec.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36567789

ABSTRACT

There is a paucity of literature regarding administrative approvals required for clinical studies during a pandemic. We aimed to evaluate variation in duration of administrative approvals within the Viral Infection and Respiratory illness Universal Study (VIRUS): A Global COVID-19 Registry. DESIGN SETTING AND SUBJECTS: Survey analysis of 188 investigators who participated in the VIRUS: COVID-19 registry, a prospective, observational global registry database of 287 sites. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: For each study site approved through December 8, 2020, we assessed the duration in days: 1) from institutional review board (IRB) submission to IRB approval, 2) from IRB approval to Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap) access, 3) from REDCap access to first patient data entry in REDCap, and 4) total duration from IRB submission to first patient data entry in REDCap. Analysis of variance and Wilcoxon rank-sum test were used to compare time durations. Of 287 sites, 188 sites (United States = 155, non-United States = 33) provided complete administrative data. There was considerable variability in duration from IRB submission to first patient data entry with median (interquartile range) of 28 days (16-50 d), with differences not significantly different by country (United States: 30 [17-50] vs non-United States: 23 d [8-46 d]; p = 0.08) or previous "multisite trial experience" (experienced: 27 [15-51] vs not experienced: 29 d [13-47 d]; p = 0.67). The U.S. sites had a higher proportion of female principal investigators (n = 77; 50%), compared with non-U.S. sites (n = 7; 21%; p = 0.002). Non-U.S. sites had a significantly shorter time to first patient data entry after REDCap access: 7 (1-28) versus 3 days (1-6 d) (p = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: In this Society of Critical Care Medicine global VIRUS: COVID-19 Registry, we identified considerable variability in time from IRB submission to first patient data entry with no significant differences by country or prior multicenter trial experience. However, there was a significant difference between US and non-U.S. sites in the time from REDCap access to first data entry.

4.
Hosp Pract (1995) ; 50(4): 326-330, 2022 Oct.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35982643

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: The COVID-19 pandemic severely restricted in-person learning. As a result, many educational institutions switched to online platforms to continue teaching. COVID-19 webinars have been useful for rapidly disseminating information to frontline healthcare workers. While conducting COVID-19 webinars through online platforms is a popular method to train medical professionals, their effectiveness has never been investigated. Our aim was to ascertain the usefulness of COVID-19 webinars during the pandemic. METHODS: We conducted an online survey of about 400 frontline healthcare workers. 112 people responded to the survey (response rate = 28%). In it, we asked several questions to determine whether webinars had been a useful resource to help deal with COVID-19 patients. RESULTS: We found that a majority of healthcare worker respondents had favorable opinions of online education during the pandemic as around 78% of respondents either agreed or highly agreed that webinars are a useful source of knowledge. A significant proportion (34%) did not participate in webinars and gave time constraints as their main reason for not participating. CONCLUSION: Our results indicated that while online education is a great way to disseminate information quickly to a large amount of people, it also comes with its disadvantages. As we transition into a post-pandemic world, we need to make sure that online teaching is designed with the best interests of the healthcare workers in mind to ensure that we get the most out of it.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Pandemics , Health Personnel , Humans , SARS-CoV-2 , Surveys and Questionnaires
5.
World J Crit Care Med ; 11(2): 102-111, 2022 Mar 09.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35433315

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) course may be affected by environmental factors. Ecological studies previously suggested a link between climatological factors and COVID-19 fatality rates. However, individual-level impact of these factors has not been thoroughly evaluated yet. AIM: To study the association of climatological factors related to patient location with unfavorable outcomes in patients. METHODS: In this observational analysis of the Society of Critical Care Medicine Discovery Viral Infection and Respiratory Illness Universal Study: COVID-19 Registry cohort, the latitudes and altitudes of hospitals were examined as a covariate for mortality within 28 d of admission and the length of hospital stay. Adjusting for baseline parameters and admission date, multivariable regression modeling was utilized. Generalized estimating equations were used to fit the models. RESULTS: Twenty-two thousand one hundred eight patients from over 20 countries were evaluated. The median age was 62 (interquartile range: 49-74) years, and 54% of the included patients were males. The median age increased with increasing latitude as well as the frequency of comorbidities. Contrarily, the percentage of comorbidities was lower in elevated altitudes. Mortality within 28 d of hospital admission was found to be 25%. The median hospital-free days among all included patients was 20 d. Despite the significant linear relationship between mortality and hospital-free days (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) = 1.39 (1.04, 1.86), P = 0.025 for mortality within 28 d of admission; aOR = -1.47 (-2.60, -0.33), P = 0.011 for hospital-free days), suggesting that adverse patient outcomes were more common in locations further away from the Equator; the results were no longer significant when adjusted for baseline differences (aOR = 1.32 (1.00, 1.74), P = 0.051 for 28-day mortality; aOR = -1.07 (-2.13, -0.01), P = 0.050 for hospital-free days). When we looked at the altitude's effect, we discovered that it demonstrated a non-linear association with mortality within 28 d of hospital admission (aOR = 0.96 (0.62, 1.47), 1.04 (0.92, 1.19), 0.49 (0.22, 0.90), and 0.51 (0.27, 0.98), for the altitude points of 75 MASL, 125 MASL, 400 MASL, and 600 MASL, in comparison to the reference altitude of 148 m.a.s.l, respectively. P = 0.001). We detected an association between latitude and 28-day mortality as well as hospital-free days in this worldwide study. When the baseline features were taken into account, however, this did not stay significant. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that differences observed in previous epidemiological studies may be due to ecological fallacy rather than implying a causal relationship at the patient level.

