Ability and accuracy of the smartphone-based O`VIEW-M® sperm test: Useful tool in the era of Covid-19.

Male infertility affects up to 12% of men. Although manual testing using microscope examination and computer-assisted semen analysis are standard methods of measuring sperm count and motility, these methods are limited by being laboratory based. To investigate the usefulness of a novel semen analysis device using a smartphone camera. This prospective multicenter randomized parallel design trial enrolled 200 men aged ≥19 years of age between August and December 2018. Each subject was advised to use the Smart Sperm Test for OVIEW-M at home after 5 days of abstinence. The accuracy of the OVIEW-M test relative to the in-hospital test was determined. A questionnaire was administered to assess subject likelihood of using the OVIEW-M. Measurements using standard methods and the OVIEW-M showed similar sperm counts and similar motile sperm counts. Correlation analysis showed significant correlations between sperm count and sperm motility when measured by OVIEW-M tests (r = 0.893, p < 0.01) and standard microscope examination (r = 0.883, p < 0.01). Of the subjects who responded to questionnaires, 43% regarded the results of the OVIEW-M tests as reliable and 18% as unreliable. Semen analysis with the smartphone-based application and accessories yielded results not inferior to those of laboratory tests. Men who visit the hospital for evaluation of infertility can easily perform OVIEW-M semen tests at home.

The Collateral Damage of the Pandemic on Non-COVID Related Pneumothorax Patients: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, there have been many reported cases showing the consequences-or the collateral damages-of COVID-19 on patients with non-COVID-related diseases. This study aimed to compare the clinical manifestations and treatment results of non-COVID-related pneumothorax patients before and during the pandemic. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed non-COVID-related pneumothorax patients who visited our hospital before the onset of the pandemic and during the pandemic. The primary outcome was the difference in the amount of pneumothorax between the two periods, and the secondary outcome was the difference in the treatment results between them. Multivariable logistic regression was conducted to find risk factors related to massive pneumothorax. RESULTS: There were 122 and 88 patients in the pre-pandemic and pandemic groups, respectively. There was no significant difference between the two groups with respect to the preoperative demographic variables. However, the median amount of pneumothorax was significantly higher in the pandemic group (pre-pandemic: 34.75% [interquartile range (IQR) 18.30-62.95] vs. pandemic: 53.55% [IQR 33.58-88.80], p < 0.0001) and massive pneumothorax were more frequent in the pandemic group (52.3% vs. 30.3%, p = 0.002). Furthermore, more patients experienced re-expansion pulmonary edema after treatments during the pandemic (p = 0.0366). In multivariable analysis, the pandemic (OR: 2.70 [95% CI 1.49-4.90], p = 0.0011) was related to the occurrence of massive pneumothorax. CONCLUSION: During the pandemic, patients presented with a larger size of pneumothorax and had more re-expansion pulmonary edema, even in a country that handled the COVID-19 pandemic relatively well.

Changes in Clinical Characteristics among Febrile Patients Visiting the Emergency Department before and after the COVID-19 Outbreak.

PURPOSE: Considering the risk of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) transmission through infected droplets, emergency department (ED) operations in response to febrile patients should be planned. We investigated the general and clinical characteristics of febrile patients visiting the ED and changes in admission rates via the ED during the COVID-19 outbreak. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected patients who visited 402 EDs in the Republic of Korea with febrile symptoms between January 27 and May 31, 2020 and compared them to those enrolled before the COVID-19 outbreak. The primary outcome was admission rate; the secondary outcome was length of stay (LOS) in the ED. RESULTS: In total, 266519 patients had febrile symptoms at ED presentation after the COVID-19 outbreak. In 2019, before the outbreak, there were 437762 patients. The rate of ED visits among pediatric patients (aged <15 years) decreased to 21.4% after the COVID-19 outbreak, compared with 41.8% in 2019. The proportion of patients admitted after ED management was higher after the outbreak (31.3%) than before (25.2%). The adjusted odds ratio for admission was 1.04 (95% confidence interval: 1.02-1.05) after the outbreak. Compared to before the COVID-19 outbreak, the median ED LOS increased by 16 min after the outbreak. CONCLUSION: This study confirmed that admission rates and ED LOS increased for febrile patients visiting the ED after the COVID-19 outbreak. This could provide evidence for developing ED-related strategies in response to the ongoing COVID-19 outbreak and other infectious disease pandemics.