Rapidly Measured Indicators of Recreational Water Quality Are Predictive of Swimming-Associated Gastrointestinal Illness

Standard methods to measure recreational water quality require at least 24 hr to obtain results, making it impossible to assess the quality of water within a single day. Methods to measure recreational water quality in ≤ 2 hr have been developed. Application of rapid methods could give considerably more accurate and timely assessments of recreational water quality. We conducted a prospective study of beachgoers at two Great Lakes beaches to examine the association between recreational water quality, obtained using rapid methods, and gastrointestinal (GI) illness after swimming. Beachgoers were asked about swimming and other beach activities and 10–12 days later were asked about the occurrence of GI symptoms. We tested water samples for Enterococcus and Bacteroides species using the quantitative polymerase chain reaction (PCR) method. We observed significant trends between increased GI illness and Enterococcus at the Lake Michigan beach and a positive trend for Enterococcus at the Lake Erie beach. The association remained significant for Enterococcus when the two beaches were combined. We observed a positive trend for Bacteroides at the Lake Erie beach, but no trend was observed at the Lake Michigan beach. Enterococcus samples collected at 0800 hr were predictive of GI illness that day. The association between Enterococcus and illness strengthened as time spent swimming in the water increased. This is the first study to show that water quality measured by rapid methods can predict swimming-associated health effects

Do U.S. Environmental Protection Agency water quality guidelines for recreational waters prevent gastrointestinal illness? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Despite numerous studies, uncertainty remains about how water quality indicators can best be used in the regulation of recreational water. We conducted a systematic review of this topic with the goal of quantifying the association between microbial indicators of recreational water quality and gastrointestinal (GI) illness. A secondary goal was to evaluate the potential for GI illness below current guidelines. We screened 976 potentially relevant studies and from these identified 27 studies. From the latter, we determined summary relative risks for GI illness in relation to water quality indicator density. Our results support the use of enterococci in marine water at U.S. Environmental Protection Agency guideline levels. In fresh water, (Italic)Escherichia(/Italic) coli was a more consistent predictor of GI illness than are enterococci and other bacterial indicators. A log (base 10) unit increase in enterococci was associated with a 1.34 [95% confidence intervals (CI), 1.00-1.75] increase in relative risk in marine waters, and a log (base 10) unit increase in E. coli was associated with a 2.12 (95% CI, 0.925-4.85) increase in relative risk in fresh water. Indicators of viral contamination were strong predictors of GI illness in both fresh and marine environments. Significant heterogeneity was noted among the studies. In our analysis of heterogeneity, studies that used a nonswimming control group, studies that focused on children, and studies of athletic or other recreational events found elevated relative risks. Future studies should focus on the ability of new, more rapid and specific microbial methods to predict health effects, and estimating the risks of recreational water exposure among susceptible persons

Effect of surgical experience and spine subspecialty on the reliability of the AO Spine Upper Cervical Injury Classification System.

OBJECTIVE The objective of this paper was to determine the interobserver reliability and intraobserver reproducibility of the AO Spine Upper Cervical Injury Classification System based on surgeon experience ( 20 years) and surgical subspecialty (orthopedic spine surgery, neurosurgery, and "other" surgery). METHODS A total of 11,601 assessments of upper cervical spine injuries were evaluated based on the AO Spine Upper Cervical Injury Classification System. Reliability and reproducibility scores were obtained twice, with a 3-week time interval. Descriptive statistics were utilized to examine the percentage of accurately classified injuries, and Pearson's chi-square or Fisher's exact test was used to screen for potentially relevant differences between study participants. Kappa coefficients (κ) determined the interobserver reliability and intraobserver reproducibility. RESULTS The intraobserver reproducibility was substantial for surgeon experience level ( 20 years: 0.70) and surgical subspecialty (orthopedic spine: 0.71 vs neurosurgery: 0.69 vs other: 0.68). Furthermore, the interobserver reliability was substantial for all surgical experience groups on assessment 1 ( 20 years: 0.62), and only surgeons with > 20 years of experience did not have substantial reliability on assessment 2 ( 20 years: 0.59). Orthopedic spine surgeons and neurosurgeons had substantial intraobserver reproducibility on both assessment 1 (0.64 vs 0.63) and assessment 2 (0.62 vs 0.63), while other surgeons had moderate reliability on assessment 1 (0.43) and fair reliability on assessment 2 (0.36). CONCLUSIONS The international reliability and reproducibility scores for the AO Spine Upper Cervical Injury Classification System demonstrated substantial intraobserver reproducibility and interobserver reliability regardless of surgical experience and spine subspecialty. These results support the global application of this classification system

The AO spine upper cervical injury classification system: Do work setting or trauma center affiliation affect classification accuracy or reliability?

