Search

Background Peptic ulcer disease (PUD) affects four million people worldwide annually and has an estimated lifetime prevalence of 5−10% in the general population. Worldwide, there are significant heterogeneities in coping approaches of healthcare systems with PUD in prevention, diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up. Quantifying and benchmarking health systems’ performance is crucial yet challenging to provide a clearer picture of the potential global inequities in the quality of care. Objective The objective of this study was to compare the health-system quality-of-care and inequities for PUD among age groups and sexes worldwide. Methods Data were derived from the Global Burden of Disease Study 1990–2019. Principal-Component-Analysis was used to combine age-standardized mortality-to-incidence-ratio, disability-adjusted-life-years-to-prevalence-ratio, prevalence-to-incidence-ratio, and years-of-life-lost-to-years-lived-with-disability-into a single proxy named Quality-of-Care-Index (QCI). QCI was used to compare the quality of care among countries. QCI’s validity was investigated via correlation with the cause-specific Healthcare-Access-and-Quality-index, which was acceptable. Inequities were presented among age groups and sexes. Gender Disparity Ratio was obtained by dividing the score of women by that of men. Results Global QCI was 72.6 in 1990, which increased by 14.6% to 83.2 in 2019. High-income-Asia-pacific had the highest QCI, while Central Latin America had the lowest. QCI of high-SDI countries was 82.9 in 1990, which increased to 92.9 in 2019. The QCI of low-SDI countries was 65.0 in 1990, which increased to 76.9 in 2019. There was heterogeneity among the QCI-level of countries with the same SDI level. QCI typically decreased as people aged; however, this gap was more significant among low-SDI countries. The global Gender Disparity Ratio was close to one and ranged from 0.97 to 1.03 in 100 of 204 countries. Conclusion QCI of PUD improved dramatically during 1990–2019 worldwide. There are still significant heterogeneities among countries on different and similar SDI levels.

BackgroundCOVID-19 has triggered an avalanche of research publications, the various aspects of which need to be assessed. The objective of this study is to determine the scientific community's response patterns to COVID-19 through a bibliometric analysis of the time-trends, global contribution, international collaboration, open-access provision, science domains of focus, and the behavior of journals.MethodsThe bibliographic records on COVID-19 literature were retrieved from both PubMed and Scopus. The period for searching was set from November 1, 2019, to April 15, 2021. The bibliographic data were coupled with COVID-19 incidence to explore possible association, as well as World Bank indicators and classification of economies.ResultsA total of 159132 records were included in the study. Following the escalation of incidences of COVID-19 in late 2020 and early 2021, the monthly publication count made a new peak in March 2021 at 20505. Overall, 125155 (78.6%) were national, 22548 (14.2%) were bi-national, and 11429 (7.2%) were multi-national. Low-income countries with 928 (66.8%) international publications had the highest percentage of international. The open-access provision decreased from 85.5% in February 2020 to 62.0% in April 2021. As many as 82841 (70.8%) publications were related to health sciences, followed by life sciences 27031 (23.1%), social sciences 20291 (17.3%), and physical sciences 15141 (12.9%). The top three medical subjects in publications were general internal medicine, public health, and infectious diseases with 28.9%, 18.3%, and 12.6% of medical publications, respectively.ConclusionsThe association between the incidence and publication count indicated the scientific community's interest in the ongoing situation and timely response to it. Only one-fifth of publications resulted from international collaboration, which might lead to redundancy without adding significant value. Our study underscores the necessity of policies for attraction of international collaboration and direction of vital funds toward domains of higher priority.

BackgroundFrequency of insulin pen use, despite its higher costs, is increasing to substitute the traditional use of insulin vials. This study aims to report insulin pen use frequency and its associated factors among participants of the STEPS survey 2016 in Iran, which was conducted based on the World Health Organization (WHO) STEPS methodology.MethodsIn this cross-sectional study, 19,503 (mean age of 46.03±0.13) out of 30,541 participants of the Iran STEPS survey were included (Inclusion criteria: aged >25 years old and availability of their demographic, clinical, and laboratory results for serum glucose, HbA1c, and lipid profile). Clinical and demographic characteristics, a frequency of use of each diabetes mellitus treatment type, and the association of insulin pen use with health outcomes are reported using descriptive analysis and propensity score modeling.ResultsThere were 1,999(10.85%) individuals diagnosed with diabetes in the population, while 1,160(56.87%) cases were taking antihyperglycemic treatments. In this subset, 240(21.14%) individuals administered insulin with or without using oral agents at the same time. 52.28% of participants who were under insulin therapy used insulin pens. None of the socioeconomic determinants, including gender (p-value = 0.11), type of residential areas (p-value = 0.52), years of schooling (p-value = 0.27), wealth index (p-value = 0.19), marital status (p-value = 0.37), and insurance types (p-value = 0.72) were significantly different among groups using insulin pens and insulin vials. Moreover, in the propensity score modeling, pen usage was not associated with a lower heart attack and ischemic stroke histories, systolic blood pressure, serum lipid profile, blood glucose, or HbA1c levels.ConclusionResults showed that the use of the higher-costing insulin pens compared to traditional vials and syringes is not associated with improved glycemic control and better lipid profile in our sample. Future studies are needed to confirm these findings and to compare other aspects of insulin pen use, including adherence to treatment and cost-effectiveness.