Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 6 de 6
Filter
1.
Antimicrobial Stewardship & Healthcare Epidemiology : ASHE ; 2(1):e117, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2159989

ABSTRACT

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1017/ash.2021.254.].

2.
Antimicrobial Stewardship and Healthcare Epidemiology ; 2(1), 2022.
Article in English | Scopus | ID: covidwho-1984307

ABSTRACT

In the above article1, the original title: "Evaluation of prevalance and risk factors for bloodstream infection in severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients": : : contained a spelling error. The title has since been corrected to read: "Evaluation of prevalence and risk factors for bloodstream infection in severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients. © The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America.

3.
Gazi Medical Journal ; 32(4A):651-654, 2021.
Article in English | Web of Science | ID: covidwho-1543001

ABSTRACT

Objective: COVID-19 (Coronavirus disease 2019) is a global pandemic that affected more than 125 million people all over the world. Vaccines will play a key role in the control of this pandemic. Although inactive vaccine technologies are reliable and being used for a long time, Coronavac is a newly developed vaccine and studies on the side effects of this vaccine are limited. The aims of this study is to evaluate the frequency of possible side effects of Coronovac vaccine and to investigate whether there is a difference between the 1st and 2nd dose vaccines in terms of the frequency of side effects. Methods: This single-center, retrospective descriptive study was carried out in health care workers (HCWs) of Gazi University Hospital who received 2 doses of Coronavac vaccine between January and March 2021. At least 14 days after 2 dose of vaccination, serious advers events, non-serious advers events and possible side effects are collected by the questionnaire forms prepared for the study by the researchers. All data were analyzed by IBM SPSS Statistics version 20.0 (IBM Corp., Armonk, N.Y., USA). The questionnaire forms, prepared for the study, were delivered to volunteer HCWs manually or online by the researchers at least 14 days after 2 dose of vaccination. The data obtained through the questionnaires were transferred to the computing environment and analyzed. Results: 1102 HCWs were enrolled in the study and 392 (35.6 %) had at least one adverse event after the 1st or 2 nd dose Coronavac vaccine. The most common adverse events were: Headache 230 (20.9%), fatigue 225 (20.4 %) and local reactions 193 (17.5%). Serious adverse events occurred in 3 (0.3 %) patients (1 Anaphylaxis,2 Angioedema) after vaccination. The majority of adverse events associated with Coronavac vaccine occured within the first 48 hours. The incidence of adverse events after vaccination is higher in healthcare workers with a known history of vaccine and non-vaccine allergies (42.7% vs. 34.3%, p<0.05, Chi-square test). More frequent side effects were observed after second doses in healthcare workers who developed side effects after the 1st dose of vaccine (70.5% vs. 5.3, p<0.01, Chi-square test) Conclusion: In our study, we found that short-term adverse events of Coronovac vaccine were found to be consistent with phase 1/2 studies and it was observed to be safe for clinical use. However, there is still a need for long-term follow-up in terms of monitoring side effects after administration for the safety of vaccine use.

4.
Mediterranean Journal of Infection, Microbes and Antimicrobials ; 10, 2021.
Article in English | EMBASE | ID: covidwho-1344487

