scholarly journals Medical emoji for clinical signs and symptoms: a comprehensive qualitative study

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Reza Assadi ◽  
Nasim Lotfinejad ◽  
Amir Hosein Ziae ◽  
Baran Ganjali
Keyword(s):  
Qualitative Study ◽  
Clinical Sign ◽  
General Practitioners ◽  
Facial Expressions ◽  
Delphi Method ◽  
Clinical Signs ◽  
Signs And Symptoms ◽  
Graphic Designer ◽  
Icd 10 ◽  
Clinical Signs And Symptoms

AbstractIntroductionEmojis have surpassed facial expressions and they are now widely used to deliver complex concepts by representing graphical expressions in the digital platform. In this study, we endeavored to develop medical emojis for clinical signs and symptoms to be used as tools for text-based counselling.MethodsThe present study was conducted using the Delphi method with medical studnets and general practitioners, drawing and discussing in several repeated rounds. For this purpose, about 100 clinical signs/symptoms were considered using the ICD-10 website.ResultsIn the present study, from one hundred signs and symptoms we reached to 85 signs/symptoms that after first round of sessions were illustrated. Out of these 85 eligible emojis, 4 cases were removed due to the lack of consensus. The rest of the emojis were finalized and prepared by the graphic designer. These emojis then were published online to collect online votes.ConclusionIn this study, we could design up to 81 medical emojis presenting clinical sign and symptoms with acceptable consensus between the participants. These emojis were reasonably acceptable by our panelists in presenting the established clinical concepts.

scholarly journals Comparison between clinical and videofluoroscopic evaluation of swallowing in children with suspected dysphagia

CoDAS ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 27 (2) ◽  
pp. 186-192 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lenice de Fatima da Silva-Munhoz ◽  
Karina Elena Bernardis Bühler ◽  
Suelly Cecilia Olivan Limongi
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Sign ◽  
Clinical Evaluation ◽  
Clinical Assessment ◽  
Clinical Signs ◽  
Signs And Symptoms ◽  
Predictive Values ◽  
Thin Fluid ◽  
Laryngeal Penetration ◽  
Clinical Signs And Symptoms ◽  
Sensitivity Specificity

Purpose: To verify the accuracy of clinical evaluation compared with videofluoroscopic swallowing studies in the detection of isolated laryngeal penetration and laryngeal aspiration in children with suspected dysphagia; to identify clinical signs and symptoms associated with isolated laryngeal penetration and laryngeal aspiration; and to determine the sensitivity and specificity of the clinical signs and symptoms identified. Methods: Retrospective analysis of data from clinical and videofluoroscopic evaluations carried out in 55 children from 1 month to 7 years and 11 months old. For clinical assessment, the Protocol for Clinical Assessment of Pediatric Dysphagia was used. The sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of clinical evaluation were analyzed. For statistical analysis, the Fisher's exact and χ2 tests were used. Results: Clinical evaluation showed, in general, a sensitivity of 86% and a specificity of 32%. For isolated laryngeal penetration, clinical evaluation showed a sensitivity of 88%. For laryngeal aspiration, clinical evaluation showed a sensitivity of 86%. However, the specificity values were low for both alterations. There was no association between clinical evaluation and videofluoroscopic findings. Choking was the only clinical sign associated with isolated laryngeal penetration thin fluid and showed a sensitivity of 53% and a specificity of 77%. Conclusions: Clinical evaluation was sensible to detect isolated laryngeal penetration and laryngeal aspiration in children with suspected dysphagia. However, it showed a low specificity. Choking was the only clinical sign associated with isolated laryngeal penetration of thin fluid. More prospective studies are needed to confirm these findings in this population.

scholarly journals Comparative analysis of COVID-19 guidelines from six countries: A qualitative study on the US, China, South Korea, the UK, Brazil and Haiti

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
JI YOUN YOO ◽  
Samia Valeria Ozorio Dutra ◽  
Dany Fanfan ◽  
Sarah Sniffen ◽  
Hao Wang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Qualitative Study ◽  
South Korea ◽  
Healthcare Professionals ◽  
Clinical Signs ◽  
Signs And Symptoms ◽  
Healthcare Systems ◽  
Contact Tracing ◽  
Clinical Signs And Symptoms ◽  
The Government ◽  
The Uk