7.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35180316

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is associated with high rates of morbidity and mortality. Primary hypothyroidism is a common comorbid condition, but little is known about its association with COVID-19 severity and outcomes. This study aims to identify the frequency of hypothyroidism in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 as well as describe the differences in outcomes between patients with and without pre-existing hypothyroidism using an observational, multinational registry. METHODS: In an observational cohort study we enrolled patients 18 years or older, with laboratory-confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 infection between March 2020 and February 2021. The primary outcomes were (1) the disease severity defined as per the World Health Organization Scale for Clinical Improvement, which is an ordinal outcome corresponding with the highest severity level recorded during a patient's index COVID-19 hospitalization, (2) in-hospital mortality and (3) hospital-free days. Secondary outcomes were the rate of intensive care unit (ICU) admission and ICU mortality. RESULTS: Among the 20,366 adult patients included in the study, pre-existing hypothyroidism was identified in 1616 (7.9%). The median age for the Hypothyroidism group was 70 (interquartile range: 59-80) years, and 65% were female and 67% were White. The most common comorbidities were hypertension (68%), diabetes (42%), dyslipidemia (37%) and obesity (28%). After adjusting for age, body mass index, sex, admission date in the quarter year since March 2020, race, smoking history and other comorbid conditions (coronary artery disease, hypertension, diabetes and dyslipidemia), pre-existing hypothyroidism was not associated with higher odds of severe disease using the World Health Organization disease severity index (odds ratio [OR]: 1.02; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.92, 1.13; p = .69), in-hospital mortality (OR: 1.03; 95% CI: 0.92, 1.15; p = .58) or differences in hospital-free days (estimated difference 0.01 days; 95% CI: -0.45, 0.47; p = .97). Pre-existing hypothyroidism was not associated with ICU admission or ICU mortality in unadjusted as well as in adjusted analysis. CONCLUSIONS: In an international registry, hypothyroidism was identified in around 1 of every 12 adult hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Pre-existing hypothyroidism in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 was not associated with higher disease severity or increased risk of mortality or ICU admissions. However, more research on the possible effects of COVID-19 on the thyroid gland and its function is needed in the future.

8.
JMIR Res Protoc ; 11(3): e27921, 2022 Mar 15.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34762062

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The rapid emergence of the COVID-19 pandemic globally collapsed health care organizations worldwide. Incomplete knowledge of best practices, progression of disease, and its impact could result in fallible care. Data on symptoms and advancement of the SARS-CoV-2 virus leading to critical care admission have not been captured or communicated well between international organizations experiencing the same impact from the virus. This led to the expedited need for establishing international communication and data collection on the critical care patients admitted with COVID-19. OBJECTIVE: Developing a global registry to collect patient data in the critical care setting was imperative with the goal of analyzing and ameliorating outcomes. METHODS: A prospective, observational global registry database was put together to record extensive deidentified clinical information for patients hospitalized with COVID-19. RESULTS: Project management was crucial for prompt implementation of the registry for synchronization, improving efficiency, increasing innovation, and fostering global collaboration for valuable data collection. The Society of Critical Care Medicine Discovery VIRUS (Viral Infection and Respiratory Illness Universal Study): COVID-19 Registry would compile data for crucial longitudinal outcomes for disease, treatment, and research. The agile project management approach expedited establishing the registry in 15 days and submission of institutional review board agreement for 250 participating sites. There has been enrollment of sites every month with a total of 306 sites from 28 countries and 64,114 patients enrolled (as of June 7, 2021). CONCLUSIONS: This protocol addresses project management lessons in a time of crises which can be a precept for rapid project management for a large-scale health care data registry. We aim to discuss the approach and methodology for establishing the registry, the challenges faced, and the factors contributing to successful outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04323787; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04323787.

