No abstract

No abstract

Background: Artificial intelligence (AI), with its seemingly limitless power, holds the promise to truly revolutionize patient healthcare. However, the discourse carried out in public does not always correlate with the actual impact. Thus, we aimed to obtain both an overview of how French health professionals perceive the arrival of AI in daily practice and the perception of the other actors involved in AI to have an overall understanding of this issue. Methods: Forty French stakeholders with diverse backgrounds were interviewed in Paris between October 2017 and June 2018 and their contributions analyzed using the grounded theory method (GTM). Results: The interviews showed that the various actors involved all see AI as a myth to be debunked. However, their views differed. French healthcare professionals, who are strategically placed in the adoption of AI tools, were focused on providing the best and safest care for their patients. Contrary to popular belief, they are not always seeing the use of these tools in their practice. For healthcare industrial partners, AI is a true breakthrough but legal difficulties to access individual health data could hamper its development. Institutional players are aware that they will have to play a significant role concerning the regulation of the use of these tools. From an external point of view, individuals without a conflict of interest have significant concerns about the sustainability of the balance between health, social justice, and freedom. Health researchers specialized in AI have a more pragmatic point of view and hope for a better transition from research to practice. Conclusion: Although some hyperbole has taken over the discourse on AI in healthcare, diverse opinions and points of view have emerged among French stakeholders. The development of AI tools in healthcare will be satisfactory for everyone only by initiating a collaborative effort between all those involved. It is thus time to also consider the opinion of patients and, together, address the remaining questions, such as that of responsibility.

No abstract

Objective: The objective of this review was to synthesise the literature and evaluate the incidence, prevalence and severity of medical device-related pressure ulcers (MDRPU) in adult intensive care patients. Method: Electronic databases and additional grey literature were searched for publications between 2000 and 2017. Outcome measures included cumulative incidence or incidence rate, point prevalence or period prevalence as a primary outcome and the severity and location of the pressure ulcer (PU) as secondary outcome measures. Included studies were assessed for risk of bias using a nine-item checklist for prevalence studies. The heterogeneity was evaluated using 12 statistic. Results: We included 13 studies in this review. Prevalence was reported more frequently than incidence. Pooled data demonstrated a high variation in the incidence and prevalence rates ranging from 0.9% to 41.2% in incidence and 1.4% to 121% in prevalence. Heterogeneity was high. Mucosal pressure injuries were the most common stage reported in the incidence studies whereas category II followed by category I were most commonly reported in the prevalence studies. In the incidence studies, the most common location was the ear and in the prevalence studies it was the nose. Conclusion: While MDRPU are common in intensive care patients, it is an understudied area. Inconsistency in the staging of MDRPU, along with variations in data collection methods, study design and reporting affect the reported incidence and prevalence rates. Standardisation of data reporting and collection method is essential for pooling of future studies.

In this pilot trial, we have demonstrated that highly purified 1000-cSt silicone oil is a safe and effective treatment option for human immunodeficiency virus facial lipoatrophy. Longer-term safety and efficacy in human immunodeficiency virus patients remain to be proven.

No abstract

Purpose-To examine the relationship between the prevalence of open-angle glaucoma (OAG) and intraocular pressure (IOP) and the impact of central corneal thickness (CCT) on this relationship.Design-Population based cross-sectional study.Methods-The study cohort consisted of 5970 participants from the Los Angeles Latino Eye Study (LALES) with no history of glaucoma treatment and with complete ophthalmic examination data. The relationship between the prevalence of OAG and IOP was contrasted across persons with CCT designated as thin, normal or thick.Results-Prevalence of OAG was exponentially related to IOP. When stratified by CCT, persons with thin CCT had a significantly higher prevalence of OAG than did those with normal or thick CCT's at all levels of IOP. Adjusting each IOP individually for CCT did not impact significantly the relationship between the prevalence of OAG and IOP.Conclusions-These findings suggest that adjusting for the impact of CCT on IOP by correction algorithms is not necessary in a population analysis of glaucoma prevalence; CCT and other associated corneal properties, however, are important independent risk factors for the prevalence of OAG.