Standardizing the diagnosis of inhalation injury using a descriptive score based on mucosal injury criteria.

INTRODUCTION: Inhalation injury is an important determinant of outcome in patients with major burns. However the diagnostic criteria remain imprecise, preventing objective comparisons of published data. The aims were to evaluate the utility of an inhalation score based on mucosal injury, while assessing separately the oro-pharyngeal sphere (ENT) and tracheobronchial tree (TB) in patients admitted to the ICU with a suspicion of inhalation injury. METHODS: Prospective observational study in 100 patients admitted with suspicion of inhalation injury among 168 consecutive burn admissions to the ICU of a university hospital. Inclusion criteria, endoscopic airway assessment during the first hours. ENT/TB lesion grading was 1: oedema, hyperemia, hypersecretion, 2: bullous mucosal detachment, erosion, exudates, 3: profound ulcers, necrosis. RESULTS: Of the 100 patients (age 42±17 years, burns 23±19%BSA), 79 presented an ENT inhalation injury ≥ENT1 (soot present in 24%): 36 had a tracheobronchial extension, 33 having a grade ≥TB1. Burned vibrissae: 10 patients "without" suffered ENT injury, while 6 patients "with" had no further lesions. Length of mechanical ventilation was strongly associated with the first 24 hrs' fluid resuscitation volume (p<0.0001) and the presence of inhalation injury (p=0.03), while the ICU length of stay was correlated with the %BSA. Soot was associated with prolonged mechanical ventilation (p=0.0115). There was no extubation failure. CONCLUSIONS: The developed inhalation score was simple to use, providing a unified language, and drawing attention to upper airway involvement. Burned vibrissae and suspected history proved to be insufficient diagnostic criteria. Further studies are required to validate the score in a larger population.

Atlas-manuel d'anatomie descriptive du corps humain / par le Dr A. Prodhomme,...

Collection : Atlas-manuels de médecine

Publication bias in animal research: a systematic review protocol.

BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of pre-clinical studies, in vivo animal experiments in particular, can influence clinical care. Publication bias is one of the major threats of validity in systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Previous empirical studies suggested that systematic reviews and meta-analyses have become more prevalent until 2010 and found evidence for compromised methodological rigor with a trend towards improvement. We aim to comprehensively summarize and update the evidence base on systematic reviews and meta-analyses of animal studies, their methodological quality and assessment of publication bias in particular. METHODS/DESIGN: The objectives of this systematic review are as follows: âeuro¢To investigate the epidemiology of published systematic reviews of animal studies until present. âeuro¢To examine methodological features of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of animal studies with special attention to the assessment of publication bias. âeuro¢To investigate the influence of systematic reviews of animal studies on clinical research by examining citations of the systematic reviews by clinical studies. Eligible studies for this systematic review constitute systematic reviews and meta-analyses that summarize in vivo animal experiments with the purpose of reviewing animal evidence to inform human health. We will exclude genome-wide association studies and animal experiments with the main purpose to learn more about fundamental biology, physical functioning or behavior. In addition to the inclusion of systematic reviews and meta-analyses identified by other empirical studies, we will systematically search Ovid Medline, Embase, ToxNet, and ScienceDirect from 2009 to January 2013 for further eligible studies without language restrictions. Two reviewers working independently will assess titles, abstracts, and full texts for eligibility and extract relevant data from included studies. Data reporting will involve a descriptive summary of meta-analyses and systematic reviews. DISCUSSION: Results are expected to be publicly available later in 2013 and may form the basis for recommendations to improve the quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of animal studies and their use with respect to clinical care.

Driving under drugs in Switzerland : a descriptive cross-sectional study

Objectives: Many drugs, both illicit or for medication, are known to influence driving abilities and increase risks of accidents. We explored the prevalence of psychoactive substances in a random sample of drivers in Switzerland. Methods: Saliva samples from 1078 random drivers were collected at 24 different locations in Western Switzerland from October 2006 to April 2008 for complete toxicological analysis using liquid chromatography/tandem mass spectrometry. Results: Provisional results are available for 437 drivers. 6.2% (CI95% 4.1 to 8.9) were under the influence of illicit drugs and 8.7% under psychoactive medication (CI95% 6.2 to 11.7). 37 drivers (8.5%) were under the influence of alcohol of which 14 (3.2%) were above 0.8 mg/L. 21 drivers (4.8%) were under the combined influence of more than one psychoactive substance; however only 4 drivers (0.9%) were under both the influence of medication and alcohol. Looking more specifically at illicit substances, 22 (5.0%) were positive to cocaine, 5 (1.1%) to cannabis, and 2 (0.5%) to amphetamines ; for psychoactive medication, 17 (3.9%) were positive to benzodiazepines, 16 (3.7%) to antidepressors, 7 (1.6%) to opiates, 7 (1.6%) to neuroleptics, and 3 (0.7%) to other substances influencing driving abilities. 17/21 drivers did not self-report their consumption of drugs whereas only 9/35 failed mentioning their medication. Men drivers were 3.2 times (CI95% 1.1 to 9.5) more likely to be under the influence of illicit drugs than women. Full results will be reported when laboratory data will be available in April. Conclusions: Driving under the influence of psychoactive substances is common. In Western Switzerland, prevention messages could focus on men, driving under medication or cocaine.