Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 4 de 4
Filter
1.
Journal of Scientometric Research ; 11(1):47-54, 2022.
Article in English | Web of Science | ID: covidwho-1897066

ABSTRACT

This study aims to analyze the dynamics of the published articles and preprints of Covid-19 related literature from different scientific databases and sharing platforms. The PubMed, ScienceDirect, and ResearchGate (RG) databases were under consideration in this study over a specific time. Analyses were carried out on the number of publications as (a) function of time (day), (b) journals and (c) authors. Doubling time of the number of publications was analyzed for PubMed "all articles" and ScienceDirect published articles. Analyzed databases were (1A) PubMed (01/12/2019-12/06/2020) "all_articles" (16) PubMed Review articles) and (1C) PubMed Clinical Trials (2) ScienceDirect all publications (01/12/2019- 25/05/2020) (3) RG (Article, Pre Print, Technical Report) (15/04/2020 - 30/4/2020). Total publications in the observation period for PubMed, ScienceDirect, and RG were 23000, 5898 and 5393 respectively. The average number of publications/day for PubMed, ScienceDirect and RG were 70.0 +/- 128.6, 77.6 +/- 125.3 and 255.6 +/- 205.8 respectively. PubMed shows an avalanche in the number of publications around May 10, the number of publications jumped from 6.0 +/- 8.4/day to 282.5 +/- 110.3/ day. The average doubling time for PubMed, ScienceDirect, and RG was 10.3 +/- 4 days, 20.6 days, and 2.3 +/- 2.0 days respectively. The average number of publications per author for PubMed, ScienceDirect, and RG was 1.2 +/- 1.4, 1.3 +/- 0.9, and 1.1 +/- 0.4 respectively. Subgroup analysis, PubMed review articles mean review <0 vertical bar 17 +/- 17 vertical bar 77> days: and reducing at a rate of -0.21 days (count)/day. The number of publications related to the COVID-19 until now is huge and growing very fast with time. It is essential to rationalize and limit the publications.

2.
American Journal of Gastroenterology ; 116(SUPPL):S1374, 2021.
Article in English | EMBASE | ID: covidwho-1534877

ABSTRACT

Introduction: Patients greater than 65 years old (yo) represent up to 30% of all Ulcerative colitis (UC) patients. A few studies in this population have shown poor outcomes with higher rates of infection, neoplasm, hospitalization, and mortality. However, no robust data exist on the use of biologics in the elderly population with UC. We present a retrospective analysis from 2010 to 2020 comparing outcomes such as mortality, adverse events, hospitalizations, and remission of moderate to severe UC patients 65 yo or more (≥) to those less than (<) 65 yo prescribed biologics. Methods: Data was gathered retrospectively from January 2010 to December 2020. Cohorts consisted of patients ≥18 yo with UC and no other co-existing autoimmune disease who were prescribed, biologic agents. Patient demographics were summarized as mean or proportions (%). Outcomes of interest were compared between groups according to age cutoff (≥65 yo vs , 65 yo) with the use of Pearson's chi-square or Fisher's exact test as appropriate. Multivariate analysis was conducted using logistic regression to identify independent variables associated with any of the outcomes of interest in both age groups. Results: 133 patients were included. The patient's baseline demographic characteristics were not found to be statistically significant (Table). Composite infection (18% vs 9%), skin adverse events (37% vs 32%), neoplasm (19% vs 2%), and mortality (6% vs 2%) between groups (≥ 65 yo vs <65 yo) were not statistically significant (P=0.38, P=0.70, P=0.11, P=0.48;respectively). Hospitalization and remission at 1, 3, and more than 5 years from biologics prescription were not statistically significant. However, age-stratified infections for pneumonia (PNA/COVID) resulted in statistical significance in those ≥80 yo (p<0.05). Multivariate analysis revealed that higher numbers of prescribed biologics since UC diagnosis were associated more with death (P=0.013) and neoplasm (P=0.046) in patients ≥65 yo. Conclusion: Age was not found to be an independent variable associated with any poor outcomes. Death and neoplasm events were associated with a greater number of prescribed biologics in those ≥ 65 yo and may reflect refractory versus longer disease course. Studies with larger samples of patients greater than 80 yo are required to confirm the association between PNA in this cohort. However, COVID was the etiology of the PNA. No difference in efficacy regarding remission, re-admission, or flare events was found between groups..

