Notesdata:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/eb108/eb108e1225c6a34726896a3a71243e18df6f7721" alt="what is notes.io? What is notes.io?"
![]() ![]() Notes - notes.io |
We discuss these findings in relation to lexical commitment and stimulus-driven attention to short-term memory as mechanisms of subsequent context integration.
To compare inpatient treated patients with idiopathic (ISSNHL) and non-idiopathic sudden sensorineural hearing loss (NISSNHL) regarding frequency, hearing loss, treatment and outcome.
All 574 inpatient patients (51% male, median age 60years) with ISSNHL and NISSNHL, who were treated in federal state Thuringia in 2011 and 2012, were included retrospectively. Univariate and multivariate statistical analyses were performed.
ISSNHL was diagnosed in 490 patients (85%), NISSNHL in 84 patients (15%). 49% of these cases had hearing loss due to acute otitis media, 37% through varicella-zoster infection or Lyme disease, 10% through Menière disease and 7% due to other reasons. Patients with ISSNHL and NISSNHL showed no difference between age, gender, side of hearing loss, presence of tinnitus or vertigo and their comorbidities. 45% of patients with ISSNHL and 62% with NISSNHL had an outpatient treatment prior to inpatient treatment (p < 0.001). The mean interval between onset of hearing loss to inpatient treatment was shorter in ISSNHL (7.7days) than in NISSNHL (8.9days; p = 0.02). The initial hearing loss of the three most affected frequencies in pure-tone average (3PTAmax) scaled 72.9 dBHL ± 31.3 dBHL in ISSNHL and 67.4 dBHL ± 30.5 dBHL in NISSNHL. In the case of acute otitis media, 3PTAmax (59.7 dBHL ± 24.6 dBHL) was lower than in the case of varicella-zoster infection or Lyme disease (80.11 dBHL ± 34.19 dBHL; p = 0.015). Mean absolute hearing gain (Δ3PTAmax
) was 8.1dB ± 18.8dB in patients with ISSNHL, and not different in NISSNHL patients with 10.2dB ± 17.6dB. A Δ3PTAmax
≥ 10dB was reachedin 34.3% of the patients with ISSNHL and to a significantly higher rate of 48.8% in NISSNHL patients (p = 0.011).
ISSNHL and NISSNHL show no relevant baseline differences. ISSNHL tends to have a higher initial hearing loss. NISSHNL shows a better outcome than ISSNHL.
ISSNHL and NISSNHL show no relevant baseline differences. ISSNHL tends to have a higher initial hearing loss. NISSHNL shows a better outcome than ISSNHL.
To determine the usefulness of the Health Utilities Index (HUI) in older cochlear implant (CI) recipients, the primary aims were (1) to assess health-related quality of life (HRQoL), measured with HUI, in older CI candidates while comparing with age- and gender-matched normal-hearing controls; (2) to compare HRQoL after CI with the pre-operative situation, using HUI and the Nijmegen cochlear implant questionnaire (NCIQ). The difference between pre- and postoperative speech intelligibility in noise (SPIN) and in quiet (SPIQ) and the influence of pre-operative vestibular function on HRQoL in CI users were also studied.
Twenty CI users aged 55years and older with bilateral severe-to-profound postlingual sensorineural hearing loss and an age- and gender-matched normal-hearing control group were included. HRQoL was assessed with HUI Mark 2 (HUI2), HUI Mark 3 (HUI3) and NCIQ. The CI recipients were evaluated pre-operatively and 12months postoperatively.
HUI3 Hearing (p = 0.02), SPIQ (p < 0.001), SPIN (p < 0.001) and NCIQ (p = 0.001) scores improved significantly comparing pre- and postoperative measurements in the CI group. No significant improvement was found comparing pre- and postoperative HUI3 Multi-Attribute scores (p = 0.07). The HUI3 Multi-Attribute score after CI remained significantly worse (p < 0.001) than those of the control group. Vestibular loss was significantly related to a decrease in HUI3 Multi-Attribute (p = 0.037) and HUI3 Emotion (p = 0.021) scores.
The HUI is suitable to detect differences between normal-hearing controls and CI users, but might underestimate HRQoL changes after CI in CI users over 55.
The HUI is suitable to detect differences between normal-hearing controls and CI users, but might underestimate HRQoL changes after CI in CI users over 55.Physician burnout and its association with the use of electronic health records (EHRs) is well known. The impact of scribes for academic dermatologists and their patients needs to be explored. As physician burnout increases, system-based solutions are needed. To assess the impact of a scribe on physician and patient satisfaction at an academic dermatology clinic. Prospective, pre-post-pilot intervention study. During the pilot intervention, clinicians had clinic sessions with and without a scribe. We assessed changes in (1) clinician satisfaction and burnout, (2) time spent on EHR, and (3) patient satisfaction. An electronic 7-item baseline survey, 23-item mid-study survey, and a 22-item end-of-study survey to assess clinician burnout and feedback on satisfaction with medical scribes. A 19-item post visit satisfaction survey was given to patients. EHR was queried to compare amount of time spent on EHR, closure of charts, and number of patients seen during scribe coverage and at baseline. Of the six clinicians, 100% felt that there was value to scribe support. Physician burnout was low at baseline and did not change post-pilot. Active documentation time, on average, decreased by 67% per patient with a 28% increase in patients seen per clinic. Over 88% of patients disagreed with the statement, "I was uncomfortable disclosing personal information when a scribe was present" (p less then 0.001). In an academic dermatology and Mohs surgery setting, medical scribes increased clinician satisfaction without compromising patient satisfaction.Basal cell carcinoma (BCC) histopathology can differ between original biopsy and wide local excision or Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS). We aimed to analyze the rate of difference in BCC subtypes between the original biopsy and MMS frozen section to determine the rate of histopathological upgrading and also to identify risk factors for upgrading. A single institution, retrospective cohort study of patients with BCC treated with MMS was performed at the University of Texas Southwestern. Screening criteria identified 3235 BCCs. Of these, 1289 tumors were identified as having lower-grade pathology on initial biopsy. 291 (22.6%) of the lower-grade pathology tumors were upgraded to a higher-grade pathology. Epacadostat Tumors with an upgraded pathology had significantly greater number of stages performed [mean of 2.5 vs 2.3, p less then 0.001], pre-operative size [median of 1.0 cm vs 0.8 cm, p less then 0.001], and post-operative size [median of 2.0 cm vs 1.7 cm, p less then 0.001]. These tumors were significantly more likely to require more advanced repairs [36.
My Website: https://www.selleckchem.com/products/epacadostat-incb024360.html
![]() |
Notes is a web-based application for online taking notes. You can take your notes and share with others people. If you like taking long notes, notes.io is designed for you. To date, over 8,000,000,000+ notes created and continuing...
With notes.io;
- * You can take a note from anywhere and any device with internet connection.
- * You can share the notes in social platforms (YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, instagram etc.).
- * You can quickly share your contents without website, blog and e-mail.
- * You don't need to create any Account to share a note. As you wish you can use quick, easy and best shortened notes with sms, websites, e-mail, or messaging services (WhatsApp, iMessage, Telegram, Signal).
- * Notes.io has fabulous infrastructure design for a short link and allows you to share the note as an easy and understandable link.
Fast: Notes.io is built for speed and performance. You can take a notes quickly and browse your archive.
Easy: Notes.io doesn’t require installation. Just write and share note!
Short: Notes.io’s url just 8 character. You’ll get shorten link of your note when you want to share. (Ex: notes.io/q )
Free: Notes.io works for 14 years and has been free since the day it was started.
You immediately create your first note and start sharing with the ones you wish. If you want to contact us, you can use the following communication channels;
Email: [email protected]
Twitter: http://twitter.com/notesio
Instagram: http://instagram.com/notes.io
Facebook: http://facebook.com/notesio
Regards;
Notes.io Team