PURPOSE To assess the accuracy and reliability of the AO Spine Upper Cervical Injury Classification System based on a surgeons' work setting and trauma center affiliation. METHODS A total of 275 AO Spine members participated in a validation of 25 upper cervical spine injuries, which were evaluated by computed tomography (CT) scans. Each participant was grouped based on their work setting (academic, hospital-employed, or private practice) and their trauma center affiliation (Level I, Level II or III, and Level IV or no trauma center). The classification accuracy was calculated as percent of correct classifications, while interobserver reliability, and intraobserver reproducibility were evaluated based on Fleiss' Kappa coefficient. RESULTS The overall classification accuracy for surgeons affiliated with a level I trauma center was significantly greater than participants affiliated with a level II/III center or a level IV/no trauma center on assessment one (p1<0.0001) and two (p2 = 0.0003). On both assessments, surgeons affiliated with a level I or a level II/III trauma center were significantly more accurate at identifying IIIB injury types (p1 = 0.0007; p2 = 0.0064). Academic surgeons and hospital employed surgeons were significantly more likely to correctly classify type IIIB injuries on assessment one (p1 = 0.0146) and two (p2 = 0.0015). When evaluating classification reliability, the largest differences between work settings and trauma center affiliations was identified in type IIIB injuries. CONCLUSION Type B injuries are the most difficult injury type to correctly classify. They are classified with greater reliability and classification accuracy when evaluated by academic surgeons, hospital-employed surgeons, and surgeons associated with higher-level trauma centers (I or II/III)

Global Validation of the AO Spine Upper Cervical Injury Classification: Geographic Region Affects Reliability and Reproducibility.

STUDY DESIGN Global Survey. OBJECTIVE To determine the accuracy, interobserver reliability, and intraobserver reproducibility of the AO Spine Upper Cervical Injury Classification System based on surgeons' AO Spine region of practice (Africa, Asia, Central/South America, Europe, Middle East, and North America). METHODS A total of 275 AO Spine members assessed 25 upper cervical spine injuries and classified them according to the AO Spine Upper Cervical Injury Classification System. Reliability, reproducibility, and accuracy scores were obtained over two assessments administered at three-week intervals. Kappa coefficients (ƙ) determined the interobserver reliability and intraobserver reproducibility. RESULTS On both assessments, participants from Europe and North America had the highest classification accuracy, while participants from Africa and Central/South America had the lowest accuracy (P < .0001). Participants from Africa (assessment 1 (AS1):ƙ = .487; AS2:0.491), Central/South America (AS1:ƙ = .513; AS2:0.511), and the Middle East (AS1:0.591; AS2: .599) achieved moderate reliability, while participants from North America (AS1:ƙ = .673; AS2:0.648) and Europe (AS1:ƙ = .682; AS2:0.681) achieved substantial reliability. Asian participants obtained substantial reliability on AS1 (ƙ = .632), but moderate reliability on AS2 (ƙ = .566). Although there was a large effect size, the low number of participants in certain regions did not provide adequate certainty that AO regions affected the likelihood of participants having excellent reproducibility (P = .342). CONCLUSIONS The AO Spine Upper Cervical Injury Classification System can be applied with high accuracy, interobserver reliability, and intraobserver reproducibility. However, lower classification accuracy and reliability were found in regions of Africa and Central/South America, especially for severe atlas injuries (IIB and IIC) and atypical hangman's type fractures (IIIB injuries)

AO Spine Upper Cervical Injury Classification System: A Description and Reliability Study.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT Prior upper cervical spine injury classification systems have focused on injuries to the craniocervical junction (CCJ), atlas, and dens independently. However, no previous system has classified upper cervical spine injuries using a comprehensive system incorporating all injuries from the occiput to the C2-3 joint. PURPOSE To (1) determine the accuracy of experts at correctly classifying upper cervical spine injuries based on the recently proposed AO Spine Upper Cervical Injury Classification System (2) to determine their interobserver reliability and (3) identify the intraobserver reproducibility of the experts. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING International Multi-Center Survey PATIENT SAMPLE: A survey of international spine surgeons on 29 unique upper cervical spine injuries OUTCOME MEASURES: Classification accuracy, interobserver reliability, intraobserver reproducibility METHODS: Thirteen international AO Spine Knowledge Forum Trauma members participated in two live webinar-based classifications of 29 upper cervical spine injuries presented in random order, four weeks apart. Percent agreement with the gold-standard and kappa coefficients (ƙ) were calculated to determine the interobserver reliability and intraobserver reproducibility. RESULTS Raters demonstrated 80.8% and 82.7% accuracy with identification of the injury classification (combined location and type) on the first and second assessment, respectively. Injury classification intraobserver reproducibility was excellent (mean, [range] ƙ = 0.82 [0.58-1.00]). Excellent interobserver reliability was found for injury location (ƙ = 0.922 and ƙ= 0.912) on both assessments, while injury type was substantial (ƙ=0.689 and 0.699) on both assessments. This correlated to a substantial overall interobserver reliability (ƙ = 0.729 and 0.732). CONCLUSION Early phase validation demonstrated classification of upper cervical spine injuries using the AO Spine Upper Cervical Injury Classification System to be accurate, reliable, and reproducible. Greater than 80% accuracy was detected for injury classification. The intraobserver reproducibility was excellent, while the interobserver reliability was substantial

The Diagnostic Process of Spinal Post-Traumatic Deformity: An Expert Survey of 7 Cases, Consensus on Clinical Relevance Does Exist

