Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 4 de 4
Filter
Add more filters











Database
Language
Publication year range
1.
Clin J Sport Med ; 17(3): 177-81, 2007 May.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-17513907

ABSTRACT

Wide variations in the definitions and methodologies used for studies of injuries in rugby union have created inconsistencies in reported data and made interstudy comparisons of results difficult. The International Rugby Board established a Rugby Injury Consensus Group (RICG) to agree on appropriate definitions and methodologies to standardize the recording of injuries and reporting of studies in rugby union. The RICG reviewed the consensus definitions and methodologies previously published for football (soccer) at a meeting in Dublin to assess their suitability for and application to rugby union. Following this meeting, iterative draft statements were prepared and circulated to members of the RICG for comment; a follow-up meeting was arranged in Dublin at which time all definitions and procedures were finalized. At this stage, all authors confirmed their agreement with the consensus statement. The agreed-on document was presented to and approved by the International Rugby Board Council. Agreement was reached on definitions for injury, recurrent injury, nonfatal catastrophic injury, and training and match exposures together with criteria for classifying injuries in terms of severity, location, type, diagnosis, and causation. The definitions and methodology presented in this consensus statement for rugby union are similar to those proposed for football. Adoption of the proposals presented in this consensus statement should ensure that more consistent and comparable results will be obtained from studies of injuries within rugby union.


Subject(s)
Consensus , Football , Wounds and Injuries/classification , Humans , Research Design/standards , United Kingdom
3.
Lancet ; 354(9183): 979-82, 1999 Sep 18.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-10501359

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: A metered-dose inhaler (MDI) with spacer is the best way to deliver bronchodilator therapy for treatment of acute asthma. In developing countries, commercially produced spacers are generally unavailable or too costly. We tested the efficacy of home-made spacers (500 mL plastic bottle, polystyrene cup) compared with a conventional spacer for delivery of a beta2 agonist via MDI for children with acute asthma. METHODS: We studied children aged 5 to 13 years with acute asthma, stratified into those with mild airways obstruction (peak expiratory flow [PEF] 60-79% of predicted value) or moderate to severe airways obstruction (PEF 20-59% of predicted value). A beta2 agonist (fenoterol hydrobromide) was given via MDI and one of four randomly assigned spacers (conventional spacer, sealed 500 mL plastic bottle, unsealed 500 mL bottle, 200 mL polystyrene cup). Clinical score, pulmonary function tests, and oximetry were recorded at baseline and 15 min after treatment. If a second bronchodilator treatment was needed, nebulised fenoterol was given and the assessment repeated 15 min later. Primary outcome measures were changes in clinical score and pulmonary function, and need for and response to nebulisation. FINDINGS: 88 children were eligible for study. In 44 children with moderate to severe airways obstruction, a cup gave significantly less bronchodilation (median increase in: forced expiratory volume in 1 s [FEV1] 0%; PEF 12%) compared with the conventional spacer (37%; 59%), sealed bottle (33%; 36%), or unsealed bottle (18%; 21%, p<0.05 for difference between groups). Nebulisation was required by ten of 11 who had used a cup, nine of 11 who had used an unsealed bottle, eight of 11 who had used a sealed bottle, and only four of 11 who had used a conventional spacer. After nebulisation, improvement in FEV1 (15.5%) and PEF (26%) was more marked in children who had used a cup than in those who had used a conventional spacer (5.5% FEV1; 4% PEF), sealed bottle (3%; 0%), or unsealed bottle (7%; 9%). For 44 children with mild airways obstruction, response to bronchodilator was similar for all spacers and need for nebulisation was not associated with use of a particular spacer. INTERPRETATION: A conventional spacer and sealed 500 mL plastic bottle produced similar bronchodilation, an unsealed bottle gave intermediate improvement in lung function, and a polystyrene cup was least effective as a spacer for children with moderate to severe airways obstruction. Use of bottle spacers should be incorporated into guidelines for asthma management in developing countries.


Subject(s)
Asthma/drug therapy , Bronchodilator Agents/administration & dosage , Nebulizers and Vaporizers , Administration, Inhalation , Asthma/epidemiology , Bronchodilator Agents/therapeutic use , Child , Child, Preschool , Developing Countries , Equipment Design , Female , Fenoterol/administration & dosage , Fenoterol/therapeutic use , Humans , Male , South Africa/epidemiology
4.
S Afr Med J ; 81(8): 434-5, 1992 Apr 18.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-1566224
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL