The Impact of the COVID-19 Shelter-in-Place Order on Traumatic Brain Injuries in San Francisco, California.

BACKGROUND: In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, San Francisco, California issued a shelter-in-place (SIP) order in March 2020, during which emergency physicians noted a drop in trauma cases, as well as a change in traditional mechanisms of trauma. OBJECTIVES: Our objective was to determine the epidemiology of traumatic brain injury (TBI) pre- and post-COVID-19 SIP. METHODS: We reviewed the electronic medical record of the only trauma center in the city of San Francisco, to determine the number of and characteristics of patients with a diagnosis of head injury presenting to the emergency department between December 16, 2019 and June 16, 2020. Using chi-squared and Fisher's exact tests when appropriate, we compared pre- and post- COVID-19 lockdown epidemiology. RESULTS: There were 1246 TBI-related visits during the 6-month study period. Bi-weekly TBI cases decreased by 36.64% 2 weeks after the COVID-19 SIP and then increased to near baseline levels by June 2020. TBI patients during SIP were older (mean age: 53.3 years pre-SIP vs. 58.2 post-SIP; p < 0.001), more likely to be male (odds ratio 1.43, 95% confidence interval 1.14-1.81), and less likely to be 17 or younger (8.9% vs. 0.5%, pre- to post-SIP respectively, p = 0.003). Patients were less likely to be Hispanic (27.2% vs. 21.7% pre- to post-SIP, respectively, p = 0.029). The proportion of TBI visits attributable to cycling accidents increased (14.1% to 52.7%, p < 0.001), whereas those attributable to pedestrians involved in road traffic accidents decreased (37.2% to 12.7%, p = 0.003). CONCLUSIONS: Understanding the changing epidemiology of TBI during the COVID-19 pandemic can aid in immediate and future disaster resource planning.

SARS COV-2 anti-nucleocapsid and anti-spike antibodies in an emergency department healthcare worker cohort: September 2020 - April 2021.

BACKGROUND: Emergency department (ED) workers have an increased seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. However, breakthrough infections in ED workers have led to a reduced workforce within a strained healthcare system. By measuring levels of IgG antibodies to the SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid and spike antigens in ED workers, we determined the incidence of infection and described the course of antibody levels. We also measured the antibody response to vaccination and examined factors associated with immunogenicity. METHODS: We conducted a prospective cohort study of ED workers conducted at a single ED from September 2020-April 2021. IgG antibodies to the SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid antigen were measured at baseline, 3, and 6 months, and IgG antibodies to the SARS-CoV-2 spike antigen were measured at 6 months. RESULTS: At baseline, we found 5 out of 139 (3.6%) participants with prior infection. At 6 months, 4 of the 5 had antibody results below the test manufacturer's positivity threshold. We identified one incident case of SARS-COV-2 infection out of 130 seronegative participants (0.8%, 95% CI 0.02-4.2%). In 131 vaccinated participants (125 BNT162b2, 6 mRNA-1273), 131 tested positive for anti-spike antibodies. We identified predictors of anti-spike antibody levels: time since vaccination, prior COVID-19 infection, age, and vaccine type. Each additional week since vaccination was associated with an 11.1% decrease in anti-spike antibody levels. (95% CI 6.2-15.8%). CONCLUSION: ED workers experienced a low incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection and developed antibodies in response to vaccines and prior infection. Antibody levels decreased markedly with time since infection or vaccination.

Accuracy of physician gestalt in prediction of significant abdominal and pelvic injury in adult blunt trauma patients.

OBJECTIVE: Focusing on potential missed injury rates and sensitivity of low-risk of injury predictions, we sought to evaluate the accuracy of physician gestalt in predicting clinically significant injury (CSI) in the abdomen and pelvis among blunt trauma patients presenting to the emergency department (ED). METHODS: We collected gestalt data on physicians caring for adult blunt trauma patients who received abdominal/pelvic computed tomography (CT) at three Level I and one Level II trauma centers. The primary outcome of CSI was defined as injury on abdominal/pelvic CT requiring hospitalization or intervention. Physicians evaluating trauma patients estimated the likelihood of CSI prior to abdominal/pelvic CT review (response choices: <2%, 2%-10%, 11%-20%, 21%-40%, >40%). We evaluated potential missed injury rates (prevalence of CSI) and sensitivity for prediction categories, as well as calibration and area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) curve for overall physician gestalt. RESULTS: Of 2030 patients, 402 (20%) had an injury on abdominal/pelvic CT and 270 (13%) had CSI. The <2% risk of CSI gestalt cutoff had a potential missed injury rate of 5.6% and a sensitivity of 95.2% (95% confidence interval [CI] 91.7%-97.3%). The 0%-10% cutoff of CSI gestalt had a potential missed injury rate of 6.3% (95% CI, 5.0%-7.9%) and a sensitivity of 75.2% (95% CI 69.5%-80.1%). With an overall AUROC of 0.699 (95% CI 0.679-0.719), physician gestalt was moderately accurate and calibrated for the midranges of predicted risk but poorly calibrated at the extremes. CONCLUSIONS: Physician gestalt for the prediction of adult abdominal and pelvic CSI is moderately accurate and calibrated. However, the potential missed CSI rate and low sensitivity of the low perceived risk of injury cutoffs indicate that gestalt by itself is insufficient to direct selective abdominal/pelvic CT use in adult blunt trauma patient evaluation.

