Postpartum maternal morbidity requiring hospital admission in Lusaka, Zambia – a descriptive study

BACKGROUND: Information on the extent of postpartum maternal morbidity in developing countries is extremely limited. In many settings, data from hospital-based studies is hard to interpret because of the small proportion of women that have access to medical care. However, in those areas with good uptake of health care, the measurement of the type and incidence of complications severe enough to require hospitalisation may provide useful baseline information on the acute and severe morbidity that women experience in the early weeks following childbirth. An analysis of health services data from Lusaka, Zambia, is presented. METHODS: Six-month retrospective review of hospital registers and 4-week cross-sectional study with prospective identification of postpartum admissions. RESULTS: Both parts of the study identified puerperal sepsis and malaria as, respectively, the leading direct and indirect causes of postpartum morbidity requiring hospital admission. Puerperal sepsis accounted for 34.8% of 365 postpartum admissions in the 6-month period. Malaria and pneumonia together accounted for one-fifth of all postpartum admissions (14.5% & 6% respectively). At least 1.7% of the postpartum population in Lusaka will require hospital-level care for a maternal morbidity. CONCLUSIONS: In developing country urban settings with high public health care usage, meticulous review of hospital registers can provide baseline information on the burden of moderate-to-severe postpartum morbidity

Still too far to walk: Literature review of the determinants of delivery service use

BACKGROUND: Skilled attendance at childbirth is crucial for decreasing maternal and neonatal mortality, yet many women in low- and middle-income countries deliver outside of health facilities, without skilled help. The main conceptual framework in this field implicitly looks at home births with complications. We expand this to include "preventive" facility delivery for uncomplicated childbirth, and review the kinds of determinants studied in the literature, their hypothesized mechanisms of action and the typical findings, as well as methodological difficulties encountered. METHODS: We searched PubMed and Ovid databases for reviews and ascertained relevant articles from these and other sources. Twenty determinants identified were grouped under four themes: (1) sociocultural factors, (2) perceived benefit/need of skilled attendance, (3) economic accessibility and (4) physical accessibility. RESULTS: There is ample evidence that higher maternal age, education and household wealth and lower parity increase use, as does urban residence. Facility use in the previous delivery and antenatal care use are also highly predictive of health facility use for the index delivery, though this may be due to confounding by service availability and other factors. Obstetric complications also increase use but are rarely studied. Quality of care is judged to be essential in qualitative studies but is not easily measured in surveys, or without linking facility records with women. Distance to health facilities decreases use, but is also difficult to determine. Challenges in comparing results between studies include differences in methods, context-specificity and the substantial overlap between complex variables. CONCLUSION: Studies of the determinants of skilled attendance concentrate on sociocultural and economic accessibility variables and neglect variables of perceived benefit/need and physical accessibility. To draw valid conclusions, it is important to consider as many influential factors as possible in any analysis of delivery service use. The increasing availability of georeferenced data provides the opportunity to link health facility data with large-scale household data, enabling researchers to explore the influences of distance and service quality

Comparison of the benefits of cochlear implantation versus contra-lateral routing of signal hearing aids in adult patients with single-sided deafness: study protocol for a prospective within-subject longitudinal trial

Background Individuals with a unilateral severe-to-profound hearing loss, or single-sided deafness, report difficulty with listening in many everyday situations despite having access to well-preserved acoustic hearing in one ear. The standard of care for single-sided deafness available on the UK National Health Service is a contra-lateral routing of signals hearing aid which transfers sounds from the impaired ear to the non-impaired ear. This hearing aid has been found to improve speech understanding in noise when the signal-to-noise ratio is more favourable at the impaired ear than the non-impaired ear. However, the indiscriminate routing of signals to a single ear can have detrimental effects when interfering sounds are located on the side of the impaired ear. Recent published evidence has suggested that cochlear implantation in individuals with a single-sided deafness can restore access to the binaural cues which underpin the ability to localise sounds and segregate speech from other interfering sounds. Methods/Design The current trial was designed to assess the efficacy of cochlear implantation compared to a contra-lateral routing of signals hearing aid in restoring binaural hearing in adults with acquired single-sided deafness. Patients are assessed at baseline and after receiving a contra-lateral routing of signals hearing aid. A cochlear implant is then provided to those patients who do not receive sufficient benefit from the hearing aid. This within-subject longitudinal design reflects the expected care pathway should cochlear implantation be provided for single-sided deafness on the UK National Health Service. The primary endpoints are measures of binaural hearing at baseline, after provision of a contra-lateral routing of signals hearing aid, and after cochlear implantation. Binaural hearing is assessed in terms of the accuracy with which sounds are localised and speech is perceived in background noise. The trial is also designed to measure the impact of the interventions on hearing- and health-related quality of life. Discussion This multi-centre trial was designed to provide evidence for the efficacy of cochlear implantation compared to the contra-lateral routing of signals. A purpose-built sound presentation system and established measurement techniques will provide reliable and precise measures of binaural hearing. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials http://www.controlled-trials.com/ISRCTN33301739 (05/JUL/2013

