A systematic review of otologic injuries sustained in civilian terrorist explosions.

PURPOSE: Determine the prevalence of otological symptoms and tympanic membrane perforation, healing rates of tympanic membrane perforation with surgical and conservative management, and hearing function in civilian victims of terrorist explosions. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted with searches on Medline, Embase, EMCare and CINAHL for publications between the 1st January 1945 and 26th May 2023. Studies with quantitative data addressing our aims were included. This review is registered with PROSPERO: CRD42020166768. Among 2611 studies screened, 18 studies comprising prospective and retrospective cohort studies were included. RESULTS: The percentage of eardrums perforated in patients admitted to hospital, under ENT follow up and attending the emergency department is 69.0% (CI 55.5-80.5%), 38.7% (CI 19.0-63.0%, I2 0.715%) and 21.0% (CI 11.9-34.3%, I2 0.718%) respectively. Perforated eardrums heal spontaneously in 62.9% (CI 50.4-73.8%, I2 0.687%) of cases and in 88.8% (CI 75.9-96.3%, I2 0.500%) of cases after surgery. Common symptoms present within one month of bombings are tinnitus 84.7% (CI 70.0-92.9%, I2 0.506%), hearing loss 83.0% (CI 64.5-92.9%, I2 0.505%) and ear fullness 59.7% (CI 13.4-93.4%, I2 0.719). Symptomatic status between one and six months commonly include no symptoms 57.5% (CI 46.0-68.3%), hearing loss 35.4% (CI 21.8-51.8%, I2 0.673%) and tinnitus 15.6% (CI 4.9-40.0%, I2 0.500%). Within one month of bombings, the most common hearing abnormality is sensorineural hearing loss affecting 26.9% (CI 16.9-40.1%, I2 0.689%) of ears 43.5% (CI 33.4-54.2%, I2 0.500) of people. CONCLUSION: Tympanic membrane perforation, subjective hearing loss, tinnitus, ear fullness and sensorineural hearing loss are common sequelae of civilian terrorist explosions.

Use of Virtual Reality in the Education of Orthopaedic Procedures: A Randomised Control Study in Early Validation of a Novel Virtual Reality Simulator.

Background Virtual reality (VR) simulation is a potential solution to the barriers surgical trainees are facing. There needs to be validation for its implementation within current training. We aimed to compare VR simulation to traditional methods in acquiring surgical skills for a TFN-ADVANCED™ Proximal Femoral Nailing System (TFNA; DePuy Synthes, Auckland, New Zealand) femoral nailing system. Methods Thirty-one surgical trainees were randomised to two groups: traditional-training group (control group) and a VR-training group (intervention group) for insertion of a short cephalomedullary TFNA nail. Both groups then inserted the same TFNA system into saw-bone femurs. Surveys evaluated validity of the relevant activities, perception of simulation, confidence, stress and anxiety. The primary outcomes were tip-apex distance (TAD) and user anxiety/confidence levels. Secondary outcomes included number of screw- and nail-guidewire insertion attempts, the time taken to complete and user validity of the VR system. Results There was no statistical difference in TAD between the intervention and control groups (9mm vs 15mm, p=0.0734). The only TAD at risk of cut-out was in the control group (25mm). There was no statistical difference in time taken (2547.5ss vs 2395ss, p=0.668), nail guide-wire attempts (two for both groups, p=0.355) and screw guide-wire attempts (one for both groups, p=0.702). The control group versus intervention had higher anxiety levels (50% vs 33%) and had lower confidence (61% vs 84%). Interpretation There was no objective difference in performance on a saw-bone model between groups. However, this VR simulator resulted in more confidence and lower anxiety levels whilst performing a simulated TFNA. Whilst further studies with larger sample sizes and exploration of transfer validity to the operating theatre are required, this study does indicate potential benefits of VR within surgical training.

Breath Analysis of COVID-19 Patients in a Tertiary UK Hospital by Optical Spectrometry: The E-Nose CoVal Study.

Throughout the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, diagnostic technology played a crucial role in managing outbreaks on a national and global level. One diagnostic modality that has shown promise is breath analysis, due to its non-invasive nature and ability to give a rapid result. In this study, a portable FTIR (Fourier Transform Infra-Red) spectrometer was used to detect chemical components in the breath from Covid positive symptomatic and asymptomatic patients versus a control cohort of Covid negative patients. Eighty-five patients who had a nasopharyngeal polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 within the last 5 days were recruited to the study (36 symptomatic PCR positive, 23 asymptomatic PCR positive and 26 asymptomatic PCR negative). Data analysis indicated significant difference between the groups, with SARS-CoV-2 present on PCR versus the negative PCR control group producing an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.87. Similar results were obtained comparing symptomatic versus control and asymptomatic versus control. The asymptomatic results were higher than the symptomatic (0.88 vs. 0.80 AUC). When analysing individual chemicals, we found ethanol, methanol and acetaldehyde were the most important, with higher concentrations in the COVID-19 group, with symptomatic patients being higher than asymptomatic patients. This study has shown that breath analysis can provide significant results that distinguish patients with or without COVID-19 disease/carriage.

