| 1. |
- Khatri, C, et al.
(författare)
-
Outcomes after perioperative SARS-CoV-2 infection in patients with proximal femoral fractures: an international cohort study
- 2021
-
Ingår i: BMJ open. - : BMJ. - 2044-6055. ; 11:11, s. e050830-
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Studies have demonstrated high rates of mortality in people with proximal femoral fracture and SARS-CoV-2, but there is limited published data on the factors that influence mortality for clinicians to make informed treatment decisions. This study aims to report the 30-day mortality associated with perioperative infection of patients undergoing surgery for proximal femoral fractures and to examine the factors that influence mortality in a multivariate analysis.SettingProspective, international, multicentre, observational cohort study.ParticipantsPatients undergoing any operation for a proximal femoral fracture from 1 February to 30 April 2020 and with perioperative SARS-CoV-2 infection (either 7 days prior or 30-day postoperative).Primary outcome30-day mortality. Multivariate modelling was performed to identify factors associated with 30-day mortality.ResultsThis study reports included 1063 patients from 174 hospitals in 19 countries. Overall 30-day mortality was 29.4% (313/1063). In an adjusted model, 30-day mortality was associated with male gender (OR 2.29, 95% CI 1.68 to 3.13, p<0.001), age >80 years (OR 1.60, 95% CI 1.1 to 2.31, p=0.013), preoperative diagnosis of dementia (OR 1.57, 95% CI 1.15 to 2.16, p=0.005), kidney disease (OR 1.73, 95% CI 1.18 to 2.55, p=0.005) and congestive heart failure (OR 1.62, 95% CI 1.06 to 2.48, p=0.025). Mortality at 30 days was lower in patients with a preoperative diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 (OR 0.6, 95% CI 0.6 (0.42 to 0.85), p=0.004). There was no difference in mortality in patients with an increase to delay in surgery (p=0.220) or type of anaesthetic given (p=0.787).ConclusionsPatients undergoing surgery for a proximal femoral fracture with a perioperative infection of SARS-CoV-2 have a high rate of mortality. This study would support the need for providing these patients with individualised medical and anaesthetic care, including medical optimisation before theatre. Careful preoperative counselling is needed for those with a proximal femoral fracture and SARS-CoV-2, especially those in the highest risk groups.Trial registration numberNCT04323644
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
- Bravo, L, et al.
(författare)
-
- 2021
-
swepub:Mat__t
|
|
| 4. |
- Tabiri, S, et al.
(författare)
-
- 2021
-
swepub:Mat__t
|
|
| 5. |
|
|
| 6. |
|
|
| 7. |
|
|
| 8. |
- Spencer, Samuel, et al.
(författare)
-
Things that make you go Hmm: Myths and misconceptions within cognitive-behavioral treatment of obsessive-compulsive disorder
- 2023
-
Ingår i: Journal of Obsessive-Compulsive and Related Disorders. - : Elsevier BV. - 2211-3649. ; 37
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- The past four decades have yielded a robust body of evidence supporting the efficacy and effectiveness of cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) as a gold-standard treatment for obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) across the lifespan. Exposure and response prevention (E/RP) has been identified as a key component of this approach. Despite robust research support for CBT with E/RP, several myths and misconceptions continue to proliferate in both research and practice settings. Such myths and misconceptions are concerning, as they lack empirical basis, may hinder widespread dissemination and implementation of CBT for OCD, and run contrary to the practice of evidence-based psychological medicine. Focusing on the importance of promoting evidence-based practice and generative clinical science, the present review article synthesizes relevant research within the field of treatments for OCD to address the following myths/misconceptions: (a) uncertainty exists concerning the evidence base supporting CBT for OCD, (b) E/RP attrition and dropout rates are unacceptably high due to excessive risk and perceived patient intolerability, and (c) alternative treatments for OCD need to be expeditiously developed due to major limitations of E/RP. Recommendations for future research and clinical dissemination and implementation to further advance a generative clinical science of OCD treatment are discussed.
|
|
| 9. |
- Storch, Eric A., et al.
(författare)
-
Little Doubt That CBT Works for Pediatric OCD
- 2020
-
Ingår i: Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. - : Elsevier BV. - 0890-8567. ; 59:7, s. 785-787
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- We write with great concern in response to the recent systematic review and meta-analysis of cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) in pediatric obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) by Uhre et al.1 Although the authors’ results consistently support the clinical efficacy of CBT for pediatric OCD, we expect that, much like ourselves, readers will be confused by the discordant and inappropriate conclusions that they put forward. These conclusions stem from the authors’ application and interpretation of their particular qualitative methods, which could lead important stakeholders (eg, parents, patients, clinicians, and payers) to wrongly discount clear evidence for what is known to be the best evidence-based therapy for pediatric OCD.
|
|