Identifying the deficiencies of current diagnostic criteria for neurofibromatosis 2 using databases of 2777 individuals with molecular testing

Purpose We have evaluated deficiencies in existing diagnostic criteria for neurofibromatosis 2 (NF2). Methods Two large databases of individuals fulfilling NF2 criteria (n = 1361) and those tested for NF2 variants with criteria short of diagnosis (n = 1416) were interrogated. We assessed the proportions meeting each diagnostic criterion with constitutional or mosaic NF2 variants and the positive predictive value (PPV) with regard to definite diagnosis. Results There was no evidence for usefulness of old criteria “glioma“ or “neurofibroma.” “Ependymoma” had 100% PPV and high levels of confirmed NF2 diagnosis (67.7%). Those with bilateral vestibular schwannoma (VS) alone aged ≥60 years had the lowest confirmation rate (6.6%) and reduced PPV (80%). Siblings as a first-degree relative, without an affected parent, had 0% PPV. All three individuals with unilateral VS and an affected sibling were proven not to have NF2. The biggest overlap was with LZTR1-associated schwannomatosis. In this category, seven individuals with unilateral VS plus ≥2 nondermal schwannomas reduced PPV to 67%. Conclusions The present study confirms important deficiencies in NF2 diagnostic criteria. The term “glioma” should be dropped and replaced by “ependymoma.” Similarly “neurofibroma” should be removed. Dropping “sibling” from first-degree relatives should be considered and testing of LZTR1 should be recommended for unilateral VS

Intratympanic corticosteroids for Ménière’s disease

Background: Ménière's disease is a condition that causes recurrent episodes of vertigo, associated with hearing loss and tinnitus. Corticosteroids are sometimes administered directly into the middle ear to treat this condition (through the tympanic membrane). The underlying cause of Ménière's disease is unknown, as is the way in which this treatment may work. The efficacy of this intervention in preventing vertigo attacks, and their associated symptoms, is currently unclear. Objectives: To evaluate the benefits and harms of intratympanic corticosteroids versus placebo or no treatment in people with Ménière's disease. Search methods: The Cochrane ENT Information Specialist searched the Cochrane ENT Register; Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; Web of Science; ClinicalTrials.gov; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the search was 14 September 2022. Selection criteria: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs in adults with a diagnosis of Ménière's disease comparing intratympanic corticosteroids with either placebo or no treatment. We excluded studies with follow-up of less than three months, or with a cross-over design (unless data from the first phase of the study could be identified). Data collection and analysis: We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were: 1) improvement in vertigo (assessed as a dichotomous outcome - improved or not improved), 2) change in vertigo (assessed as a continuous outcome, with a score on a numerical scale) and 3) serious adverse events. Our secondary outcomes were: 4) diseasespecific health-related quality of life, 5) change in hearing, 6) change in tinnitus and 7) other adverse effects (including tympanic membrane perforation). We considered outcomes reported at three time points: 3 to 12 months. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome. Main results: We included 10 studies with a total of 952 participants. All studies used the corticosteroid dexamethasone, with doses ranging from approximately 2 mg to 12 mg. Improvement in vertigo Intratympanic corticosteroids may make little or no difference to the number of people who report an improvement in their vertigo at 6 to ≤ 12 months follow-up (intratympanic corticosteroids 96.8%, placebo 96.6%, risk ratio (RR) 1.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.92 to 1.10; 2 studies; 60 participants; low-certainty evidence) or at more than 12 months follow-up (intratympanic corticosteroids 100%, placebo 96.3%; RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.23; 2 studies; 58 participants; low-certainty evidence). However, we note the large improvement in the placebo group for these trials, which causes challenges in interpreting these results.</p