SARS-CoV-2 positivity in offspring and timing of mother-to-child transmission: living systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the rates of SARS-CoV-2 positivity in babies born to mothers with SARS-CoV-2 infection, the timing of mother-to-child transmission and perinatal outcomes, and factors associated with SARS-CoV-2 status in offspring. DESIGN: Living systematic review and meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: Major databases between 1 December 2019 and 3 August 2021. STUDY SELECTION: Cohort studies of pregnant and recently pregnant women (including after abortion or miscarriage) who sought hospital care for any reason and had a diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection, and also provided data on offspring SARS-CoV-2 status and risk factors for positivity. Case series and case reports were also included to assess the timing and likelihood of mother-to-child transmission in SARS-CoV-2 positive babies. DATA EXTRACTION: Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed study quality. A random effects model was used to synthesise data for rates, with associations reported using odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals. Narrative syntheses were performed when meta-analysis was inappropriate. The World Health Organization classification was used to categorise the timing of mother-to-child transmission (in utero, intrapartum, early postnatal). RESULTS: 472 studies (206 cohort studies, 266 case series and case reports; 28 952 mothers, 18 237 babies) were included. Overall, 1.8% (95% confidence interval 1.2% to 2.5%; 140 studies) of the 14 271 babies born to mothers with SARS-CoV-2 infection tested positive for the virus with reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR). Of the 592 SARS-CoV-2 positive babies with data on the timing of exposure and type and timing of tests, 14 had confirmed mother-to-child transmission: seven in utero (448 assessed), two intrapartum (18 assessed), and five during the early postnatal period (70 assessed). Of the 800 SARS-CoV-2 positive babies with outcome data, 20 were stillbirths, 23 were neonatal deaths, and eight were early pregnancy losses; 749 babies were alive at the end of follow-up. Severe maternal covid-19 (odds ratio 2.4, 95% confidence interval 1.3 to 4.4), maternal death (14.1, 4.1 to 48.0), maternal admission to an intensive care unit (3.5, 1.7 to 6.9), and maternal postnatal infection (5.0, 1.2 to 20.1) were associated with SARS-CoV-2 positivity in offspring. Positivity rates using RT-PCR varied between regions, ranging from 0.1% (95% confidence interval 0.0% to 0.3%) in studies from North America to 5.7% (3.2% to 8.7%) in studies from Latin America and the Caribbean. CONCLUSION: SARS-CoV-2 positivity rates were found to be low in babies born to mothers with SARS-CoV-2 infection. Evidence suggests confirmed vertical transmission of SARS-CoV-2, although this is likely to be rare. Severity of maternal covid-19 appears to be associated with SARS-CoV-2 positivity in offspring. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42020178076. READERS' NOTE: This article is a living systematic review that will be updated to reflect emerging evidence. Updates may occur for up to two years from the date of original publication.

Clinical manifestations, prevalence, risk factors, outcomes, transmission, diagnosis and treatment of COVID-19 in pregnancy and postpartum: a living systematic review protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Rapid, robust and continually updated evidence synthesis is required to inform management of COVID-19 in pregnant and postpartum women and to keep pace with the emerging evidence during the pandemic. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We plan to undertake a living systematic review to assess the prevalence, clinical manifestations, risk factors, rates of maternal and perinatal complications, potential for mother-to-child transmission, accuracy of diagnostic tests and effectiveness of treatment for COVID-19 in pregnant and postpartum women (including after miscarriage or abortion). We will search Medline, Embase, WHO COVID-19 database, preprint servers, the China National Knowledge Infrastructure system and Wanfang databases from 1 December 2019. We will supplement our search with studies mapped by Cochrane Fertility and Gynaecology group, Evidence for Policy and Practice Information and Co-ordinating Centre (EPPI-Centre), COVID-19 study repositories, reference lists and social media blogs. The search will be updated every week and not be restricted by language. We will include observational cohort (≥10 participants) and randomised studies reporting on prevalence of COVID-19 in pregnant and postpartum women, the rates of clinical manifestations and outcomes, risk factors in pregnant and postpartum women alone or in comparison with non-pregnant women with COVID-19 or pregnant women without COVID-19 and studies on tests and treatments for COVID-19. We will additionally include case reports and series with evidence on mother-to-child transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in utero, intrapartum or postpartum. We will appraise the quality of the included studies using appropriate tools to assess the risk of bias. At least two independent reviewers will undertake study selection, quality assessment and data extraction every 2 weeks. We will synthesise the findings using quantitative random effects meta-analysis and report OR or proportions with 95% CIs and prediction intervals. Case reports and series will be reported as qualitative narrative synthesis. Heterogeneity will be reported as I2 and τ2 statistics. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval is not required as this is a synthesis of primary data. Regular updates of the results will be published on a dedicated website (https://www.birmingham.ac.uk/research/who-collaborating-centre/pregcov/index.aspx) and disseminated through publications, social media and webinars. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020178076.