3.
American Journal of Gastroenterology ; 116(SUPPL):S1366-S1367, 2021.
Article in English | EMBASE | ID: covidwho-1534874

ABSTRACT

Introduction: There is limited literature available regarding the safety and efficacy of biological agents in Crohn's disease for patients aged 65 years old (yo) or greater (≥65). Existing knowledge from other autoimmune diseases regarding the initiation and maintenance of biologics in these patients has created skepticism given the potential risk of poor outcomes and mortality. We present a retrospective analysis of mortality, adverse events, rates of hospitalization, and remission in this vulnerable population compared with younger patients (<65 yo). Methods: Data was gathered retrospectively from January 2010 to December 2020. Cohorts consisted of patients ≥ 18 yo with Crohn's disease and no other co-existing autoimmune disease who were prescribed biologics agents. Patient demographics were summarized as mean or proportions (%). Outcomes of interest were compared between groups according to age cutoff (≥ 65 yo vs <65 yo) with the use of Pearson's chi-square or Fisher's exact test as appropriate. Multivariate analysis was conducted using logistic regression to identify independent variables associated with any of the outcomes of interest in both age groups. Results: 82 patients were included. Baseline demographic characteristics were similar between both groups (Table 1). Infection (30% vs 22%;P=0.63), mortality (10% vs 0%;P=0.34), and neoplasm events (0% vs 3%;P=0.15) did not reach statistical significance. Remission and hospitalization at the 1,3, 5-year endpoint after biologic prescription were similar (p>0.05). Age stratification revealed those greater than 70 yo had higher intraabdominal (IA) infections (p<0.01), whereas 65-70 yo subgroup had higher occurrence of skin abscess and rash (p<0.01). Mild skin adverse events (itching) along with mortality (N=1;COVID/Pneumonia) were higher in the 75-80 yo subgroup (p <0.01). Conclusion: In a diverse multicultural population treated with biologic agents, the occurrence of infection, neoplasm, and skin adverse events were similar in both groups. Intraabdominal infection was associated with viral and bacterial diarrhea (not clostridium difficile) when ≥70 yo. On the other hand, rash and skin abscesses were predominant in those aged 65-70 yo and itching in those 75-80 yo. Efficacy (readmission or remission) does not change despite the age group. Safety when age ≥65 yo is not guaranteed and clinical judgment should be used in each case. Larger studies in these affected age subgroups may be beneficial in understanding the clinical significance..

4.
Br J Anaesth ; 127(2): 205-214, 2021 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1275162

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has heavily impacted elective and emergency surgery around the world. We aimed to confirm the incidence of perioperative severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and associated mortality after surgery. METHODS: Analysis of routine electronic health record data from NHS hospitals in England. We extracted data from Hospital Episode Statistics in England describing adult patients undergoing surgery between January 1, 2020 and February 28, 2021. The exposure was SARS-CoV-2 infection defined by International Classification of Diseases (ICD)-10 codes. The primary outcome measure was 90 day in-hospital mortality. Data were analysed using multivariable logistic regression adjusted for age, sex, Charlson Comorbidity Index, Index of Multiple Deprivation, presence of cancer, surgical procedure type and admission acuity. Results are presented as n (%) and odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). RESULTS: We identified 2 666 978 patients undergoing surgery of whom 28 777 (1.1%) had SARS-CoV-2 infection. In total, 26 364 (1.0%) patients died in hospital. SARS-CoV-2 infection was associated with a much greater risk of death (SARS-CoV-2: 6153/28 777 [21.4%] vs no SARS-CoV-2: 20 211/2 638 201 [0.8%]; OR=5.7 [95% CI, 5.5-5.9]; P<0.001). Amongst patients undergoing elective surgery, 2412/1 857 586 (0.1%) had SARS-CoV-2, of whom 172/2412 (7.1%) died, compared with 1414/1 857 586 (0.1%) patients without SARS-CoV-2 (OR=25.8 [95% CI, 21.7-30.9]; P<0.001). Amongst patients undergoing emergency surgery, 22 918/582 292 (3.9%) patients had SARS-CoV-2, of whom 5752/22 918 (25.1%) died, compared with 18 060/559 374 (3.4%) patients without SARS-CoV-2 (OR=5.5 [95% CI, 5.3-5.7]; P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The low incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in NHS surgical pathways suggests current infection prevention and control policies are highly effective. However, the high mortality amongst patients with SARS-CoV-2 suggests these precautions cannot be safely relaxed.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/mortality , COVID-19/surgery , Elective Surgical Procedures/mortality , Elective Surgical Procedures/trends , Hospital Mortality/trends , Population Surveillance , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , England/epidemiology , Epidemiologic Studies , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Population Surveillance/methods
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL