Guías de diagnóstico y tratamiento de la diabetes gestacional. ALAD, 2016 / Guidelines of diagnosis and treatment of gestational diabetes. Alad, 2016

En los últimos años el aumento de la prevalencia de obesidad y diabetes mellitus tipo 2 (DM2), la aparición a edades más tempranas de DM2, así como el desplazamiento del embarazo a edades mayores conllevan a un aumento de casos de diabetes (DM) en el embarazo. En algunas pacientes la diabetes no se diagnostica y obviamente no se trata. Este hecho puede complicar un embarazo, especialmente en el período embriogénico. La aplicación de nuevos criterios de diagnóstico para la diabetes gestacional, la controversia en el uso y la seguridad de los antidiabéticos orales durante el embarazo, así como el uso de determinados análogos de insulina hacen indispensable que Latinoamérica, a través del Grupo de Trabajo de Diabetes y Embarazo de la Asociación Latinoamericana de Diabetes (ALAD), actualice sus recomendaciones. El desarrollo de las mismas se realizó en varias reuniones y trabajo conjunto del grupo. Se tuvo en cuenta el grado de nivel de evidencia, la experiencia de los referentes y la adaptación cultural según las regiones donde se implementarán las recomendaciones descriptas

Moving from data collection to application: a systematic literature review of surgical capacity assessments and their applications.

BACKGROUND: Over the past decade, assessments of surgical capacity in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) have contributed to our understanding of barriers to the delivery of surgical services in a number of countries. It is yet unclear, however, how the findings of these assessments have been applied and built upon within the published literature. METHODS: A systematic literature review of surgical capacity assessments in LMICs was performed to evaluate current levels of understanding of global surgical capacity and to identify areas for future study. A reverse snowballing method was then used to follow-up citations of the identified studies to assess how this research has been applied and built upon in the literature. RESULTS: Twenty-one papers reporting the findings of surgical capacity assessments conducted in 17 different LMICs in South Asia, East Asia and Pacific, Latin America and the Caribbean, and sub-Saharan Africa were identified. These studies documented substantial deficits in human resources, infrastructure, equipment, and supplies. Only seven additional papers were identified which applied or built upon the studies. Among these, capacity assessment findings were most commonly used to develop novel tools and intervention strategies, but they were also used as baseline measurements against which updated capacity assessments were compared. CONCLUSIONS: While the global surgery community has made tremendous progress in establishing baseline values of surgical capacity in LMICs around the world, further work is necessary to build upon and apply the foundational knowledge established through these efforts. Capacity assessment data should be coordinated and used in ongoing research efforts to monitor and evaluate progress in global surgery and to develop targeted intervention strategies. Intervention strategy development may also be further incorporated into the evaluation process itself.

Inter-rater reliability of the PIPES tool: validation of a surgical capacity index for use in resource-limited settings.

INTRODUCTION: In response to the need for simple, rapid means of quantifying surgical capacity in low resource settings, Surgeons OverSeas (SOS) developed the personnel, infrastructure, procedures, equipment and supplies (PIPES) tool. The present investigation assessed the inter-rater reliability of the PIPES tool. METHODS: As part of a government assessment of surgical services in Santa Cruz, Bolivia, the PIPES tool was translated into Spanish and applied in interviews with physicians at 31 public hospitals. An additional interview was conducted with nurses at a convenience sample of 25 of these hospitals. Physician and nurse responses were then compared to generate an estimate of reliability. For dichotomous survey items, inter-rater reliability between physicians and nurses was assessed using the Cohen's kappa statistic and percent agreement. The Pearson correlation coefficient was used to assess agreement for continuous items. RESULTS: Cohen's kappa was 0.46 for infrastructure, 0.43 for procedures, 0.26 for equipment, and 0 for supplies sections. The median correlation coefficient was 0.91 for continuous items. Correlation was 0.79 for the PIPES index, and ranged from 0.32 to 0.98 for continuous response items. CONCLUSIONS: Reliability of the PIPES tool was moderate for the infrastructure and procedures sections, fair for the equipment section, and poor for supplies section when comparing surgeons' responses to nurses' responses-an extremely rigorous test of reliability. These results indicate that the PIPES tool is an effective measure of surgical capacity but that the equipment and supplies sections may need to be revised.

A quantitative analysis of surgical capacity in Santa Cruz, Bolivia.

OBJECTIVES: This investigation aimed to document surgical capacity at public medical centers in a middle-income Latin American country using the Surgeons OverSeas (SOS) Personnel, Infrastructure, Procedures, Equipment, and Supplies (PIPES) survey tool. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We applied the PIPES tool at six urban and 25 rural facilities in Santa Cruz, Bolivia. Outcome measures included the availability of items in five domains (Personnel, Infrastructure, Procedures, Equipment, and Supplies) and the PIPES index. PIPES indices were calculated by summing scores from each domain, dividing by the total number of survey items, and multiplying by 10. RESULTS: Thirty-one of the 32 public facilities that provide surgical care in Santa Cruz were assessed. Santa Cruz had at least 7.8 surgeons and 2.8 anesthesiologists per 100,000 population. However, these providers were unequally distributed, such that nine rural sites had no anesthesiologist. Few rural facilities had blood banking (4/25), anesthesia machines (11/25), postoperative care (11/25), or intensive care units (1/25). PIPES indices ranged from 5.7-13.2, and were significantly higher in urban (median 12.6) than rural (median 7.8) areas (P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: This investigation is novel in its application of a Spanish-language version of the PIPES tool in a middle-income Latin American country. These data document substantially greater surgical capacity in Santa Cruz than has been reported for Sierra Leone or Rwanda, consistent with Bolivia's development status. Unfortunately, surgeons are limited in rural areas by deficits in anesthesia and perioperative services. These results are currently being used to target local quality improvement initiatives.