Abstract Background: In late January, a worldwide crisis known as COVID-19 was declared a Public Health Emergency of International Concern by the WHO. Within only a few weeks, the outbreak took on pandemic proportions, affecting over 100 countries. It was a significant issue to prevent and control COVID-19 on both national and global scales due to the dramatic increase in confirmed cases worldwide. Government guidelines provide a fundamental resource for communities, as they guide citizens on how to protect themselves against COVID-19, however, they also provide critical guidance for policy makers and healthcare professionals on how to take action to decrease the spread of COVID-19. We aimed to identify the differences and similarities between six different countries' (US, China, South Korea, UK, Brazil and Haiti) government-provided community and healthcare system guidelines, and to explore the relationship between guideline issue dates and the prevalence/incidence of COVID-19 cases.Methods: To make these comparisons, this exploratory qualitative study used document analysis of government guidelines issued to the general public and to healthcare professionals. Documents were purposively sampled (N=55) and analyzed using content analysis.Results: The major differences in the evaluation and testing criteria in the guidelines across the six countries centered around the priority of testing for COVID-19 in the general population, which was strongly dependent on each country’s healthcare capacity. However, the most similar guidelines pertained to the clinical signs and symptoms of COVID-19, and methods to prevent its contraction.Conclusion: In the initial stages of the outbreak, certain strategies were universally employed to control the deadly virus’s spread, including quarantining the sick, contact tracing, and social distancing. However, each country dealt with differing healthcare capacities, risks, threats, political and socioeconomic challenges, and distinct healthcare systems and infrastructure. Acknowledging these differences highlights the importance of examining the various countries’ response to the COVID-19 pandemic with a nuanced view, as each of these factors shaped the government guidelines distributed to each country’s communities and healthcare systems.

scholarly journals Comparative analysis of COVID-19 guidelines from six countries: a qualitative study on the US, China, South Korea, the UK, Brazil, and Haiti

2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ji Youn Yoo ◽  
Samia Valeria Ozorio Dutra ◽  
Dany Fanfan ◽  
Sarah Sniffen ◽  
Hao Wang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Qualitative Study ◽  
South Korea ◽  
Healthcare Professionals ◽  
Clinical Signs ◽  
Signs And Symptoms ◽  
Healthcare Systems ◽  
Contact Tracing ◽  
Clinical Signs And Symptoms ◽  
The Government ◽  
The Uk

Abstract Background In late January, a worldwide crisis known as COVID-19 was declared a Public Health Emergency of International Concern by the WHO. Within only a few weeks, the outbreak took on pandemic proportions, affecting over 100 countries. It was a significant issue to prevent and control COVID-19 on both national and global scales due to the dramatic increase in confirmed cases worldwide. Government guidelines provide a fundamental resource for communities, as they guide citizens on how to protect themselves against COVID-19, however, they also provide critical guidance for policy makers and healthcare professionals on how to take action to decrease the spread of COVID-19. We aimed to identify the differences and similarities between six different countries’ (US, China, South Korea, UK, Brazil and Haiti) government-provided community and healthcare system guidelines, and to explore the relationship between guideline issue dates and the prevalence/incidence of COVID-19 cases. Methods To make these comparisons, this exploratory qualitative study used document analysis of government guidelines issued to the general public and to healthcare professionals. Documents were purposively sampled (N = 55) and analyzed using content analysis. Results The major differences in the evaluation and testing criteria in the guidelines across the six countries centered around the priority of testing for COVID-19 in the general population, which was strongly dependent on each country’s healthcare capacity. However, the most similar guidelines pertained to the clinical signs and symptoms of COVID-19, and methods to prevent its contraction. Conclusion In the initial stages of the outbreak, certain strategies were universally employed to control the deadly virus’s spread, including quarantining the sick, contact tracing, and social distancing. However, each country dealt with differing healthcare capacities, risks, threats, political and socioeconomic challenges, and distinct healthcare systems and infrastructure. Acknowledging these differences highlights the importance of examining the various countries’ response to the COVID-19 pandemic with a nuanced view, as each of these factors shaped the government guidelines distributed to each country’s communities and healthcare systems.