ABSTRACT

Introduction: The effectivity of cloth masks is one of the major concerns during pandemic. In this study, the filtration ability of different cloth masks was compared. Materials and Methods: We examined the filtration ability of different cloth masks in "Touch Screen Aerosol Photometer"DOP3500 machine by testing 0,3-0,5 μm diameter standart "aerosol"particle at mask factory (MAKSAM) of Mechanical and Chemical Industry Company located in Ankara. In order to show the difference in filtration ability of the cloth maskes clearly, particule size was defined as 0,3-0,5 μm. Pure silk 100%, 80% silk + 20% polyester, 100% satin, 100% polyester, 100% cotton, 100% bamboo and 50% cotton + 50% polyester were compared. Cloth masks made from these materials were tested three times;before washing, after ten times washing and combined using with a medical mask. Results: N95/FFP-2 respirator was used as a "positive control"with a filtration ability of 99.7%. Measurable filtration ability of total particle counts was 18.2% of three layered medical mask. When we tested double medical mask, reduction of total particle counts reached to 31.6%. According to our result, we conclude that wearing double medical mask is more protective than wearing a single medical mask. Measureable reduction of total particle counts were different for all tested cloth masks. Cloth masks were tested second time after 10 times washing. Un-washed cloth mask made from 80% silk + 20% polyester was found to be protective, however after ten times washing particle counts of the same mask reduced markedly. Measurable reduction of total particle counts were also reduced after ten times washing of cloth masks made from 100% satin and 100% polyester. The most efficient cloth mask for blocking particules was 100% cotton after ten times washing. Conclusion: Our study offers evidence in favor of synthetic and polyester materials are not suitable for cloth masks since their filtration ability is reduced after multiple washing. Instead, use of cotton masks is more preventive than the others because of its increased filtration ability after washing. Combined wearing of medical mask and cloth mask together resulted in increased efficacy of filtration ability of both masks. We conclude that, wearing double mask is more effective than wearing a single mask when we consider the actual status of the pandemic with widespread distribution of mutant viruses and the high number of infected individuals in the public.

5.
Gazi Medical Journal ; 32(2):213-218, 2021.
Article in English | Web of Science | ID: covidwho-1257156

ABSTRACT

Objective: The aim of the study is to compare the differences between COVID-19 pneumonia and other viral pneumonia (OVP) in terms of demographic, clinical and radiological features. Methods: This retrospective cohort study was conducted in Gazi University Hospital between 11 March and 24 May 2020. Patients, admitted to the hospital with suspected COVID-19 infection aged >18 years and those who had pneumonia on chest computed tomography (CT) scan were evaluated. SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR and multiplex PCR, for other respiratory viruses, were performed. Patients with a positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR were included in "COVID-19 pneumonia" group and those who had a positive result for any other respiratory viruses and two consecutive negative results for SARS-CoV-2 were included in the "OVP" group. Two groups were compared in terms of clinical, laboratory and chest CT findings. Results: Of the 63 patients included in the study, 45 had COVID-19 pneumonia and 18 had OVP. Cough, nasal congestion, sputum production and leukocytosis were more common in the OVP group while leukopenia was more common in the COVID-19 pneumonia (p<0.05). The distribution pattern of parenchymal lesions on chest CT was more likely to be predominantly peripheral and posterior in COVID-19 pneumonia compared to OVP. Bilateral involvement was also more frequent in COVID-19 group compared to OVP (p<0.05). Conclusion: Distinguishing COVID-19 pneumonia from OVP with clinical and laboratory findings is difficult. Chest CT findings such as peripheral and posterior distribution of the parenchymal lesions and bilateral involvement may help to differentiate COVID-19 pneumonia from OVP.

6.
Gazi Medical Journal ; 31(2):309-315, 2020.
Article in Turkish | EMBASE | ID: covidwho-682432

ABSTRACT

"Conoronavirus Disease" (COVID-19) abbreviation is used for the identification of the new disease alerted in Wuhan city of China at the end of year 2019. COVID-19 is caused by "Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus-2" (SARS-CoV-2). Special pandemic precautions are designed for the control of virus spread by inhaling droplets or contact touching surfaces. Authorities were concentrated on the education of healthcare workers, personal protective equipment (PPE) were pursued, and the hospital wards were re-designed during COVID-19 pandemic. In this paper, infection control precautions conducted in health facilities were reviewed on the basis of practices of Infection Control Committee (ICC) of Gazi University Hospital following the first COVID-19 case reported at 11 March 2020 in our country. Technical properties of PPEs, donning and doffing procedures, recommendations of PPE for each specific clinical situation for each specific healthcare worker were evaluated in this review.

SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL