http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.
변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.
Hearing loss screening tool (COBRA score) for newborns in primary care setting
Watcharapol Poonual,Niramon Navacharoen,Jaran Kangsanarak,Sirianong Namwongprom,Surasak Saokaew 대한소아청소년과학회 2017 Clinical and Experimental Pediatrics (CEP) Vol.60 No.11
Purpose: To develop and evaluate a simple screening tool to assess hearing loss in newborns. A derived score was compared with the standard clinical practice tool. Methods: This cohort study was designed to screen the hearing of newborns using transiently evoked otoacoustic emission and auditory brain stem response, and to determine the risk factors associated with hearing loss of newborns in 3 tertiary hospitals in Northern Thailand. Data were prospectively collected from November 1, 2010 to May 31, 2012. To develop the risk score, clinical-risk indicators were measured by Poisson risk regression. The regression coefficients were transformed into item scores dividing each regression-coefficient with the smallest coefficient in the model, rounding the number to its nearest integer, and adding up to a total score. Results: Five clinical risk factors (Craniofacial anomaly, Ototoxicity, Birth weight, family history [Relative] of congenital sensorineural hearing loss, and Apgar score) were included in our COBRA score. The screening tool detected, by area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, more than 80% of existing hearing loss. The positive-likelihood ratio of hearing loss in patients with scores of 4, 6, and 8 were 25.21 (95% confidence interval [CI], 14.69–43.26), 58.52 (95% CI, 36.26–94.44), and 51.56 (95% CI, 33.74–78.82), respectively. This result was similar to the standard tool (The Joint Committee on Infant Hearing) of 26.72 (95% CI, 20.59–34.66). Conclusion: A simple screening tool of five predictors provides good prediction indices for newborn hearing loss, which may motivate parents to bring children for further appropriate testing and investigations.
Hearing loss screening tool (COBRA score) for newborns in primary care setting
Poonual, Watcharapol,Navacharoen, Niramon,Kangsanarak, Jaran,Namwongprom, Sirianong,Saokaew, Surasak The Korean Pediatric Society 2017 Clinical and Experimental Pediatrics (CEP) Vol.60 No.11
Purpose: To develop and evaluate a simple screening tool to assess hearing loss in newborns. A derived score was compared with the standard clinical practice tool. Methods: This cohort study was designed to screen the hearing of newborns using transiently evoked otoacoustic emission and auditory brain stem response, and to determine the risk factors associated with hearing loss of newborns in 3 tertiary hospitals in Northern Thailand. Data were prospectively collected from November 1, 2010 to May 31, 2012. To develop the risk score, clinical-risk indicators were measured by Poisson risk regression. The regression coefficients were transformed into item scores dividing each regression-coefficient with the smallest coefficient in the model, rounding the number to its nearest integer, and adding up to a total score. Results: Five clinical risk factors (Craniofacial anomaly, Ototoxicity, Birth weight, family history [Relative] of congenital sensorineural hearing loss, and Apgar score) were included in our COBRA score. The screening tool detected, by area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, more than 80% of existing hearing loss. The positive-likelihood ratio of hearing loss in patients with scores of 4, 6, and 8 were 25.21 (95% confidence interval [CI], 14.69-43.26), 58.52 (95% CI, 36.26-94.44), and 51.56 (95% CI, 33.74-78.82), respectively. This result was similar to the standard tool (The Joint Committee on Infant Hearing) of 26.72 (95% CI, 20.59-34.66). Conclusion: A simple screening tool of five predictors provides good prediction indices for newborn hearing loss, which may motivate parents to bring children for further appropriate testing and investigations.
( Pataramon Vasavid ),( Tawatchai Chaiwatanarat ),( Pawana Pusuwan ),( Chanika Sritara ),( Krisana Roysri ),( Sirianong Namwongprom ),( Pichit Kuanrakcharoen ),( Teerapon Premprabha ),( Kitti Chunlert 대한소화기기능성질환·운동학회 2014 Journal of Neurogastroenterology and Motility (JNM Vol.20 No.3
Background/Aims To report gastric emptying scintigraphy, normal values should be established for a specific protocol. The aim of this study was to provide normal gastric emptying values and determine factors affecting gastric emptying using Asian rice-based meal in healthy volunteers. Methods One hundred and ninety-two healthy volunteers were included at 7 tertiary care centers across Thailand. Gastric emptying scintigraphy was acquired in 45 degree left anterior oblique view immediately after ingestion of a 267 kcal steamed-rice with technetium- 99m labeled-microwaved egg meal with 100 mL water for up to 4 hours. Results One hundred and eighty-nine volunteers (99 females, age 43 ± 14 years) completed the study. The medians (5-95th percentiles) of lag time, gastric emptying half time (GE T1/2) and percent gastric retentions at 2 and 4 hours for all volunteers were 18.6 (0.5-39.1) minutes, 68.7 (45.1-107.8) minutes, 16.3% (2.7-49.8%) and 1.1% (0.2-8.8%), respectively. Female volunteers had significantly slower gastric emptying compared to male (GE T1/2, 74 [48-115] minutes vs. 63 (41-96) minutes; P < 0.05). Female volunteers who were in luteal phase of menstrual cycle had significantly slower gastric emptying compared to those in follicular phase or menopausal status (GE T1/2, 85 [66-102] mintes vs. 69 [50-120] minutes or 72 [47-109] minutes, P < 0.05). All of smoking volunteers were male. Smoker male volunteers had significantly faster gastric emptying compared to non-smoker males (GE T1/2, 56 [44-80] minutes vs. 67 [44-100] minutes, P < 0.05). Age, body mass index and alcohol consumption habits did not affect gastric emptying values. Conclusions A steamed-rice with microwaved egg meal was well tolerated by healthy volunteers. Gender, menstrual status and smoking status were found to affect solid gastric emptying. (J Neurogastroenterol Motil 2014;20:371-378)