A Review of COVID-19-Related Publications and Lag Times During the First Six Months of the Year 2020.

INTRODUCTION: Considering the need for information regarding approaches to prevention and treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), we sought to determine publication lag times of COVID-19-related original research articles published in top general medicine and emergency medicine (EM) journals. We further sought to characterize the types of COVID-19 publications within these journals. METHODS: We reviewed 125 top-ranked general medicine journals and 20 top-ranked EM-specific journals for COVID-19-related publications. We abstracted article titles and manuscript details for each COVID-19-related article published between January 1-June 30, 2020, and categorized articles as one of the following: original research; case report; review; or commentary. We abstracted data for preprint publications over the same time period and determined whether articles from the general medicine and EM journals had been previously published as preprint articles. Our primary outcomes were the following: 1) lag time (days) between global cumulative World Health Organization (WHO)-confirmed cases of COVID-19 and publications; 2) lag times between preprint article publication and peer-reviewed journal publication; and 3) lag times between submission and publication in peer-reviewed journals. Our secondary outcome was to characterize COVID-19-related publications. RESULTS: The first original research publications appeared in a general medicine journal 20 days and in an EM journal 58 days after the first WHO-confirmed case of COVID-19. We found median and mean lag times between preprint publications and journal publications of 32 days (19, 49) and 36 days (22) for general medicine journals, and 26 days (16, 36) and 25 days (13) for EM journals. Median and mean lag times between submission and publication were 30 days (19, 45) and 35 days (13) for general medicine journals, and 23 days (11, 39) and 27 days (19) for EM journals. Of 2530 general medicine journal articles and 351 EM journal articles, 28% and 23.6% were original research. We noted substantial closing of the preprint to peer-reviewed publication (160 days pre-pandemic) and peer-reviewed journal submission to publication (194 days pre-pandemic) lag times for COVID-19 manuscripts. CONCLUSION: We found a rapid and robust response with shortened publication lag times to meet the need for the publication of original research and other vital medical information related to COVID-19 during the first six months of 2020.

A Review of Journal Impact Metrics and Characteristics to Assist Emergency Medicine Investigators with Manuscript Submission Decisions.

INTRODUCTION: A crucial, yet subjective and non-evidence-based, decision for researchers is where to submit their original research manuscripts. The approach of submitting to journals in descending order of impact factor (IF) is a common but imperfect strategy. The validity of the IF as a measure of journal quality and significance is suspect, and a number of other journal impact scores have emerged, such that no one scale is universally accepted. Furthermore, practical considerations, such as likelihood of manuscript acceptance rates and times for decisions, may influence how authors prioritize journals. In this report, we sought to 1) review emergency medicine (EM) journal impact metrics, and 2) provide a comprehensive list of pertinent journal characteristics that may influence researchers' choice of submission. METHODS: We systematically reviewed five impact metrics (IF, H Index, CiteScore, Source-Normalized Impact per Paper, and SCImago Journal Rank) and other relevant characteristics of 20 EM journals. RESULTS: We found good to excellent agreement in ordinal rankings of four of the journal impact metrics, as measured by the Spearman rank correlation coefficient. The median acceptance rate for original research manuscripts in the EM category was 25% (interquartile range [IQR] 18, 31%), and the median initial decision time was 33 days (IQR 18, 56 days). Fourteen EM journals (70%) accepted brief reports, and 15 (75%) accepted case reports/images. CONCLUSION: We recommend replication, expansion, and formalization of this repository of information for EM investigators in a continuously updated, open-access forum sponsored by an independent organization.