| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
| 5. |
- Muehlenbein, MP, et al.
(författare)
-
Traveller exposures to animals: a GeoSentinel analysis
- 2020
-
Ingår i: Journal of travel medicine. - : Oxford University Press (OUP). - 1708-8305 .- 1195-1982. ; 27:7
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BackgroundHuman coexistence with other animals can result in both intentional and unintentional contact with a variety of mammalian and non-mammalian species. International travellers are at risk for such encounters; travellers risk injury, infection and possibly death from domestic and wild animal bites, scratches, licks and other exposures. The aim of the present analysis was to understand the diversity and distribution of animal-related exposures among international travellers.MethodsData from January 2007 through December 2018 from the GeoSentinel Surveillance Network were reviewed. Records were included if the exposure was non-migration travel with a diagnosis of an animal (dog, cat, monkey, snake or other) bite or other exposure (non-bite); records were excluded if the region of exposure was not ascertainable or if another, unrelated acute diagnosis was reported.ResultsA total of 6470 animal exposures (bite or non-bite) were included. The majority (71%) occurred in Asia. Travellers to 167 countries had at least one report of an animal bite or non-bite exposure. The majority (76%) involved dogs, monkeys and cats, although a wide range of wild and domestic species were involved. Almost two-thirds (62.6%) of 4395 travellers with information available did not report a pretravel consultation with a healthcare provider.ConclusionsMinimizing bites and other animal exposures requires education (particularly during pretravel consultations) and behavioral modification. These should be supplemented by the use of pre-exposure rabies vaccination for travellers to high-risk countries (especially to those with limited access to rabies immunoglobulin), as well as encouragement of timely (in-country) post-exposure prophylaxis for rabies and Macacine alphaherpesvirus 1 (herpesvirus B) when warranted.
|
|
| 6. |
|
|
| 7. |
|
|
| 8. |
|
|
| 9. |
- Singer, S., et al.
(författare)
-
Methodological approach for determining the Minimal Important Difference and Minimal Important Change scores for the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Head and Neck Cancer Module (EORTC QLQ-HN43) exemplified by the Swallowing scale
- 2022
-
Ingår i: Quality of Life Research. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 0962-9343 .- 1573-2649. ; 31, s. 841-853
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Purpose The aim of this study was to explore what methods should be used to determine the minimal important difference (MID) and minimal important change (MIC) in scores for the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Head and Neck Cancer Module, the EORTC QLQ-HN43. Methods In an international multi-centre study, patients with head and neck cancer completed the EORTC QLQ-HN43 before the onset of treatment (t1), three months after baseline (t2), and six months after baseline (t3). The methods explored for determining the MID were: (1) group comparisons based on performance status; (2) 0.5 and 0.3 standard deviation and standard error of the mean. The methods examined for the MIC were patients' subjective change ratings and receiver-operating characteristics (ROC) curves, predictive modelling, standard deviation, and standard error of the mean. The EORTC QLQ-HN43 Swallowing scale was used to investigate these methods. Results From 28 hospitals in 18 countries, 503 patients participated. Correlations with the performance status were |r|< 0.4 in 17 out of 19 scales; hence, performance status was regarded as an unsuitable anchor. The ROC approach yielded an implausible MIC and was also discarded. The remaining approaches worked well and delivered MID values ranging from 10 to 14; the MIC for deterioration ranged from 8 to 16 and the MIC for improvement from - 3 to - 14. Conclusions For determining MIDs of the remaining scales of the EORTC QLQ-HN43, we will omit comparisons of groups based on the Karnofsky Performance Score. Other external anchors are needed instead. Distribution-based methods worked well and will be applied as a starting strategy for analyses. For the calculation of MICs, subjective change ratings, predictive modelling, and standard-deviation based approaches are suitable methods whereas ROC analyses seem to be inappropriate.
|
|
| 10. |
|
|