Clinical manifestations, risk factors, and maternal and perinatal outcomes of coronavirus disease 2019 in pregnancy: living systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the clinical manifestations, risk factors, and maternal and perinatal outcomes in pregnant and recently pregnant women with suspected or confirmed coronavirus disease 2019 (covid-19). DESIGN: Living systematic review and meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: Medline, Embase, Cochrane database, WHO COVID-19 database, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), and Wanfang databases from 1 December 2019 to 6 October 2020, along with preprint servers, social media, and reference lists. STUDY SELECTION: Cohort studies reporting the rates, clinical manifestations (symptoms, laboratory and radiological findings), risk factors, and maternal and perinatal outcomes in pregnant and recently pregnant women with suspected or confirmed covid-19. DATA EXTRACTION: At least two researchers independently extracted the data and assessed study quality. Random effects meta-analysis was performed, with estimates pooled as odds ratios and proportions with 95% confidence intervals. All analyses will be updated regularly. RESULTS: 192 studies were included. Overall, 10% (95% confidence interval 7% to 12%; 73 studies, 67 271 women) of pregnant and recently pregnant women attending or admitted to hospital for any reason were diagnosed as having suspected or confirmed covid-19. The most common clinical manifestations of covid-19 in pregnancy were fever (40%) and cough (41%). Compared with non-pregnant women of reproductive age, pregnant and recently pregnant women with covid-19 were less likely to have symptoms (odds ratio 0.28, 95% confidence interval 0.13 to 0.62; I2=42.9%) or report symptoms of fever (0.49, 0.38 to 0.63; I2=40.8%), dyspnoea (0.76, 0.67 to 0.85; I2=4.4%) and myalgia (0.53, 0.36 to 0.78; I2=59.4%). The odds of admission to an intensive care unit (odds ratio 2.13, 1.53 to 2.95; I2=71.2%), invasive ventilation (2.59, 2.28 to 2.94; I2=0%) and need for extra corporeal membrane oxygenation (2.02, 1.22 to 3.34; I2=0%) were higher in pregnant and recently pregnant than non-pregnant reproductive aged women. Overall, 339 pregnant women (0.02%, 59 studies, 41 664 women) with confirmed covid-19 died from any cause. Increased maternal age (odds ratio 1.83, 1.27 to 2.63; I2=43.4%), high body mass index (2.37, 1.83 to 3.07; I2=0%), any pre-existing maternal comorbidity (1.81, 1.49 to 2.20; I2=0%), chronic hypertension (2.0, 1.14 to 3.48; I2=0%), pre-existing diabetes (2.12, 1.62 to 2.78; I2=0%), and pre-eclampsia (4.21, 1.27 to 14.0; I2=0%) were associated with severe covid-19 in pregnancy. In pregnant women with covid-19, increased maternal age, high body mass index, non-white ethnicity, any pre-existing maternal comorbidity including chronic hypertension and diabetes, and pre-eclampsia were associated with serious complications such as admission to an intensive care unit, invasive ventilation and maternal death. Compared to pregnant women without covid-19, those with the disease had increased odds of maternal death (odds ratio 2.85, 1.08 to 7.52; I2=0%), of needing admission to the intensive care unit (18.58, 7.53 to 45.82; I2=0%), and of preterm birth (1.47, 1.14 to 1.91; I2=18.6%). The odds of admission to the neonatal intensive care unit (4.89, 1.87 to 12.81, I2=96.2%) were higher in babies born to mothers with covid-19 versus those without covid-19. CONCLUSION: Pregnant and recently pregnant women with covid-19 attending or admitted to the hospitals for any reason are less likely to manifest symptoms such as fever, dyspnoea, and myalgia, and are more likely to be admitted to the intensive care unit or needing invasive ventilation than non-pregnant women of reproductive age. Pre-existing comorbidities, non-white ethnicity, chronic hypertension, pre-existing diabetes, high maternal age, and high body mass index are risk factors for severe covid-19 in pregnancy. Pregnant women with covid-19 versus without covid-19 are more likely to deliver preterm and could have an increased risk of maternal death and of being admitted to the intensive care unit. Their babies are more likely to be admitted to the neonatal unit. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42020178076. READERS' NOTE: This article is a living systematic review that will be updated to reflect emerging evidence. Updates may occur for up to two years from the date of original publication. This version is update 1 of the original article published on 1 September 2020 (BMJ 2020;370:m3320), and previous updates can be found as data supplements (https://www.bmj.com/content/370/bmj.m3320/related#datasupp). When citing this paper please consider adding the update number and date of access for clarity.

