Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 13 de 13
Filter
1.
Diagn Progn Res ; 6(1): 12, 2022 Apr 25.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1808409

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: In response to the global COVID-19 pandemic, many in vitro diagnostic (IVD) tests for SARS-CoV-2 have been developed. Given the urgent clinical demand, researchers must balance the desire for precise estimates of sensitivity and specificity against the need for rapid implementation. To complement estimates of precision used for sample size calculations, we aimed to estimate the probability that an IVD will fail to perform to expected standards after implementation, following clinical studies with varying sample sizes. METHODS: We assumed that clinical validation study estimates met the 'desirable' performance (sensitivity 97%, specificity 99%) in the target product profile (TPP) published by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA). To estimate the real-world impact of imprecision imposed by sample size we used Bayesian posterior calculations along with Monte Carlo simulations with 10,000 independent iterations of 5,000 participants. We varied the prevalence between 1 and 15% and the sample size between 30 and 2,000. For each sample size, we estimated the probability that diagnostic accuracy would fail to meet the TPP criteria after implementation. RESULTS: For a validation study that demonstrates 'desirable' sensitivity within a sample of 30 participants who test positive for COVID-19 using the reference standard, the probability that real-world performance will fail to meet the 'desirable' criteria is 10.7-13.5%, depending on prevalence. Theoretically, demonstrating the 'desirable' performance in 90 positive participants would reduce that probability to below 5%. A marked reduction in the probability of failure to hit 'desirable' specificity occurred between samples of 100 (19.1-21.5%) and 160 (4.3-4.8%) negative participants. There was little further improvement above sample sizes of 160 negative participants. CONCLUSION: Based on imprecision alone, small evaluation studies can lead to the acceptance of diagnostic tests which are likely to fail to meet performance targets when deployed. There is diminished return on uncertainty surrounding an accuracy estimate above a total sample size of 250 (90 positive and 160 negative).

2.
Emerg Med J ; 39(1): 70-76, 2022 Jan.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1504636

ABSTRACT

Point-of-care tests for SARS-CoV-2 could enable rapid rule-in and/or rule-out of COVID-19, allowing rapid and accurate patient cohorting and potentially reducing the risk of nosocomial transmission. As COVID-19 begins to circulate with other more common respiratory viruses, there is a need for rapid diagnostics to help clinicians test for multiple potential causative organisms simultaneously.However, the different technologies available have strengths and weaknesses that must be understood to ensure that they are used to the benefit of the patient and healthcare system. Device performance is related to the deployed context, and the diagnostic characteristics may be affected by user experience.This practice review is written by members of the UK's COVID-19 National Diagnostic Research and Evaluation programme. We discuss relative merits and test characteristics of various commercially available technologies. We do not advocate for any given test, and our coverage of commercially supplied tests is not intended to be exhaustive.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Humans , Point-of-Care Testing , SARS-CoV-2
5.
BMJ Open ; 11(7): e049680, 2021 07 09.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1304231

