Background: Caring for a child with Type 1 Diabetes (T1D) pose a significant burden on parents especially when they struggle with their child's T1D management. The experience of not coping or struggling to cope increases the level of stress in parents, which may adversely affect their child's diabetic control (Al Dubayee et al, Horm Res Paediatr 88:2019). In this study, we assessed the level of stress parents experience in caring for a child diagnosed with T1D in four different domains. Methods: This was a cross-sectional study conducted in two specialized diabetic centers in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, from February to May 2015 (Al Dubayee et al, Horm Res Paediatr 88:2019). We used an Arabic translation of the validated Pediatric Inventory for Parents (PIP) questionnaire. The frequency and perceived difficulty of stressful events were rated by interviewing parents caring for children with T1D using two 5-point Likert scales. Results: The sample realized as 390 parents. The level of stress increased in separated and unemployed parents. The frequency (mean 64.9/210, SD 7.529) and difficulty (mean 65.3/210, SD 9.448) indices of the parental level of stress were compared with variables possibly associated with stress. Both of the frequency difficulty indices correlated with the marital status, the father's level of education and occupation as well as HbA1c level (P-value < 0.05). In addition, the frequency index correlated with the frequency of hypoglycemia and the difficulty index correlated with the number of children in the family (P-value < 0.05). Conclusion: Parents of children with T1D in Riyadh experience a significant level of stress that may affect the child's glycemic control (Al Dubayee et al, Horm Res Paediatr 88:2019). Assessing the level of stress and providing support for these families has the potential to improve the clinical outcome.
BackgroundSudomotor dysfunction is manifested clinically as abnormal sweating leading to dryness of feet skin and increased risk of foot ulceration. The aim of this study was to test the performance of foot electrochemical skin conductance (ESC) to detect diabetic peripheral neuropathy and the risk of foot ulceration against traditional methods in Saudi patients with diabetes mellitus.MethodsThis cross-sectional study was conducted on 296 Saudi patients with diabetes mellitus. Painful neuropathic symptoms were evaluated using the neuropathy symptom score (NSS). The risk of foot ulceration and diabetic peripheral neuropathy were determined using the neuropathy disability score (NDS). Vibration perception threshold (VPT) was assessed using neurothesiometer. Neurophysiological assessment of the right and left sural, peroneal and tibial nerves was performed in 222 participants. Diabetic peripheral neuropathy was defined according to the definition of the American Academy of Neurology. ESC was measured with Sudoscan.ResultsFeet-ESC decreased as the scores of sensory and motor function tests increased. Feet-ESC decreased as the NSS, NDS and severity of diabetic peripheral neuropathy increased. Sensitivity of feet-ESC < 50μS to detect diabetic peripheral neuropathy assessed by VPT ≥ 25 V, NDS ≥ 3, NDS ≥ 6 was 90.1, 61 and 63.8 % respectively and specificity 77, 85 and 81.9 % respectively. Sensitivity of feet-ESC < 70μS to detect diabetic peripheral neuropathy assessed by VPT ≥ 25 V, NDS ≥ 3, NDS ≥ 6 was 100, 80.6 and 80.9 % respectively. Sensitivity and specificity of feet-ESC < 70μS to detect confirmed-diabetic peripheral neuropathy were 67.5 and 58.9 % respectively.ConclusionSudoscan a simple and objective tool can be used to detect diabetic peripheral neuropathy and the risk of foot ulceration among patients with diabetes mellitus. Prospective studies to confirm our results are warranted.
Background Pulmonary embolism (PE) diagnosis can sometimes be challenging due to the disease having nonspecific signs and symptoms at the time of presentation. The present study aimed to evaluate the validity of the D-dimer in combination with the revised Geneva score (RGS) in the prediction of pulmonary embolism. Patients and Methods This is a retrospective study of 2010 patients with suspected PE who had undergone both D-dimer testing followed by chest CT angiography (CTPA), irrespective of the D-dimer test results, at King Abdulaziz Medical City, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, over 3 years, from Jan. 2016 to Jan. 2019. The predictive accuracy of D-dimer, adjusted D-dimer, and RGS was calculated. The receiver operating characteristic “ROC” curve was applied to allocate the optimum RGS cutoff for PE prediction. Results The overall prevalence of PE was 16%. It was 0%, 25.8%, and 88.9% in low, intermediate, and high clinical probability categories of RGS, respectively. Both conventional and age-adjusted D-dimer thresholds showed significant level of agreement (kappa=0.81, p<0.001), high sensitivity (94% and 92.8%), high negative predictive value “NPV” (91.2% and 91.4%), low specificity (12.3% and 15.3%), and low positive predictive value “PPV” (17.5% and 17.8%), respectively. Combination of the age-adjusted D-dimer threshold and RGS at a cut-off of 5 points would provide 100% sensitivity and 61.7% specificity 34.1% PPV, 100% NPV, and 0.87 area under the curve “AUC”. At an RGS cutoff <5 points, PE could have been ruled out in more than one-half (1036, 51.5%) of all suspected cases, and would have saved the cost of CTPA. Conclusion Conventional and age-adjusted D-dimer tests showed high levels of agreement in the prediction of PE, high sensitivity, and low specificity. RGS has a good performance in PE prediction. Using the revised Geneva score alone rules out PE for more than one-half of all suspected without further imaging.
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.