Exploring UK medical school differences: the MedDifs study of selection, teaching, student and F1 perceptions, postgraduate outcomes and fitness to practise.

BACKGROUND: Medical schools differ, particularly in their teaching, but it is unclear whether such differences matter, although influential claims are often made. The Medical School Differences (MedDifs) study brings together a wide range of measures of UK medical schools, including postgraduate performance, fitness to practise issues, specialty choice, preparedness, satisfaction, teaching styles, entry criteria and institutional factors. METHOD: Aggregated data were collected for 50 measures across 29 UK medical schools. Data include institutional history (e.g. rate of production of hospital and GP specialists in the past), curricular influences (e.g. PBL schools, spend per student, staff-student ratio), selection measures (e.g. entry grades), teaching and assessment (e.g. traditional vs PBL, specialty teaching, self-regulated learning), student satisfaction, Foundation selection scores, Foundation satisfaction, postgraduate examination performance and fitness to practise (postgraduate progression, GMC sanctions). Six specialties (General Practice, Psychiatry, Anaesthetics, Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Internal Medicine, Surgery) were examined in more detail. RESULTS: Medical school differences are stable across time (median alpha = 0.835). The 50 measures were highly correlated, 395 (32.2%) of 1225 correlations being significant with p < 0.05, and 201 (16.4%) reached a Tukey-adjusted criterion of p < 0.0025. Problem-based learning (PBL) schools differ on many measures, including lower performance on postgraduate assessments. While these are in part explained by lower entry grades, a surprising finding is that schools such as PBL schools which reported greater student satisfaction with feedback also showed lower performance at postgraduate examinations. More medical school teaching of psychiatry, surgery and anaesthetics did not result in more specialist trainees. Schools that taught more general practice did have more graduates entering GP training, but those graduates performed less well in MRCGP examinations, the negative correlation resulting from numbers of GP trainees and exam outcomes being affected both by non-traditional teaching and by greater historical production of GPs. Postgraduate exam outcomes were also higher in schools with more self-regulated learning, but lower in larger medical schools. A path model for 29 measures found a complex causal nexus, most measures causing or being caused by other measures. Postgraduate exam performance was influenced by earlier attainment, at entry to Foundation and entry to medical school (the so-called academic backbone), and by self-regulated learning. Foundation measures of satisfaction, including preparedness, had no subsequent influence on outcomes. Fitness to practise issues were more frequent in schools producing more male graduates and more GPs. CONCLUSIONS: Medical schools differ in large numbers of ways that are causally interconnected. Differences between schools in postgraduate examination performance, training problems and GMC sanctions have important implications for the quality of patient care and patient safety.

The Analysis of Teaching of Medical Schools (AToMS) survey: an analysis of 47,258 timetabled teaching events in 25 UK medical schools relating to timing, duration, teaching formats, teaching content, and problem-based learning.

BACKGROUND: What subjects UK medical schools teach, what ways they teach subjects, and how much they teach those subjects is unclear. Whether teaching differences matter is a separate, important question. This study provides a detailed picture of timetabled undergraduate teaching activity at 25 UK medical schools, particularly in relation to problem-based learning (PBL). METHOD: The Analysis of Teaching of Medical Schools (AToMS) survey used detailed timetables provided by 25 schools with standard 5-year courses. Timetabled teaching events were coded in terms of course year, duration, teaching format, and teaching content. Ten schools used PBL. Teaching times from timetables were validated against two other studies that had assessed GP teaching and lecture, seminar, and tutorial times. RESULTS: A total of 47,258 timetabled teaching events in the academic year 2014/2015 were analysed, including SSCs (student-selected components) and elective studies. A typical UK medical student receives 3960 timetabled hours of teaching during their 5-year course. There was a clear difference between the initial 2 years which mostly contained basic medical science content and the later 3 years which mostly consisted of clinical teaching, although some clinical teaching occurs in the first 2 years. Medical schools differed in duration, format, and content of teaching. Two main factors underlay most of the variation between schools, Traditional vs PBL teaching and Structured vs Unstructured teaching. A curriculum map comparing medical schools was constructed using those factors. PBL schools differed on a number of measures, having more PBL teaching time, fewer lectures, more GP teaching, less surgery, less formal teaching of basic science, and more sessions with unspecified content. DISCUSSION: UK medical schools differ in both format and content of teaching. PBL and non-PBL schools clearly differ, albeit with substantial variation within groups, and overlap in the middle. The important question of whether differences in teaching matter in terms of outcomes is analysed in a companion study (MedDifs) which examines how teaching differences relate to university infrastructure, entry requirements, student perceptions, and outcomes in Foundation Programme and postgraduate training.