NUMERIČKO INTEGRIRANJE KOD IZRAČUNA VOLUMENA NEPRAVILNIH ANTIKLINALA

The volume of geological structures is often calculated by using the definite integral. Though in some cases the integral can be solved analytically, in practice we usually approximate its value by numerical integration techniques. The application of definite integral in volume calculation is illustrated by two examples. The volume of Mount Fuji, the world-known “conic” geomorphological structure, is calculated by analytical integration. Two basic numerical integration methods, that is, the trapezoidal and Simpson’s rule are applied to subsurface hydrocarbon reservoir volume calculation, where irregular anticline is approximated by a frustum of a right circular cone.Pri izračunavanju volumena geoloških struktura često se koristi određeni integral. Iako se u nekim slučajevima integral može riješiti analitički, u praksi se njegova vrijednost obično procjenjuje koristeći tehnike numeričke integracije. Primjena određenog integrala u izračunavanju volumena ilustrirana je dvama primjerima. Volumen planine Fuji, koja je svjetski poznati geomorfološki primjer “stožaste” strukture, izračunat je analitičkom integracijom. Dvije temeljne metode numeričkog integriranja, tj. trapezno i Simpsonovo pravilo, primijenjene su na izračun volumena ležišta ugljikovodika, gdje je struktura nepravilne antiklinale aproksimirana pravilnim krnjim stošcem

Predictors of Successful Decannulation Using a Tracheostomy Retainer in Patients with Prolonged Weaning and Persisting Respiratory Failure

Background: For percutaneously tracheostomized patients with prolonged weaning and persisting respiratory failure, the adequate time point for safe decannulation and switch to noninvasive ventilation is an important clinical issue. Objectives: We aimed to evaluate the usefulness of a tracheostomy retainer (TR) and the predictors of successful decannulation. Methods: We studied 166 of 384 patients with prolonged weaning in whom a TR was inserted into a tracheostoma. Patients were analyzed with regard to successful decannulation and characterized by blood gas values, the duration of previous spontaneous breathing, Simplified Acute Physiology Score (SAPS) and laboratory parameters. Results: In 47 patients (28.3%) recannulation was necessary, mostly due to respiratory decompensation and aspiration. Overall, 80.6% of the patients could be liberated from a tracheostomy with the help of a TR. The need for recannulation was associated with a shorter duration of spontaneous breathing within the last 24/48 h (p < 0.01 each), lower arterial oxygen tension (p = 0.025), greater age (p = 0.025), and a higher creatinine level (p = 0.003) and SAPS (p < 0.001). The risk for recannulation was 9.5% when patients breathed spontaneously for 19-24 h within the 24 h prior to decannulation, but 75.0% when patients breathed for only 0-6 h without ventilatory support (p < 0.001). According to ROC analysis, the SAPS best predicted successful decannulation {[}AUC 0.725 (95% CI: 0.634-0.815), p < 0.001]. Recannulated patients had longer durations of intubation (p = 0.046), tracheostomy (p = 0.003) and hospital stay (p < 0.001). Conclusion: In percutaneously tracheostomized patients with prolonged weaning, the use of a TR seems to facilitate and improve the weaning process considerably. The duration of spontaneous breathing prior to decannulation, age and oxygenation describe the risk for recannulation in these patients. Copyright (c) 2012 S. Karger AG, Base

Evaluation of emergency department performance:A systematic review on recommended performance and quality-in-care measures

BACKGROUND: Evaluation of emergency department (ED) performance remains a difficult task due to the lack of consensus on performance measures that reflects high quality, efficiency, and sustainability. AIM: To describe, map, and critically evaluate which performance measures that the published literature regard as being most relevant in assessing overall ED performance. METHODS: Following the PRISMA guidelines, a systematic literature review of review articles reporting accentuated ED performance measures was conducted in the databases of PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science. Study eligibility criteria includes: 1) the main purpose was to discuss, analyse, or promote performance measures best reflecting ED performance, 2) the article was a review article, and 3) the article reported macro-level performance measures, thus reflecting an overall departmental performance level. RESULTS: A number of articles addresses this study’s objective (n = 14 of 46 unique hits). Time intervals and patient-related measures were dominant in the identified performance measures in review articles from US, UK, Sweden and Canada. Length of stay (LOS), time between patient arrival to initial clinical assessment, and time between patient arrivals to admission were highlighted by the majority of articles. Concurrently, “patients left without being seen” (LWBS), unplanned re-attendance within a maximum of 72 hours, mortality/morbidity, and number of unintended incidents were the most highlighted performance measures that related directly to the patient. Performance measures related to employees were only stated in two of the 14 included articles. CONCLUSIONS: A total of 55 ED performance measures were identified. ED time intervals were the most recommended performance measures followed by patient centeredness and safety performance measures. ED employee related performance measures were rarely mentioned in the investigated literature. The study’s results allow for advancement towards improved performance measurement and standardised assessment across EDs

