Testicular torsion in Ethiopia: A case series and systematic review of the sub-Saharan African Literature

No Abstract

Choice of injury scoring system in low- and middle-income countries: Lessons from Mumbai

Introduction Injury is a major cause of morbidity and mortality in low- and middle-income countries. Effective trauma surveillance is imperative to guide research and quality improvement interventions, so an accurate metric for quantifying injury severity is crucial. The objectives of this study are (1) to assess the feasibility of calculating five injury scoring systems - ISS (injury severity score), RTS (revised trauma score), KTS (Kampala trauma score), MGAP (mechanism, GCS (Glasgow coma score), age, pressure) and GAP (GCS, age, pressure) - with data from a trauma registry in a lower middle-income country and (2) to determine which of these scoring systems most accurately predicts in-hospital mortality in this setting. Patients and methods This is a retrospective analysis of data from an institutional trauma registry in Mumbai, India. Values for each score were calculated when sufficient data were available. Logistic regression was used to compare the correlation between each score and in-hospital mortality. Results There were sufficient data recorded to calculate ISS in 73% of patients, RTS in 35%, KTS in 35%, MGAP in 88% and GAP in 92%. ISS was the weakest predictor of in-hospital mortality, while RTS, KTS, MGAP and GAP scores all correlated well with in-hospital mortality (area under ROC (receiver operating characteristic) curve 0.69 for ISS, 0.85 for RTS, 0.86 for KTS, 0.84 for MGAP, 0.85 for GAP). Respiratory rate measurements, missing in 63% of patients, were a major barrier to calculating RTS and KTS. Conclusions Given the realities of medical practice in low- and middle-income countries, it is reasonable to modify the approach to characterising injury severity to favour simplified injury scoring systems that accurately predict in-hospital mortality despite limitations in trauma registry datasets

Essential Emergency and Critical Care: A consensus among global clinical experts

Background Globally, critical illness results in millions of deaths every year. Although many of these deaths are potentially preventable, the basic, life-saving care of critically ill patients are often overlooked in health systems. Essential Emergency and Critical Care (EECC) has been devised as the care that should be provided to all critically ill patients in all hospitals in the world. EECC includes the effective care of low cost and low complexity for the identification and treatment of critically ill patients across all medical specialties. This study aimed to specify the content of EECC and additionally, given the surge of critical illness in the ongoing pandemic, the essential diagnosis-specific care for critically ill patients with COVID-19. Methods In a Delphi process, consensus (>90% agreement) was sought from a diverse panel of global clinical experts. The panel iteratively rated proposed treatments and actions based on previous guidelines and the WHO/ICRC's Basic Emergency Care. The output from the Delphi was adapted iteratively with specialist reviewers into a coherent and feasible package of clinical processes plus a list of hospital readiness requirements. Results The 269 experts in the Delphi panel had clinical experience in different acute medical specialties from 59 countries and from all resource settings. The agreed EECC package contains 40 clinical processes and 67 requirements, plus additions specific for COVID-19. Conclusion The study has specified the content of care that should be provided to all critically ill patients. Implementing EECC could be an effective strategy for policy makers to reduce preventable deaths worldwide