Epidemiology of diabetes and complications among adults in the Republic of Ireland 1998-2015: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Accurate estimates of the burden of diabetes are essential for future planning and evaluation of services. In Ireland, there is no diabetes register and prevalence estimates vary. The aim of this review was to systematically identify and review studies reporting the prevalence of diabetes and complications among adults in Ireland between 1998 and 2015 and to examine trends in prevalence over time. METHODS: A systematic literature search was carried out using PubMed and Embase. Diabetes prevalence estimates were pooled by random-effects meta-analysis. Poisson regression was carried out using data from four nationally representative studies to calculate prevalence rates of doctor diagnosed diabetes between 1998 and 2015 and was also used to assess whether the rate of doctor diagnosed diabetes changed over time. RESULTS: Fifteen studies (eight diabetes prevalence and seven complication prevalence) were eligible for inclusion. In adults aged 18 years and over, the national prevalence of doctor diagnosed diabetes significantly increased from 2.2 % in 1998 to 5.2 % in 2015 (p trend ≤ 0.001). The prevalence of diabetes complications ranged widely depending on study population and methodology used (6.5-25.2 % retinopathy; 3.2-32.0 % neuropathy; 2.5-5.2 % nephropathy). CONCLUSIONS: Between 1998 and 2015, there was a significant increase in the prevalence of doctor diagnosed diabetes among adults in Ireland. Trends in microvascular and macrovascular complications prevalence could not be examined due to heterogeneity between studies and the limited availability of data. Reliable baseline data are needed to monitor improvements in care over time at a national level. A comprehensive national diabetes register is urgently needed in Ireland.

Post-Intensive Care COVID Survivorship Clinic: A Single-Center Experience.

Patients discharged from the ICU post-COVID-19 pneumonitis may experience long-term morbidity related to their critical illness, the treatment for this and the ICU environment. The aim of this study was to characterize the cognitive, psychologic, and physical consequences of COVID-19 in patients admitted to the ICU and discharged alive. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. SETTING: Post-intensive care syndrome (PICS) follow-up clinic at Tallaght University Hospital, a tertiary referral center with a 16-bed mixed medical-surgical ICU, including critical care physicians, a psychologist, a physiotherapist, and a research nurse. PATIENTS: Patients who had been admitted to the ICU in our tertiary referral center with COVID-19 pneumonitis 6 months earlier. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: A total of 22 patients attended the 6-month PICS follow-up clinic following admission to ICU with COVID-19 pneumonitis. Mean grip strength was low at the 6-month follow-up at 24.1 pounds (sd 9.8) with a minimally active median metabolic equivalent (MET) of 970 METs/wk (interquartile range, 0-7,794 METs/wk). Only 59% of patients were independent with regard to their activities of daily living. Eight of 14 patients (57%) had returned to work by 6 months post-ICU discharge. Their mean Intensive Care Psychological Assessment Tool (IPAT) score was 6.6 (sd 4.6) with a Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder Checklist for Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-5th Edition (PCL-5) score of 21.1 (sd 17.5) and a mean Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) score of 24 (sd 8.4); suggestive of mild cognitive impairment. In a multivariable regression model, only Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score was significantly independently associated with MoCA score as a cognitive PICS outcome (beta-coefficient, -1.6; se, 0.6; p = 0.04). None of the predictor variables were significantly independently associated with IPAT and PCL-5 as psychologic outcomes, nor with International Physical Activity Questionnaire-Short Form as a physical PICS outcome. CONCLUSIONS: In this single-center prospective cohort study, we found that patients have a high burden of physical and psychologic impairment at 6 months following ICU discharge post-COVID-19 pneumonitis; in many cases requiring specialist referrals for long-term input. We advocate for increased resources for this much needed follow-up multidisciplinary intervention for an ever-growing population of patients.

Anaesthesia for total hip and knee replacement: A review of patient education materials available online.

Background: Patients frequently consult the internet for health information. Our aim was to perform an Internet-based readability and quality control study using recognised quality scoring systems to assess the patient information available online relating to anaesthesia for total hip and knee replacement surgery. Methods: Online patient information relating to anaesthesia for total hip and knee replacement was identified using Google, Bing and Yahoo with search terms 'hip replacement anaesthetic', 'knee replacement anaesthetic.' Readability was assessed using Flesch Reading Ease (FRE), Flesch-Kincaid grade level (FKGL) and Gunning Fog Index (GFI). Quality was assessed using DISCERN instrument, Health On the Net Foundation seal, and Information Standard mark. Results: 32 websites were analysed. 25% were HONcode certified, 15.6% had the Information Standard. Mean FRE was 55.2±12.8. Mean FKGL was 8.6±1.9. Six websites (18.8%) had the recommended 6 th-grade readability level. Mean of 10.4±2.6 years of formal education was required to read the websites. Websites with Information Standard were easier to read: FKGL (6.2 vs. 9, P < 0.001), GFI (8.8 vs. 10.7, P = 0.04), FRE score (64.2 vs. 9, P = 0.02). Mean DISCERN score was low: 40.3 ± 13. Conclusions: Overall, most websites were poor quality with reading levels too high for the target audience. Information Standard NHS quality mark was associated with improved readability, however along with HONcode were not found to have a statistically significant correlation with quality.  Based on this study, we would encourage healthcare professionals to be judicious in the websites they recommend to patients, and to consider both the readability and quality of the information provided.