BackgroundVaccination, one of the most important and effective ways of preventing infectious diseases, has recently been used to control the COVID-19 pandemic. The present meta-analysis study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines in reducing the incidence, hospitalization, and mortality from COVID-19.MethodsA systematic search was performed independently in Scopus, PubMed via Medline, ProQuest, and Google Scholar electronic databases as well as preprint servers using the keywords under study. We used random-effect models and the heterogeneity of the studies was assessed using I2 and χ2 statistics. In addition, the Pooled Vaccine Effectiveness (PVE) obtained from the studies was calculated by converting based on the type of outcome.ResultsA total of 54 studies were included in this meta-analysis. The PVE against SARS-COV 2 infection were 71% [odds ratio (OR) = 0.29, 95% confidence intervals (CI): 0.23–0.36] in the first dose and 87% (OR = 0.13, 95% CI: 0.08–0.21) in the second dose. The PVE for preventing hospitalization due to COVID-19 infection was 73% (OR = 0.27, 95% CI: 0.18–0.41) in the first dose and 89% (OR = 0.11, 95% CI: 0.07–0.17) in the second dose. With regard to the type of vaccine, mRNA-1273 and combined studies in the first dose and ChAdOx1 and mRNA-1273 in the second dose had the highest effectiveness in preventing infection. Regarding the COVID-19-related mortality, PVE was 68% (HR = 0.32, 95% CI: 0.23–0.45) in the first dose and 92% (HR = 0.08, 95% CI: 0.02–0.29) in the second dose.ConclusionThe results of this meta-analysis indicated that vaccination against COVID-19 with BNT162b2 mRNA, mRNA-1273, and ChAdOx1, and also their combination, was associated with a favorable effectiveness against SARS-CoV2 incidence rate, hospitalization, and mortality rate in the first and second doses in different populations. We suggest that to prevent the severe form of the disease in the future, and, in particular, in the coming epidemic picks, vaccination could be the best strategy to prevent the severe form of the disease.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews: http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/, identifier [CRD42021289937].
OBJECTIVES: Since poisoning is one of the most important preventable factors contributing to the hospitalization and death of children who present to emergency departments, this study was carried out to investigate the risk factors contributing to the incidence and mortality of acute childhood poisoning.METHODS: This hospital-based case-control study included 243 cases and 489 controls, drawn from daily admissions to the emergency departments of the included hospitals according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria.RESULTS: Gastrointestinal poisoning was the most common poisoning type, found in 87.7% of subjects, and medications were the most common cause of poisoning (49.8%). Multiple logistic regression analysis showed that a history of poisoning (odds ratio [OR], 10.44; 95% confidence interval [CI], 5.58 to 19.51; p<0.001) and the availability of poisonous substances (OR, 8.88; 95% CI, 5.41 to 14.56; p<0.001) were among the most important predictors of childhood poisoning. Respiratory poisoning (OR, 6.72; 95% CI, 1.40 to 32.07; p<0.05) and the presence of addiction in the family (OR, 4.54; 95% CI, 1.10 to 18.68; p<0.05) were the most important predictors of mortality among children with poisoning.CONCLUSIONS: Addiction and the presence of physical or psychological disorders in family members, a history of poisoning, and the availability of poisonous substances were significantly associated with the incidence of childhood poisoning and resultant mortality.
Introduction & ObjectiveVaccination is one of the most important and effective ways of preventing infectious diseases, and has recently been used in the COVID-19 epidemic and pandemic. The present meta-analysis study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines in reducing the incidence of infection, hospitalization, and mortality in observational studies.Materials and MethodsA systematic search was performed independently in Scopus, PubMed, ProQuest, and Google Scholar electronic databases as well as Preprint servers using the keywords under study. The heterogeneity of the studies was assessed using I2and χ2 statistics, according to which the I2 of > 50% and P -value <0.1 was reported as heterogeneity of the studies. In addition, the Pooled Vaccine Effectiveness (PVE) obtained from the studies was calculated by converting (1-Pooled estimate × 100%) based on the type of outcome.ResultsA total of 54 records were included in this meta-analysis. The rate of PVE against SARS-COV 2 infection was about 71% (OR = 0.29, 95% CI: 0.23-0.36) in the first dose and 87% (OR = 0.13, 95% CI: 0.08-0.21) in the second, and the highest effectiveness in the first and second doses was that of BNT162b2 mRNA and combined studies. The PVE versus COVID-19-associated hospitalization was 73% (OR = 0.27, 95% CI: 0.18-0.41) in the first dose and 89% (OR = 0.11, 95% CI: 0.07-0.17) in the second. mRNA-1273 and combined studies in the first dose and ChAdOx1 and mRNA-1273 in the second dose had the highest effectiveness. Regarding the COVID-19-related mortality, PVE was about 28% (HR = 0.39, 95% CI: 0.23-0.45) in the first dose and 89% (HR = 0.11, 95% CI: 0.03-0.43) in the second.ConclusionThe evidence obtained from this study showed that the effectiveness of BNT162b2 mRNA, mRNA-1273, and ChAdOx1 in the first and second doses, and even combined studies were associated with increased effectiveness against SARS-COV2 infection, hospitalization, and death from COVID-19. In addition, considering that the second dose was significantly more efficient than the first one, a booster dose injection could be effective in high-risk individuals. On the other hand, it was important to observe other prevention considerations in the first days after taking the first dose.