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: The psychological impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on doctors is a significant concern. Due to the emergence of multiple pandemic waves, longitudinal data on the impact of COVID-19 are vital to ensure an adequate psychological care response. The primary aim was to assess the prevalence and degree of psychological distress and trauma in frontline doctors during the acceleration, peak and deceleration of the COVID-19 first wave. Personal and professional factors associated with psychological distress are also reported. DESIGN: A prospective online three-part longitudinal survey. SETTING: Acute hospitals in the UK and Ireland. PARTICIPANTS: Frontline doctors working in emergency medicine, anaesthetics and intensive care medicine during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in March 2020. PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Psychological distress and trauma measured using the General Health Questionnaire-12 and the Impact of Events-Revised. RESULTS: The initial acceleration survey distributed across networks generated a sample of 5440 doctors. Peak and deceleration response rates from the original sample were 71.6% (n=3896) and 56.6% (n=3079), respectively. Prevalence of psychological distress was 44.7% (n=1334) during the acceleration, 36.9% (n=1098) at peak and 31.5% (n=918) at the deceleration phase. The prevalence of trauma was 23.7% (n=647) at peak and 17.7% (n=484) at deceleration. The prevalence of probable post-traumatic stress disorder was 12.6% (n=343) at peak and 10.1% (n=276) at deceleration. Worry of family infection due to clinical work was the factor most strongly associated with both distress (R2=0.06) and trauma (R2=0.10). CONCLUSION: Findings reflect a pattern of elevated distress at acceleration and peak, with some natural recovery. It is essential that policymakers seek to prevent future adverse effects through (a) provision of vital equipment to mitigate physical and psychological harm, (b) increased awareness and recognition of signs of psychological distress and (c) the development of clear pathways to effective psychological care. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN10666798.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Psychological Distress , Cohort Studies , Cross-Sectional Studies , Humans , Ireland/epidemiology , Longitudinal Studies , Pandemics , Prospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2 , United Kingdom/epidemiology
6.
BMJ Simul Technol Enhanc Learn ; 7(6): 524-527, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1276970

ABSTRACT

Purpose of the study: SARS-CoV-2 has caused healthcare systems globally to reorganise. A pandemic paradox emerged; while clinicians were desperate for information on a new disease, they had less time to find and evaluate the vast volume of publications at times of significant strain on healthcare systems.A multidisciplinary team undertook a weekly literature search capturing all COVID-19 publications. We also monitored free open access medical education (FOAMed) sources for emerging themes. Title and abstract screening pooled the most relevant papers for emergency medicine. Three summary types were created, a 'Top 5 Flash Update', a journal club and a rapid response to emerging FOAMed themes. From these summaries, three modes of dissemination were used: short written summaries, blogs and podcasts. These were amplified through social media. Study design: A retrospective review was conducted assessing the impact of this knowledge dissemination strategy for the period of March to September 2020. Results: In total, 64 687 papers were identified and screened. Of the papers included in the 'Top 5', 28.3% were on epidemiology, 23.6% treatment, 16.7% diagnostics, 12% prognosis, 8.7% pathophysiology with the remaining 10.7% consisting of PPE, public health, well-being and 'other'. We published 37 blogs, 17 podcasts and 18 Top 5 Flash Updates. The blogs were read 138 343 times, the Top 5 Flash Updates 68 610 times and the podcasts had 72 501 listens. Conclusion: A combination of traditional academic and novel social media approaches can address the pandemic paradox clinicians are facing.

9.
Emergency Medicine Journal : EMJ ; 37(12):834-835, 2020.
Article in English | ProQuest Central | ID: covidwho-939889

ABSTRACT

Aims/Objectives/BackgroundEntering lockdown on 23rd March 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic marked an unprecedented period for healthcare evidence. An exponential increase in published work, pre-prints, guidelines, online information portals and more, has been overwhelming especially when combined with the ever-changing local emergency department responses to COVID-19. Many research projects were either suspended in favour of clinical work or re-routed into pandemic-oriented studies. All the while, the gap between clinical providers and a mountain of information was growing. Our team developed a strategy to deliver the most pertinent evidence to those working in emergency medicine, taking some stress out this aspect of COVID-19 working.Methods/DesignEach week a search was conducted using PubMed of everything produced in the previous 7 days. The number of titles varied from approximately 800 to 2500. A 3 to 5 person team distilled titles and then reviewed abstracts for papers of importance and relevance to emergency medicine. Relevant and high impact journals were individually searched over the same time period. Summaries of the short-listed papers were produced and the weekly editorial team selected 5 for inclusion in the weekly RCEM Top 5 and others were combined for extra reading as part of a 2–3 weekly ‘Director’s Cut’.Results/ConclusionsThe RCEM Top 5 (at time of writing) has been run for 13 weeks. The summaries themselves were accessed by between 3000 and 6000 RCEM members/fellows each week. The work has also fed into online journal clubs and blogs (combined views of over 30,000) and has attracted interest from wider colleagues nationally and internationally to both join and even replicate the approach to other relevant areas. The positive feedback is best summarised in the following quote: ‘when I’m too mentally overcooked to do any reading on my own this helps me feel I am doing some keeping up. Please continue!’