How risky is caring for emergency patients at risk of malpractice litigation: a population based epidemiological study of Taiwan's experiences

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Emergency medicine has generally been considered a high risk specialty. The purpose of this study is to assess the risk of being sued in the district courts for caring emergency room (ER) patients from the perspective of epidemiology.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>This research was designed to be a retrospective population based cohort study. We intended to find out the incidence of litigations arising from ER patients and that of birth inpatients in Taiwan, and computed their relative risks. The inclusion criterion was set to be incidents transpired in the time period of 1998 to 2002. The study materials included the reimbursement claim dataset of the National Health Insurance from 1998 to 2002, and the district court decision database of the Judicial Yuan from 1999 to 2006.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The average annual incidence rate of becoming a plaintiff for ER patients is 0.86 per million, and for birth patients is 33.5 per million. There is a statistically significant difference between birth patients and ER patients. The relative risk comparing ER patients against birth inpatients is 0.03.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The findings of this population based study indicate that the patient population emergency physicians are facing in Taiwan have relatively lower risks of developing litigation in comparison with the patients that come to give birth. Due to the large volume of ER patients, malpractice still pose a major threat in the emergency department, and misdiagnosis remains the major complaint of plaintiffs in subsequent litigations.</p

Back to thiazide-diuretics for hypertension: reflections after a decade of irrational prescribing

BACKGROUND: Whether newer antihypertensive drugs, such as calcium channel blockers, angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors and α blockers are more effective than thiazides and β blockers in preventing coronary disease, has been debated for years. DISCUSSION: Recently several trials addressing this issue have been finalised, and they provide a convincing answer: the newer drugs are no better than the older ones. In the largest trial to date (ALLHAT), thiazide-type diuretic was found to offer advantages over newer drugs. The medical community should now be capable of reaching consensus, and recommend thiazides as the first line therapy for the treatment of hypertension. Prescribing physicians, cardiologists, drug companies and health authorities are all partly responsible for the years of irrational prescribing that we have witnessed. SUMMARY: All stakeholders should now contribute in order to achieve what is clearly in the public's interest: implementing the use of thiazides in clinical practice

Abstracts in high profile journals often fail to report harm

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>To describe how frequently harm is reported in the abstract of high impact factor medical journals.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p><it>Design and population</it>: We carried out a blinded structured review of a random sample of 363 Randomised Controlled Trials (RCTs) carried out on human beings, and published in high impact factor medical journals in 2003. <it>Main endpoint</it>: 1) Proportion of articles reporting harm in the abstract; and 2) Proportion of articles that reported harm in the abstract when harm was reported in the main body of the article. <it>Analysis</it>: Corrected Prevalence Ratio (cPR) and its exact confidence interval were calculated. Non-conditional logistic regression was used.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>363 articles and 407 possible comparisons were studied. Overall, harm was reported in 135 abstracts [37.2% (CI95%:32.2 to 42.4)]. Harm was reported in the main text of 243 articles [66.9% (CI95%: 61.8 to 71.8)] and was statistically significant in 54 articles [14.9% (CI95%: 11.4 to 19.0)]. Among the 243 articles that mentioned harm in the text, 130 articles [53.5% (CI95% 47.0 to 59.9)] reported harm in the abstract; a figure that rose to 75.9% (CI95%: 62.4 to 86.5) when the harm reported in the text was statistically significant. Harm in the abstract was more likely to be reported when statistically significant harm was reported in the main body of the article [cPR = 1.70 (CI95% 1.47 to 1.92)] and when drug companies (not public institutions) funded the RCTs [cPR = 1.29 (CI95% 1.03 to 1.67)].</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Abstracts published in high impact factor medical journals underreport harm, even when harm is reported in the main body of the article.</p