Search results for: New Zealand colonialism

Authors: Hilary Modir, Kyle Dutton, Michelle Swab, Shabnam Asghari

Abstract:

Since its emergence, the cutaneous manifestations of COVID-19 have been documented in the literature. However, the majority are case reports with significant limitations in appraisal quality, thus leaving the role of dermatological manifestations of COVID-19 erroneously underexplored. The primary aim of this review was to systematically examine clinical patterns of dermatological manifestations as reported in the literature. This study was designed as a systematic review of case reports. The inclusion criteria consisted of all published reports and articles regarding COVID-19 in English, from September 1st, 2019, until June 22nd, 2020. The population consisted of confirmed cases of COVID-19 with associated cutaneous signs and symptoms. Exclusion criteria included research in planning stages, protocols, book reviews, news articles, review studies, and policy analyses. With the collaboration of a librarian, a search strategy was created consisting of a mixture of keyword terms and controlled vocabulary. Electronic databases searched were MEDLINE via PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science, LILACS, PsycINFO, WHO Global Literature on Coronavirus Disease, Cochrane Library, Campbell Collaboration, Prospero, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, U.S. Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register, AAD Registry, OSF preprints, SSRN, MedRxiV and BioRxiV. The study selection featured an initial pre-screening of titles and abstracts by one independent reviewer. Results were verified by re-examining a random sample of 1% of excluded articles. Eligible studies progressed for full-text review by two calibrated independent reviewers. Covidence was used to store and extract data, such as citation information and findings pertaining to COVID-19 and cutaneous signs and symptoms. Data analysis and summarization methodology reflect the framework proposed by PRISMA and recommendations set out by Cochrane and Joanna Brigg’s Institute for conducting systematic reviews. The Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine’s level of evidence was used to appraise the quality of individual studies. The literature search revealed a total of 1221 articles. After the abstract and full-text screening, only 95 studies met the eligibility criteria, proceeding to data extraction. Studies were divided into 58% case reports and 42% series. A total of 833 manifestations were reported in 723 confirmed COVID-19 cases. The most frequent lesions were 23% maculopapular, 15% urticarial and 13% pseudo-chilblains, with 46% of lesions reporting pruritus, 16% erythema, 14% pain, 12% burning sensation, and 4% edema. The most common lesion locations were 20% trunk, 19.5% lower limbs, and 17.7% upper limbs. The time to resolution of lesions was between one and twenty-one days. In conclusion, over half of the reported cutaneous presentations in COVID-19 positive patients were maculopapular, urticarial and pseudo-chilblains, with the majority of lesions distributed to the extremities and trunk. As this review’s sample size only contained COVID-19 confirmed cases with skin presentations, it becomes difficult to deduce the direct relationship between skin findings and COVID-19. However, it can be correlated that acute onset of skin lesions, such as chilblains-like, may be associated with or may warrant consideration of COVID-19 as part of the differential diagnosis.

Keywords: COVID-19, cutaneous manifestations, cutaneous signs, general dermatology, medical dermatology, Sars-Cov-2, skin and infectious disease, skin findings, skin manifestations

Procedia PDF Downloads 181

Authors: Liane J. Ioannou, Jonathan Serpell, Cino Bendinelli, David Walters, Jenny Gough, Dean Lisewski, Win Meyer-Rochow, Julie Miller, Duncan Topliss, Bill Fleming, Stephen Farrell, Andrew Kiu, James Kollias, Mark Sywak, Adam Aniss, Linda Fenton, Danielle Ghusn, Simon Harper, Aleksandra Popadich, Kate Stringer, David Watters, Susannah Ahern

Abstract:

BACKGROUND: There are significant variations in the management, treatment and outcomes of thyroid cancer, particularly in the role of: diagnostic investigation and pre-treatment scanning; optimal extent of surgery (total or hemi-thyroidectomy); use of active surveillance for small low-risk cancers; central lymph node dissections (therapeutic or prophylactic); outcomes following surgery (e.g. recurrent laryngeal nerve palsy, hypocalcaemia, hypoparathyroidism); post-surgical hormone, calcium and vitamin D therapy; and provision and dosage of radioactive iodine treatment. A proven strategy to reduce variations in the outcome and to improve survival is to measure and compare it using high-quality clinical registry data. Clinical registries provide the most effective means of collecting high-quality data and are a tool for quality improvement. Where they have been introduced at a state or national level, registries have become one of the most clinically valued tools for quality improvement. To benchmark clinical care, clinical quality registries require systematic measurement at predefined intervals and the capacity to report back information to participating clinical units. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to develop a core set clinical indicators that enable measurement and reporting of quality of care for patients with thyroid cancer. We hypothesise that measuring clinical quality indicators, developed to identify differences in quality of care across sites, will reduce variation and improve patient outcomes and survival, thereby lessening costs and healthcare burden to the Australian community. METHOD: Preparatory work and scoping was conducted to identify existing high quality, clinical guidelines and best practice for thyroid cancer both nationally and internationally, as well as relevant literature. A bi-national panel was invited to participate in a modified Delphi process. Panelists were asked to rate each proposed indicator on a Likert scale of 1–9 in a three-round iterative process. RESULTS: A total of 236 potential quality indicators were identified. One hundred and ninety-two indicators were removed to reflect the data capture by the Australian and New Zealand Thyroid Cancer Registry (ANZTCR) (from diagnosis to 90-days post-surgery). The remaining 44 indicators were presented to the panelists for voting. A further 21 indicators were later added by the panelists bringing the total potential quality indicators to 65. Of these, 21 were considered the most important and feasible indicators to measure quality of care in thyroid cancer, of which 12 were recommended for inclusion in the final set. The consensus indicator set spans the spectrum of care, including: preoperative; surgery; surgical complications; staging and post-surgical treatment planning; and post-surgical treatment. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides a core set of quality indicators to measure quality of care in thyroid cancer. This indicator set can be applied as a tool for internal quality improvement, comparative quality reporting, public reporting and research. Inclusion of these quality indicators into monitoring databases such as clinical quality registries will enable opportunities for benchmarking and feedback on best practice care to clinicians involved in the management of thyroid cancer.

Keywords: clinical registry, Delphi survey, quality indicators, quality of care

Procedia PDF Downloads 179