10.
Emergency Medicine Journal : EMJ ; 37(7):450, 2020.
Article in English | ProQuest Central | ID: covidwho-830491
11.
BMJ Open ; 10(8): e039851, 2020 08 11.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-714130

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: The COVID-19 pandemic is putting an unprecedented strain on healthcare systems globally. The psychological impact on frontline doctors of dealing with the COVID-19 pandemic is currently unknown. This longitudinal professional survey aims to understand the evolving and cumulative effects of working during the COVID-19 outbreak on the psychological well-being of doctors working in emergency departments (ED), intensive care units (ICU) and anaesthetics during the pandemic. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This study is a longitudinal questionnaire-based study with three predefined time points spanning the acceleration, peak and deceleration phases of the COVID-19 pandemic.The primary outcomes are psychological distress and post-trauma stress as measured by the General Health Questionnaire-12 (GHQ-12) and Impact of Events Scale-Revised (IES-R). Data related to personal and professional characteristics will also be collected. Questionnaires will be administered prospectively to all doctors working in ED, ICU and anaesthetics in the UK and Ireland via existing research networks during the sampling period. Data from the questionnaires will be analysed to assess the prevalence and degree of psychological distress and trauma, and the nature of the relationship between personal and professional characteristics and the primary outcomes. Data will be described, analysed and disseminated at each time point; however, the primary endpoint will be psychological distress and trauma at the final time point. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval was obtained from the University of Bath, UK (ref: 4421), and Children's Health Ireland at Crumlin, Ethics Committee. Regulatory approval from the Health Regulation Authority (UK), Health and Care Research Wales (IRAS: 281944).This study is limited by the fact that it focuses on doctors only and is survey based without further qualitative interviews of participants. It is expected this study will provide clear evidence of the psychological impact of COVID-19 on doctors and will allow present and future planning to mitigate against any psychological impact. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN10666798.


Subject(s)
Coronavirus Infections/therapy , Medical Staff, Hospital/psychology , Pneumonia, Viral/therapy , Stress, Psychological/epidemiology , Anesthesia Department, Hospital/organization & administration , Betacoronavirus , COVID-19 , Coronavirus Infections/diagnosis , Coronavirus Infections/transmission , Emergency Service, Hospital/organization & administration , Humans , Infectious Disease Transmission, Professional-to-Patient/statistics & numerical data , Intensive Care Units/organization & administration , Ireland/epidemiology , Longitudinal Studies , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral/diagnosis , Pneumonia, Viral/transmission , Prevalence , Research Design , SARS-CoV-2 , Self Report , Surveys and Questionnaires , United Kingdom/epidemiology
12.
Ultrasound ; 2020.
Article in English | WHO COVID, ELSEVIER | ID: covidwho-704789

ABSTRACT

Background: During the novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, rapid diagnostics have been frequently sought to quickly evaluate a patient’s condition. Lung ultrasound can provide an early glimpse into the disease process and its severity. The addition of focused echocardiography can be particularly helpful in the haemodynamically compromised patient to detect myocardial involvement and alternative diagnoses. Case: We discuss here a 53-year-old patient who presented to the Emergency Department with hypoxia and hypotension. Bedside focused ultrasound revealed signs of COVID-19 pneumonia with evidence of right ventricular strain, initially thought to be due to massive pulmonary embolism. A computed tomography scan confirmed the findings on ultrasonography, but surprisingly did not demonstrate a pulmonary embolism. Conclusion: Point-of-care ultrasound in COVID-19 aided the diagnosis of affected organs and helped categorise the type of shock in this patient; however, right ventricular dysfunction should be interpreted with caution and may not be due to a pulmonary embolism, as in this case.

SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL