AcuteLines

Acutelines is a (bio)bank of patients admitted to the emergency department containing biomaterials and vital parameters during their admission.,Data categories: Biological samples, Medical records, Physiological/Biochemical measurements, Survey data Material collected: DNA, Feaces, peripheral blood cells, Plasma, RNA, Serum, Urine, Whole Blood Experimental data: Not available Number of donors: 10000 Sex : Female, Male Age: >18 Year

Additional file 3 of Qualitative development and content validation of the “SPART” model; a focused ethnography study of observable diagnostic and therapeutic activities in the emergency medical services care process

Additional file 3:. “Groundedness” and frequency tables SPART codes

Additional file 2 of Carotid endarterectomy with patch angioplasty versus primary closure in patients with symptomatic and significant stenosis: a systematic review with meta-analyses and trial sequential analysis of randomized clinical trials

GRADE summary of findings tabl

Amanita intoxications,Clinical data from 18 patients that have experienced a amanita intoxicatoin,

Data categories: Physiological/Biochemical measurements, Biological samples Sex : Female, Male Age: 3-72 Year Diseases studied: Accidental poisoning by and exposure to noxious substances; Poisoning by and exposure to other and unspecified chemicals and noxious substances, undetermined intent; Intentional self-poisoning by and exposure to other and unspecified chemicals and noxious substances; Ingested mushroom

Data from: Performance and agreement of risk stratification instruments for postoperative delirium in persons aged 50 years or older

Several risk stratification instruments for postoperative delirium in older people have been developed because early interventions may prevent delirium. We investigated the performance and agreement of nine commonly used risk stratification instruments in an independent validation cohort of consecutive elective and emergency surgical patients aged ≥50 years with ≥1 risk factor for postoperative delirium. Data was collected prospectively. Delirium was diagnosed according to DSM-IV-TR criteria. The observed incidence of postoperative delirium was calculated per risk score per risk stratification instrument. In addition, the risk stratification instruments were compared in terms of area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve (AUC), and positive and negative predictive value. Finally, the positive agreement between the risk stratification instruments was calculated. When data required for an exact implementation of the original risk stratification instruments was not available, we used alternative data that was comparable. The study population included 292 patients: 60% men; mean age (SD), 66 (8) years; 90% elective surgery. The incidence of postoperative delirium was 9%. The maximum observed incidence per risk score was 50% (95%CI, 15–85%); for eight risk stratification instruments, the maximum observed incidence per risk score was ≤25%. The AUC (95%CI) for the risk stratification instruments varied between 0.50 (0.36–0.64) and 0.66 (0.48–0.83). No AUC was statistically significant from 0.50 (p≥0.11). Positive predictive values of the risk stratification instruments varied between 0–25%, negative predictive values between 89–95%. Positive agreement varied between 0–66%. No risk stratification instrument showed clearly superior performance. In conclusion, in this independent validation cohort, the performance and agreement of commonly used risk stratification instruments for postoperative delirium was poor. Although some caution is needed because the risk stratification instruments were not implemented exactly as described in the original studies, we think that their usefulness in clinical practice can be questioned. n=292 age>50 years

Supplementary Material for: Outcomes of Prophylactic Pantoprazole in Adult Intensive Care Unit Patients Receiving Dialysis: Results of a Randomized Trial

Background: Intensive care unit (ICU) patients with acute kidney injury requiring renal replacement therapy (RRT) are considered at high risk of gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding and stress ulcer prophylaxis (SUP) is often prescribed. We aimed to assess the incidence of GI bleeding and effects of SUP in these patients. Methods: We assessed GI bleeding in ICU patients receiving RRT at baseline (and at any time in the ICU) and effects of prophylactic pantoprazole versus placebo in the international SUP in the ICU (SUP-ICU) trial. All analyses were conducted according to a published protocol and statistical analysis plan. Results: Data of 3,291 acutely admitted adult ICU patients with one or more risk factors for GI bleeding randomized to pantoprazole or placebo intravenously once daily during ICU stay (until ICU discharge, death, or a maximum of 90 days) were analyzed. Some 20 out of 258 (7.8%, 95% CI 4.5–11.1%) and 52 out of 568 (9.2%, 95% CI 6.8–11.6%) of the patients receiving RRT at baseline and at any time in ICU, respectively, developed clinically important GI bleeding in the ICU. We did not observe statistically significant differences in the intervention effect (pantoprazole vs. placebo) in the proportion of patients with clinically important GI bleeding, clinically important events, infectious adverse events, use of interventions to stop GI bleeding, or 90-day mortality in patients with versus without RRT at baseline. Conclusions: In adult ICU patients receiving RRT at baseline, we observed high incidences of clinically important GI bleeding, but did not observe effects of pantoprazole versus placebo in this subgroup