Severe antiretroviral-associated skin reactions in South African patients: a case series and case-control analysis

Abstract Aim A “Floating Hip” injury describes a simultaneous ipsilateral fracture of the femur and pelvis. We performed a descriptive study of the injury patterns, management, and outcomes of floating hip patients, and compared these patients to those with similar pelvic fractures without femoral involvement. Method This was a retrospective case-series review with secondary case-control analysis. Medical records of patients presenting with a floating hip injury to our tertiary orthopaedics department between 2015 and 2020 were reviewed. The control group comprised of patients with pelvic fractures but without associated femoral fractures, matched by age, sex, pelvic fracture classification, and mechanism of injury. Results 46 Floating Hip cases were identified (34 males), of average age 39 (15-86) years. 20 had acetabular fractures, 21 had pelvic ring fractures and 5 had both fractures, concomitant with ipsilateral femoral fractures. The most common site of femoral fracture was mid-shaft (21.7%), followed by distal (19.6%). 69.6% of P/A fractures were managed surgically, with ORIF (43%) the most common option. 4 (12.50%) patients suffered complications, including 2 infections and 1 DVT. Compared to controls, Floating Hip patients were more likely to require surgical management (67.6% vs 47.8%, p = 0.03), and had higher rates of surgical complications (12.5% vs 4.6%), though not statistically significant (p = 0.3). Conclusions Our study describes the patterns, management, and outcomes of Floating Hip injuries, and observes differences in the management and complications compared to similar pelvic fractures without femoral involvement. These findings suggest Floating Hip cases may warrant consideration as a distinct injury pattern.

Download Full-text

THE IMPACT OF HIV-1 ON THE CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY OF HUMAN RHINOVIRUS IN SOUTH AFRICAN AND ZAMBIAN CHILDREN: A CASE-CONTROL ANALYSIS IN THE PERCH STUDY

10.26226/morressier.58fa1765d462b80290b50f74 ◽

2017 ◽

Author(s):

Vicky Lynne Baillie

Keyword(s):

South African ◽

Clinical Epidemiology ◽

Case Control ◽

Human Rhinovirus ◽

Control Analysis ◽

Case Control Analysis ◽

The Impact ◽

Hiv 1

Download Full-text

Preoperative serum sodium measurements and postoperative inpatient mortality: A case-control analysis of data from the South African Surgical Outcomes Study

South African Medical Journal ◽

10.7196/samj.2018.v108i10.13178 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 108 (10) ◽

pp. 847

Author(s):

M Ramburuth ◽

Y Moodley ◽

P D Gopalan

Keyword(s):

South African ◽

Serum Sodium ◽

Surgical Outcomes ◽

Case Control ◽

Control Analysis ◽

Inpatient Mortality ◽

The South ◽

Preoperative Serum ◽

Outcomes Study ◽

Case Control Analysis

Download Full-text

COVID-19 in Great Britain: epidemiological and clinical characteristics of the first few hundred (FF100) cases: a descriptive case series and case control analysis

10.2471/blt.20.265603 ◽

2020 ◽

Author(s):

Nicola L Boddington ◽

Andre Charlett ◽

Suzanne Elgohari ◽

Jemma L Walker ◽

Helen I McDonald ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Great Britain ◽

Clinical Characteristics ◽

Case Series ◽

Case Control ◽

Control Analysis ◽

Case Control Analysis

Download Full-text

Methodological Rigor in COVID-19 Clinical Research: A Systematic Review and Case-Control Analysis

10.1101/2020.07.02.20145102 ◽

2020 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Richard G Jung ◽

Pietro Di Santo ◽

Cole Clifford ◽

Graeme Prosperi-Porta ◽

Stephanie Skanes ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Methodological Quality ◽

Case Series ◽

Final Analysis ◽

Case Control ◽

Medical Decision ◽

Controlled Trials ◽

Control Analysis ◽

High Quality ◽

Case Control Analysis

Objective: To systematically evaluate the quality of reporting of currently available COVID-19 studies compared to historical controls. Design: A systematic review and case-control analysis Data sources: MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials until May 14, 2020 Study selection: All original clinical literature evaluating COVID-19 or SARS-CoV2 were identified and 1:1 historical control of the same study type in the same published journal was matched from the previous year Data extraction: Two independent reviewers screened titles, abstracts, and full-texts and independently assessed methodological quality using Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool, Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, QUADAS-2 Score, or case series checklist. Results: 9895 titles and abstracts were screened and 686 COVID-19 articles were included in the final analysis in which 380 (55.4%) were case series, 199 (29.0%) were cohort, 63 (9.2%) were diagnostic, 38 (5.5%) were case-control, and 6 (0.9%) were randomized controlled trials. Overall, high quality/low-bias studies represented less than half of COVID-19 articles - 49.0% of case series, 43.9% of cohort, 31.6% of case-control, and 6.4% of diagnostic studies. We matched 539 control articles to COVID-19 articles from the same journal in the previous year for a final analysis of 1078 articles. The median time to acceptance was 13.0 (IQR, 5.0-25.0) days in COVID-19 articles vs. 110.0 (IQR, 71.0-156.0) days in control articles (p<0.0001). Overall, methodological quality was lower in COVID-19 articles with 220 COVID-19 articles of high quality (41.0%) vs. 392 control articles (73.3%, p<0.0001) with similar results when stratified by study design. In both unadjusted and adjusted logistic regression, COVID-19 articles were associated with lower methodological quality (odds ratio, 0.25; 95% CI, 0.20 to 0.33, p<0.0001). Conclusion: Currently published COVID-19 studies were accepted more quickly and were found to be of lower methodological quality than comparative studies published in the same journal. Given the implications of these studies to medical decision making and government policy, greater effort to appropriately weigh the existing evidence in the context of emerging high-quality research is needed. Study registration: PROSPERO: CRD42020187318

Download Full-text