scholarly journals Comparative analysis of COVID-19 guidelines from six countries: a qualitative study in the US, China, South Korea, the UK, Brazil and Haiti

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
JI YOUN YOO ◽  
Samia Valeria Ozorio Dutra ◽  
Dany Fanfan ◽  
Sarah Sniffen ◽  
Hao Wang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Qualitative Study ◽  
South Korea ◽  
Healthcare Professionals ◽  
Clinical Signs ◽  
Signs And Symptoms ◽  
Healthcare Systems ◽  
Contact Tracing ◽  
Clinical Signs And Symptoms ◽  
The Government ◽  
The Uk

Abstract Background On January 30, 2020, the WHO declared the outbreak of COVID-19 a Public Health Emergency of International Concern. Within only a few weeks, the outbreak took on pandemic proportions, affecting over 100 countries. This rapid increase in confirmed cases made the prevention and control of COVID-19 critical on both national and global scales in order to prevent the healthcare systems from being overwhelmed. Government guidelines provide a fundamental resource for communities, as they guide citizens on how to protect themselves against COVID-19, however, they also provide critical guidance for policy makers and healthcare professionals for taking action to slow the spread of COVID-19. Objective We aimed to identify the differences and similarities between six different countries' (U.S., China, South Korea, UK, Brazil and Haiti) government provided community and healthcare system guidelines, and to explore the relationship between guideline issue dates and the prevalence/incidence of COVID-19 cases. Research design and Methods: To make these comparisons, this exploratory qualitative study used document analysis of government guidelines issued to the general public and to healthcare professionals. Results The major differences in the evaluation and testing criteria in the guidelines across the six countries centered around the priority of testing for COVID-19 in the general population, which was strongly dependent on each country’s healthcare capacity. However, the most similar guidelines pertained to the clinical signs and symptoms of COVID-19, and methods to prevent its contraction. Conclusion In the initial stages of the outbreak, certain strategies were universally employed to control the deadly virus’s spread, including quarantining the sick, contact tracing, and social distancing. However, each country dealt with differing healthcare capacities, risks, threats, political and socioeconomic challenges, and distinct healthcare systems and infrastructure. Acknowledging these differences highlights the importance of examining the various countries’ response to the COVID-19 pandemic with a nuanced view, as each of these factors shaped the government guidelines distributed to each country’s communities and healthcare systems.

scholarly journals Comparative analysis of COVID-19 guidelines from six countries: a qualitative study on the US, China, South Korea, the UK, Brazil, and Haiti 

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
JI YOUN YOO ◽  
Samia Valeria Ozorio Dutra ◽  
Dany Fanfan ◽  
Sarah Sniffen ◽  
Hao Wang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Qualitative Study ◽  
South Korea ◽  
Healthcare Professionals ◽  
Clinical Signs ◽  
Signs And Symptoms ◽  
Healthcare Systems ◽  
Contact Tracing ◽  
Clinical Signs And Symptoms ◽  
The Government ◽  
The Uk

Abstract Background: In late January a worldwide crisis known as COVID-19 was declared a Public Health Emergency of International Concern by the WHO. Within only a few weeks, the outbreak took on pandemic proportions, affecting over 100 countries. It was a significant issue to prevent and control COVID-19 on both national and global scales due to the dramatic increase in confirmed cases worldwide. Government guidelines provide a fundamental resource for communities, as they guide citizens on how to protect themselves against COVID-19, however, they also provide critical guidance for policy makers and healthcare professionals on how to take action to decrease the spread of COVID-19.Objective: We aimed to identify the differences and similarities between six different countries' (US, China, South Korea, UK, Brazil and Haiti) government provided community and healthcare system guidelines, and to explore the relationship between guideline issue dates and the prevalence/incidence of COVID-19 cases. Research design and Methods: To make these comparisons, this exploratory qualitative study used document analysis of government guidelines issued to the general public and to healthcare professionals. Documents were purposively sampled (N=55) and analyzed using content analysis.Results: The major differences in the evaluation and testing criteria in the guidelines across the six countries centered around the priority of testing for COVID-19 in the general population, which was strongly dependent on each country’s healthcare capacity. However, the most similar guidelines pertained to the clinical signs and symptoms of COVID-19, and methods to prevent its contraction. Conclusion: In the initial stages of the outbreak, certain strategies were universally employed to control the deadly virus’s spread, including quarantining the sick, contact tracing, and social distancing. However, each country dealt with differing healthcare capacities, risks, threats, political and socioeconomic challenges, and distinct healthcare systems and infrastructure. Acknowledging these differences highlights the importance of examining the various countries’ response to the COVID-19 pandemic with a nuanced view, as each of these factors shaped the government guidelines distributed to each country’s communities and healthcare systems.