9.
Open Respir Med J ; 16: e187430642207130, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37273949

ABSTRACT

Background: Better delineation of COVID-19 presentations in different climatological conditions might assist with prompt diagnosis and isolation of patients. Objectives: To study the association of latitude and altitude with COVID-19 symptomatology. Methods: This observational cohort study included 12267 adult COVID-19 patients hospitalized between 03/2020 and 01/2021 at 181 hospitals in 24 countries within the SCCM Discovery VIRUS: COVID-19 Registry. The outcome was symptoms at admission, categorized as respiratory, gastrointestinal, neurological, mucocutaneous, cardiovascular, and constitutional. Other symptoms were grouped as atypical. Multivariable regression modeling was performed, adjusting for baseline characteristics. Models were fitted using generalized estimating equations to account for the clustering. Results: The median age was 62 years, with 57% males. The median age and percentage of patients with comorbidities increased with higher latitude. Conversely, patients with comorbidities decreased with elevated altitudes. The most common symptoms were respiratory (80%), followed by constitutional (75%). Presentation with respiratory symptoms was not associated with the location. After adjustment, at lower latitudes (<30º), patients presented less commonly with gastrointestinal symptoms (p<.001, odds ratios for 15º, 25º, and 30º: 0.32, 0.81, and 0.98, respectively). Atypical symptoms were present in 21% of the patients and showed an association with altitude (p=.026, odds ratios for 75, 125, 400, and 600 meters above sea level: 0.44, 0.60, 0.84, and 0.77, respectively). Conclusions: We observed geographic variability in symptoms of COVID-19 patients. Respiratory symptoms were most common but were not associated with the location. Gastrointestinal symptoms were less frequent in lower latitudes. Atypical symptoms were associated with higher altitude.

10.
Cureus ; 13(9): e18136, 2021 Sep.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34692344

ABSTRACT

As we move amidst the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, we have witnessed tremendous distress, death, and turmoil of everyday life for more than one year now. However, they are not modern phenomena; deadly pandemics have happened throughout recorded history. Pandemics such as the plague, Spanish Flu, HIV, and Ebola caused deaths, destruction of political regimes, as well as financial and psychosocial burdens. However, they sometimes resulted in scientific discoveries. Understanding the mechanism of the emergence of these pandemics is crucial to control any spreading pandemic and prevent the emergence of a potential new one. Public health agencies need to work on improving the countries' pandemic preparedness to prevent any future pandemics. The review article aims to shed light on some of the deadliest pandemics throughout history, information of critical importance for clinicians and researchers.

11.
Cureus ; 13(7): e16635, 2021 Jul.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34462676

ABSTRACT

The emergence of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has made us appreciate how important it is to quickly develop treatments and save lives. The race to develop a vaccine for this novel coronavirus began as soon as the pandemic emerged. Time was the only limiting factor. From the first vaccine developed in 1796 against smallpox to the latest COVID-19 vaccine, there have been several vaccines that have reduced the burden of disease, with the associated mortality and morbidity. Over the years we have seen many new advancements in organism isolation, cell culture, whole-genome sequencing, and recombinant nuclear techniques. These techniques have greatly facilitated the development of vaccines. Each vaccine has its own development story and there is much wisdom to be gained from learning about breakthroughs in vaccine development.

12.
Hosp Pract (1995) ; 49(4): 240-244, 2021 Oct.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34180345

ABSTRACT

Rene Laennec came up with the idea of a stethoscope in 1816 to avoid the embarrassment of performing immediate auscultation on women. Soon many doctors around the world started using this tool because of its increased accuracy and ease of use. Stethoscopes hold great significance in the medical community. However, is the importance placed on stethoscopes justified today? We now have devices like portable ultrasound machines that make it much easier to visualize the body. These devices offset their higher initial cost by reducing downstream costs due to their greater accuracy and their capability of detecting diseases at an earlier stage. Also, because of the COVID-19 pandemic, new ways are being investigated to reduce the transmission of diseases. Stethoscopes being a possible vector for infectious agents coupled with the advent of newer devices that can visualize the body with greater accuracy put into question the continued use of stethoscopes today. With that said, the use of stethoscopes to diagnose diseases is still crucial in places where buying these new devices is not yet possible. The stethoscope is a great symbol of medicine, but its use needs to be in line with what is best for the patient.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , Stethoscopes/microbiology , Auscultation/methods , COVID-19/transmission , History, 19th Century , Humans , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2 , Stethoscopes/history
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...