Background:In order to assessment of intravascular fluid measurement of central venous pressure (CVP) is used via central venous catheterization (CVC). This procedure is highly invasive and may cause serious complications such as pneumothorax, infection, hematoma and etc. It is so valuable procedure if we can uses a less invasive or noninvasive procedure to assess patients intravascular fluid in critical positions.Objectives:In this study, the ultrasound was used to measure the central venous pressure (CVP).Patients and Methods:In this study, patients with Central venous catheterization were selected using simple random sampling. The largest diameter of longitudinal, transverse views and the cross-section of inferior vena cava (IVC) and internal jugular vein (IJV) were measured using the ultrasound in the bedside of the patients. Central venous pressure was measured using routine methods. Correlations between variables were analyzed using SPSS and linear regression.Results:Twenty patients with the mean age of 60.3 were studied. The main reason for cardiac catheterization was shock. There are no relationship between anterior posterior diameter of inferior vena cava and CVP of patients (P = 0.257). The longest diameter of IVC in ultrasonographic transverse view had significant association with CVP of patients (P = 0.045) but in patients with BMI > 25 it was not significant. Cross section of internal jugular vein had significant association with CVP of patients (P = 0.003). Longitudinal diameter of internal jugular vein had no significant association with CVP of patients (P = 0.052), but transverse diameter of internal jugular generally had significant association with CVP of patients (P = 0.003). Cross section of internal jugular had significant association with CVP (P = 0.001).Conclusions:Noninvasive assessment of the patient hydration condition using the ultrasound is a simple and practicable measure in emergency. With regard to the considerations, it is possible to estimate CVP via diameter measurement and cross-section of the central veins.
BACKGROUND:Due to the prevalence of shoulder injuries among athletes and other people and the prevalence of radiography for these injuries, there are still no valid criteria for indication of doing shoulder radiography.AIM:This study aimed to examine the relationship between some signs and clinical examinations of the shoulder with shoulder bone injuries and the need for radiography.METHODS:This is a cross-sectional study. All patients aged 18-70 years who referred to the emergency ward of Imam Reza and Hasheminejad Hospital in the year 2014 due to blunt trauma and had criteria for entering the study and lacking exclusion criteria were included in the study process. Data on clinical symptoms, radiographic results, and final diagnosis were extracted from the patients’ records through a questionnaire and analysed statistically.RESULTS:There was a significant relationship between the clinical signs of patients Existence of ecchymosis in the shoulder fractures with glenoid and humerus fractures (p = 0.029, p = 0.004 respectively). There was also a significant relationship between clavicle fracture and limitation in shoulder rotation and abduction (p = 0.000 and p = 0.001 respectively). Other clinical symptoms did not show any significant relationship with radiographs indicative of the problem requiring specific treatment.CONCLUSION:Although it is possible to define critters based on clinical symptoms that reduce the need for unnecessary radiographs that the does not reliably help inpatient treatment, but finding these critters to indicate the performance of the graphs in shoulder injuries requires further studies with the higher population and more clinical variables.
Cardiac disease is the second common cause of syncope in emergency departments. Patients with Cardiac syncope have a higher risk of mortality than those who have a non-cardiac problem. Brain natriuretic peptide (BNP) as a cardiac marker has not thoroughly been evaluated in patients with syncope. This article focuses on the studies that have assessed BNP and NT-pro-BNP in cardiac and non-cardiac syncope patients in emergency departments.
Osteoporosis is a major public health challenge all over the world. Estrogen hormone was cited amongst other hormones to be an efficient hormone for the production and maintenance of bone density. This study was designed with the purpose of evaluating and analyzing the estradiol effect on fractures of femur neck in the Iranian society. This study evaluated men over 50 years of age suffering with mild trauma (falling off the same level height or lower) and with a fracture on their femur neck. Also, their serum level of estradiol was measured with an ELISA method. Using this procedure, the patients were assigned into groups with either normal estradiol serum level (10pg/ml and higher) or with lower than normal level (lower than 10 pg/ml). A control group including 50-year-old and older men without hip fracture, or its history, was chosen to access their estradiol serum level. Data collected from these two groups were statistically compared. A total of 120 patients were evaluated (60 in the control and 60 in the test group). The mean age of patients in the control and test groups were 67.9±10.22 and 69.5±8.84 years, respectively (p=0.376). Smoker patients’ percentages in the control and test groups were 35% and 31.7%, respectively (p=0.699). On the basis of the serum estradiol level, patients’ percentages with low estradiol level in control and test groups were 10% and 16.7%, respectively (p=0.283). The only significant factor in predicting serum estradiol level was smoking. In conclusion, in this study it was observed that fractures of the femoral neck following a mild trauma were not correlated to low level of serum estradiol.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.