scholarly journals Dementia and Major Neurocognitive Disorders: Some Lessons Learned One Century after the first Alois Alzheimer’s Clinical Notes

Geriatrics ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 5
Author(s):  
Donatella Rita Petretto ◽  
Gian Pietro Carrogu ◽  
Luca Gaviano ◽  
Lorenzo Pili ◽  
Roberto Pili
Keyword(s):  
Young Woman ◽  
Clinical Signs ◽  
Signs And Symptoms ◽  
Neurocognitive Disorders ◽  
Lessons Learned ◽  
Alzheimer Dementia ◽  
Clinical Notes ◽  
Alois Alzheimer ◽  
Clinical Signs And Symptoms

Over 100 years ago, Alois Alzheimer presented the clinical signs and symptoms of what has been later called “Alzheimer Dementia” in a young woman whose name was Augustine Deter [...]

scholarly journals Correction to: Levoketoconazole improves clinical signs and symptoms and patient-reported outcomes in patients with Cushing’s syndrome

Pituitary ◽  
2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eliza B. Geer ◽  
Roberto Salvatori ◽  
Atanaska Elenkova ◽  
Maria Fleseriu ◽  
Rosario Pivonello ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cushing’S Syndrome ◽  
Patient Reported Outcomes ◽  
Clinical Signs ◽  
Signs And Symptoms ◽  
Cushing's Syndrome ◽  
Original Version ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Author Group ◽  
Clinical Signs And Symptoms

The original version of the article unfortunately contained an error in the first name and the surname of one of the authors in the author group. The last author name was incorrectly published as ‘F. Pecori Giraldi’ and the corrected name is ‘Francesca Pecori Giraldi’ (First name: Francesca; Surname: Pecori Giraldi).

scholarly journals A 38-year demographic study of central and peripheral giant cell granulomas of the jaws

2016 ◽  
Vol 15 (2) ◽  
pp. 220-223 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shadi Saghafi ◽  
Reza Zare-Mahmoodabadi ◽  
Narges Ghazi ◽  
Mohammad Zargari
Keyword(s):  
Giant Cell ◽  
Medical Science ◽  
Age Distribution ◽  
Clinical Signs ◽  
Signs And Symptoms ◽  
Posterior Maxilla ◽  
Frequent Site ◽  
Male Patients ◽  
Clinical Signs And Symptoms ◽  
Anterior Mandible

Objective: The purpose of this study was to retrospectively analyze the demographic characteristics of patients with central giant cell granulomas (CGCGs) and peripheral giant cell granulomas (PGCGs) in Iranian population.Methods: The data were obtained from records of 1019 patients with CGCG and PGCG of the jaws referred to our department between 1972 and 2010. This 38-year retrospective study was based on existing data. Information regarding age distribution, gender, location of the lesion and clinical signs and symptoms was documented. Results: A total of 1019 patients were affected GCGLs including 435 CGCGs and 584 PGCGs during the study. The mean age was 28.91 ± 18.16. PGCGs and CGCGs had a peak of occurrence in the first and second decade of life respectively. A female predominance was shown in CGCG cases (57.70%), whereas PGCGs were more frequent in males (50.85%). Five hundred and ninety-eight cases of all giant cell lesions (58.7 %) occurred in the mandible. Posterior mandible was the most frequent site for both CGCG and PGCG cases. The second most common site for PGCG was posterior maxilla (21%), whereas anterior mandible was involved in CGCG (19.45%). The majority of patients were asymptomatic. Conclusions: In contrast to most of previous studies PGCGs occur more common in the first decade and also more frequently in male patients. Although the CGCGs share some histopathologic similarities with PGCGs, differences in demographic features may be observed in different populations which may help in the diagnosis and management of these lesions.Bangladesh Journal of Medical Science Vol.15(2) 2016 p.220-223

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document