No abstract

Intravenous paracetamol is effective in treating patients presenting with renal colic to the emergency department. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION NO: ClinicalTrials.gov ID number NCT01318187.

No abstract

Objective: The objective of this study is to investigate reliability and accuracy of the information on YouTube videos related to CPR and BLS in accord with 2010 CPR guidelines.

Intravenous paracetamol and dexketoprofen appear to produce equivalent pain relief for migraine in the emergency department. CLINICALTRIALS.GOV NO: NCT01730326.

BACKGROUND: Harmless acute pancreatitis score (HAPS), neutrophile/lymphocyte ratio and red blood cell distribution width (RDW) are used to determine the early prognosis of patients diagnosed with nontraumatic acute pancreatitis in the emergency department (ED). METHODS:Patients diagnosed with acute pancreatitis (K 85.9) in the ED according to the ICD10 coding during one year were included in the study. Patients with chronic pancreatitis and those who had missing data in their files were excluded from the study. Patients who did not have computed tomography (CT) in the ED were not included in the study. RESULTS:Ultimately, 322 patients were included in the study. The median age of the patients was 53.1 (IQR=36-64). Of the patients, 68.1% (n=226) had etiological causes of the biliary tract. The mortality rate of these patients within the fi rst 48 hours was 4.3% (n=14). In the logistic regression analysis performed by using Balthazar classification, HAPS score, RDW, neutrophile/lymphocyte ratio, age, diabetes mellitus and systolic blood pressure, the only independent variable in determining mortality was assigned as Balthazar classifi cation (OR: 15; 95% CI: 3.5 to 64.4).CONCLUSIONS: HAPS, neutrophile/lymphocyte ratio and RDW were not effective in determining the mortality of nontraumatic acute pancreatitis cases within the fi rst 48 hours. The only independent variable for determining the mortality was Balthazar classifi cation.

Study objective The objective of this study was to determine the analgesic efficacy and safety of intravenous, single-dose paracetamol versus dexketoprofen versus morphine in patients presenting with mechanical low back pain (LBP) to the emergency department (ED). Methods This randomised double-blind study compared the efficacy of intravenous 1 gm paracetamol, 50 mg dexketoprofen and 0.1 mg/kg morphine in patients with acute mechanical LBP. Visual analogue scale (VAS) was used for pain measurement at baseline, after 15 and after 30 min. Results A total of 874 patients were eligible for the study, and 137 of them were included in the final analysis: 46 patients from the paracetamol group, 46 patients in the dexketoprofen group and 45 patients in the morphine group. The mean age of study subjects was 31.5±9.5 years, and 60.6% (n=83) of them were men. The median reduction in VAS score at the 30th minute for the paracetamol group was 65 mm (95% CI 58 to 72), 67 mm (95% CI 60 to 73) for the morphine group and 58 mm (95% CI 50 to 64) for the dexketoprophen group. Although morphine was not superior to paracetamol at 30 min (difference: 3.8±4.9 (95% CI −6 to 14), the difference between morphine and dexketoprofen in reducing pain was 11.2±4.7 (95% CI 2 to 21). At least one adverse effect occurred in 8.7% (n=4) of the cases in the paracetamol group, 15.5% (n=7) of the morphine group, and 8.7% (n=4) of the dexketoprophen group ( p=0.482). Conclusions Intravenous paracetamol, dexketoprofen and morphine are not superior to each other for the treatment of mechanical LBP in ED.

Objectives:To analyze descriptive data and characteristics of work-related eye injuries (WREI) admitted into the emergency department (ED) and obtain information to utilize in planning measures to prevent WREI.Materials and Methods:This prospective study recruited patients with WREI admitted to the center in the two-year study period. Only the casualties occurred at the workplace and while working constituted the sample. The data were collected via face-to-face contact in the ED.Results:Males comprised the majority of the sample (95.3%, n = 778) and mean age of the patients was 28.1 ± 6.5 (range: 15-54) with the biggest percentage in between 25 and 34 years of age (46.2%, n = 377). Most patients were working in the metal and machinery sectors (66.4%, n = 542). Nearly half of the patients had less than 1 year of experience (50.4%, n = 411). The most common mechanism of WREI was noted to be exposures to welding light (26.9%, n = 219), followed by drilling/cutting injuries (21.1%, n = 172). “Carelessness” and “hurrying up” were the most commonly reported causes of WREIs among ‘worker-related causes’ (21.4% and 16.1%, respectively). Lack of protective measures ranked the highest among workplace-related causes (18.7%, n = 207).Conclusions:Programs to increase awareness on workplace safety and sound preventive strategies for both parties-employers and employees are to be pursued. Occupational safety efforts should include training on workplace eye safety and campaigns to raise knowledgeability on this disease among workers.