Introduction Coronavirus Disease 2019 is a primarily respiratory illness that can cause thrombotic disorders. Elevation of D-dimer is a potential biomarker for poor prognosis in COVID-19, though optimal cutoff value for D-dimer to predict mortality has not yet been established. This study aims to assess the accuracy of admission D-dimer in the prognosis of COVID-19 and to establish the optimal cutoff D-dimer value to predict hospital mortality. Methods Clinical and laboratory parameters and outcomes of confirmed COVID-19 cases admitted to four hospitals in Kathmandu were retrospectively analyzed. Admitted COVID-19 cases with recorded D-dimer and definitive outcomes were included consecutively. D-dimer was measured using immunofluorescence assay and reported in Fibrinogen Equivalent Unit (μg/ml). The receiver operating characteristic curve was used to determine the accuracy of D-dimer in predicting mortality, and to calculate the optimal cutoff value, based on which patients were divided into two groups and predictive value of D-dimer for mortality was measured. Results 182 patients were included in the study out of which 34(18.7%) died during the hospital stay. The mean admission D-dimer among surviving patients was 1.067 μg/ml (±1.705 μg/ml), whereas that among patients who died was 3.208 μg/ml (±2.613 μg/ml). ROC curve for D-dimer and mortality gave an area under the curve of 0.807 (95% CI 0.728–0.886, p<0.001). Optimal cutoff value for D-dimer was 1.5 μg/ml (sensitivity 70.6%, specificity 78.4%). On Cox proportional hazards regression analysis, the unadjusted hazard ratio for high D-dimer was 6.809 (95% CI 3.249–14.268, p<0.001), and 5.862 (95% CI 2.751–12.489, p<0.001) when adjusted for age. Conclusion D-dimer value on admission is an accurate biomarker for predicting mortality in patients with COVID-19. 1.5 μg/ml is the optimal cutoff value of admission D-dimer for predicting mortality in COVID-19 patients.

Introduced in the 1970s to meet the academic needs of a growing number of students with relatively stagnant faculty, team-based learning (TBL) has revolutionized the modern classroom structure. Contrary to the traditional didactic model where the teacher assumes the central role and students are passive listeners, TBL participants are actively involved in the learning process. Teachers act as facilitators while the TBL participants work in groups to solve problems through engagement with their peers. The objective of the article is to conduct a systematic review on team-based learning using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guideline.The studies were searched in databases like PubMed®, Scopus®, Embase®, and PubMed Central® using appropriate keywords. Two authors screened the papers, and a third author resolved the conflicts. This was followed by a bibliographic review based on the references of the selected study and bias assessment using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) critical appraisal tool.The team-based learning model is increasingly being used by different institutions globally. TBL and traditional lecture-based teaching outcomes revealed that TBL participants performed better in academic, clinical, and communication domains. In addition, TBL enhanced learners' engagement, collaborative spirit, and satisfaction. Our study results are similar to the prior meta-analysis and systematic review. Nevertheless, this systematic review remains more comprehensive, up-to-date, and inclusive thus far.Team-based learning is a pragmatic and superior approach to learning among health care professionals. It has resulted in better academic, clinical, and communication outcomes. This finding spans all the medical and allied professions studied in this systematic review.

Aims: To evaluate the prevalence and risk factors of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) from 2000-2020 in various parts of Nepal. Methods: PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Google Scholar were searched using the appropriate keywords. All Nepalese studies mentioning the prevalence of T2DM and/or details such as risk factors were included. Studies were screened using Covidence. Two reviewers independently selected studies based on the inclusion criteria. Meta-analysis was conducted using Comprehensive Meta-Analysis Software v.3. Results: A total of 15 studies met the inclusion criteria. The prevalence of T2DM, pre-diabetes, and impaired glucose tolerance in Nepal in the last two decades was 10% (CI, 7.1%- 13.9%), 19.4% (CI, 11.2%- 31.3%), and 11.0% (CI, 4.3%- 25.4%) respectively. The prevalence of T2DM in the year 2010-15 was 7.75% (CI, 3.67-15.61), and it increased to 11.24% between 2015-2020 (CI, 7.89-15.77). There were 2.19 times higher odds of having T2DM if the body mass index was ≥24.9 kg/m2. Analysis showed normal waist circumference, normal blood pressure, and no history of T2DM in a family has 64.1%, 62.1%, and 67.3% lower odds of having T2DM, respectively. Conclusion: The prevalence of T2DM, pre-diabetes, and impaired glucose tolerance in Nepal was estimated to be 10%, 19.4%, and 11% respectively.

Gallstone disease is the common cause of acute pancreatitis. The role of early endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) in biliary pancreatitis without cholangitis is not well-established. Thus, this study aims to compare the outcome of early ERCP with conservative management in patients with acute biliary pancreatitis without acute cholangitis. An online search of PubMed, PubMed Central, Embase, Scopus, and Clinicaltrials.gov databases was performed for relevant studies published till December 15, 2020. Statistical analysis was performed using RevMan v 5.4 (The Nordic Cochrane Centre, Cochrane Collaboration, Copenhagen). Odds Ratio (OR) with a 95% confidence interval was used for outcome estimation. Among 2700 studies from the database search, we included four studies in the final analysis. Pooling of data showed no significant reduction in mortality (OR 0.59, 95% CI 0.32 to 1.09; p=0.09); overall complications (OR 0.56, 95% CI 0.30 to 1.01; p=0.05); new-onset organ failure (OR 1.06, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.75; p=0.81); pancreatic necrosis (OR 0.80, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.32; p=0.38); pancreatic pseudo-cyst (OR 0.44, 95% CI 0.16 to 1.24; p=0.12); ICU admission (OR 1.64, 95% CI 0.97 to 2.77; p=0.06); and pneumonia development (OR 0.81, 95% CI 0.40 to 1.65; p=0.56) by urgent ERCP comparing with conventional approach for acute biliary pancreatitis without cholangitis. Henceforth, early ERCP in acute biliary pancreatitis without cholangitis did not reduce mortality, complications, and other adverse outcomes compared to the conservative treatment.

No abstract