STUDY DESIGN: Survey of cases. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the opinion of experts in the diagnostic process of clinically relevant Spinal Post-traumatic Deformity (SPTD). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: SPTD is a potential complication of spine trauma that can cause decreased function and quality of life impairment. The question of when SPTD becomes clinically relevant is yet to be resolved. METHODS: The survey of 7 cases was sent to 31 experts. The case presentation was medical history, diagnostic assessment, evaluation of diagnostic assessment, diagnosis, and treatment options. Means, ranges, percentages of participants, and descriptive statistics were calculated. RESULTS: Seventeen spinal surgeons reviewed the presented cases. The items\u27 fracture type and complaints were rated by the participants as more important, but no agreement existed on the items of medical history. In patients with possible SPTD in the cervical spine (C) area, participants requested a conventional radiograph (CR) (76%-83%), a flexion/extension CR (61%-71%), a computed tomography (CT)-scan (76%-89%), and a magnetic resonance (MR)-scan (89%-94%). In thoracolumbar spine (ThL) cases, full spine CR (89%-100%), CT scan (72%-94%), and MR scan (65%-94%) were requested most often. There was a consensus on 5 out of 7 cases with clinically relevant SPTD (82%-100%). When consensus existed on the diagnosis of SPTD, there was a consensus on the case being compensated or decompensated and being symptomatic or asymptomatic. CONCLUSIONS: There was strong agreement in 5 out of 7 cases on the presence of the diagnosis of clinically relevant SPTD. Among spine experts, there is a strong consensus to use CT scan and MR scan, a cervical CR for C-cases, and a full spine CR for ThL-cases. The lack of agreement on items of the medical history suggests that a Delphi study can help us reach a consensus on the essential items of clinically relevant SPTD. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level V

Effect of surgical experience and spine subspecialty on the reliability of the AO Spine Upper Cervical Injury Classification System

Objective: The objective of this paper was to determine the interobserver reliability and intraobserver reproducibility of the AO Spine Upper Cervical Injury Classification System based on surgeon experience (\u3c 5 years, 5-10 years, 10-20 years, and \u3e 20 years) and surgical subspecialty (orthopedic spine surgery, neurosurgery, and other surgery). Methods: A total of 11,601 assessments of upper cervical spine injuries were evaluated based on the AO Spine Upper Cervical Injury Classification System. Reliability and reproducibility scores were obtained twice, with a 3-week time interval. Descriptive statistics were utilized to examine the percentage of accurately classified injuries, and Pearson\u27s chi-square or Fisher\u27s exact test was used to screen for potentially relevant differences between study participants. Kappa coefficients (κ) determined the interobserver reliability and intraobserver reproducibility. Results: The intraobserver reproducibility was substantial for surgeon experience level (\u3c 5 years: 0.74 vs 5-10 years: 0.69 vs 10-20 years: 0.69 vs \u3e 20 years: 0.70) and surgical subspecialty (orthopedic spine: 0.71 vs neurosurgery: 0.69 vs other: 0.68). Furthermore, the interobserver reliability was substantial for all surgical experience groups on assessment 1 (\u3c 5 years: 0.67 vs 5-10 years: 0.62 vs 10-20 years: 0.61 vs \u3e 20 years: 0.62), and only surgeons with \u3e 20 years of experience did not have substantial reliability on assessment 2 (\u3c 5 years: 0.62 vs 5-10 years: 0.61 vs 10-20 years: 0.61 vs \u3e 20 years: 0.59). Orthopedic spine surgeons and neurosurgeons had substantial intraobserver reproducibility on both assessment 1 (0.64 vs 0.63) and assessment 2 (0.62 vs 0.63), while other surgeons had moderate reliability on assessment 1 (0.43) and fair reliability on assessment 2 (0.36). Conclusions: The international reliability and reproducibility scores for the AO Spine Upper Cervical Injury Classification System demonstrated substantial intraobserver reproducibility and interobserver reliability regardless of surgical experience and spine subspecialty. These results support the global application of this classification system

Effects of Therapy in Oropharyngeal Dysphagia by Speech and Language Therapists: A Systematic Review

Medical and paramedical treatments should be evaluated according to current standards of evidence-based medicine. Evaluation of therapy in oropharyngeal dysphagia fits into this growing interest. A systematic review is given of the literature on the effects of therapy in oropharyngeal dysphagia carried out by speech therapists. Thus, the review excludes reports of surgical or pharmacological treatments. The literature search was performed using the electronic databases PubMed and Embase. All available inclusion dates up to November 2008 were used. The search was limited to English, German, French, Spanish, and Dutch publications. MESH terms were supplemented by using free-text words (for the period after January 2005). Fifty-nine studies were included. In general, statistically significant positive therapy effects were found. However, the number of papers was rather small. Moreover, diverse methodological problems were found in many of these studies. For most studies, the conclusions could not be generalized; comparison was hindered by the range of diagnoses, types of therapies, and evaluation techniques. Many questions remain about the effects of therapy in oropharyngeal dysphagia as performed by speech and language therapists. Although some positive significant outcome studies have been published, further research based on randomized controlled trials is needed