Search

Triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) represents a diverse group of breast cancers that are characterized by lack of expression of the estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR) and lack of amplification of the human epidermal growth factor (HER2) [1- 2].

The incidence of pituitary adenomas in the population is approximately 1: 1000 [1], which is 15% of all intracranial neoplasms [2].

Vulvovaginal candidiasis is estimated to be the second most common cause of vaginitis after bacterial vaginosis [1].

Frailty is an excess vulnerability to stressors, with a reduced ability to maintain or regain homeostasis after a destabilizing event, leading to poor outcomes: early death, disability, unplanned hospitalization and falls [1,2].

Candidiasis is prevalent when the host defense is compromised. For example, individuals with diabetes mellitus, HIV infection, chronic systemic immune-suppressor drugs usage, or patients in intensive care units or having cancer are at high risk to develop persistent candida infection or recurrent episodes [1,2].

In Europe, musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) are the most common occupation-related diseases, and in the United States, MSDs occupy 5th place in causes of visits to medical facilities.

BACKGROUND: In clinical research as well as good clinical practice increasing importance is placed on standardized and evaluated procedures. They provide information which is important for the prognosis, determination of the need for interventions, determination of treatment goals and evaluation of treatment approaches and outcomes. Furthermore, they serve as justification of the reimbursement for presentation to official bodies. Until now no officially authorized German version of the performance-oriented mobility assessment (POMA) according to Tinetti was available. OBJECTIVES: This article presents a methodically translated German version of the POMA that also includes so far partially unpublished instructions for the examiner and the examined person. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The internationally recognized recommendations for the cross-cultural adaptation of health status measures served as the foundation of the translation process. By means of three translations from the original language into the target language a preliminary consensus version was developed, which was then translated back into the original language by two native speakers. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: With this new and for the first time authorized German translation of the POMA a version of this assessment is available that achieves unification and standardization in German speaking countries and guarantees an improved comparability with international studies. Language: de

To compare the ability of different frailty indexes based on a standardized comprehensive geriatric assessment (FI-CGAs) for predicting adverse outcomes.Prospective cohort study. Geriatric wards of a general hospital.307 hospitalized patients ≥ 65 years.The FI-CGA-10D (potential health deficits in ten functional domains), the FI-CGA-10D+CM (aforementioned potential health deficits and co-morbidity burden) and the FI-CGA-MIHD (multiple, individual potential health deficits, including functional deficits, co-morbid diseases, amongst others) were assessed at baseline during the patients` hospital stay. The FI-CGAs were analyzed as categorical (according to a FI-CGA scoreand ≥ 0.25) and continuous variables. Patients were followed up over 6 months.The FI-CGA-10D, FI-CGA-10+CM and the FI-CGA-MIHD predicted 6-month mortality when expressed as categorical (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC): AUC = 0.611, AUC = 0.637, AUC = 0.616, all p0.050, respectively) or continuous variables (AUC = 0.769, AUC = 0.837, AUC = 0.834, all p0.001, respectively). AUC comparisons showed that all three FI-CGAs exhibited a comparable ability to predict 6-month mortality when the FI-CGAs were expressed as categorical variables (all p0.200) and the FI-CGA-10D+CM and the FI-CGA-MIHD showed a better ability to predict 6-month mortality than the FI-CGA-10D, when the FI-CGAs were expressed as continuous variables (p0.001 and p = 0.007, respectively). None of the FI-CGAs predicted any of the other outcomes, i.e., unplanned re-admission to hospital and a fall during follow-up, irrespective of whether the FI-CGAs were expressed as categorical or continuous variables (all p ≥ 0.050).The more complex FI-CGAs, i.e., the FI-CGA-10D+CM and the FI-CGA-MIHD, revealed better ability to predict 6 month mortality than the more simple FI-CGA, i.e., the FI-CGA-10D.

There are few data regarding the accuracy of short frailty tools as predictors of mortality and other clinical outcomes of older patients admitted to a geriatric ward. We therefore analyzed the accuracy of Rockwood et al's Clinical Frailty Scale and an easy and quick to perform operationalization of Fried et al's frailty phenotype, as predictors of mortality and other clinical outcomes in our cohort of patients.Prospective analysis with a follow-up period of 6 months.307 patients who were 65 years of age or older were included in the study. The patients were assessed in terms of the two frailty measures during their stay in a geriatric ward.The Clinical Frailty Scale and the frailty phenotype were both suitable for differentiating between patients who died due to any cause from those who survived during follow-up (primary outcome) (area under the ROC curves (AUC) values 0.867 (95% CI 0.807-0.926), p0.001 and 0.754 (95% CI 0.688-0.821), p0.001, respectively). Regarding the secondary outcomes: 1. unplanned admission to hospital and 2. a fall during follow-up, the Clinical Frailty Scale discriminated or tended to discriminate between patients to whom these criteria applied and those to whom they did not (AUC=0.569 (95% CI 0.502-0.636), p=0.046 and AUC=0.574 (95% CI 0.501-0.647), p=0.071, respectively). The frailty phenotype did not show such a differentiation when applied to secondary outcomes (AUC=0.500 (95% CI 0.432-0.568), p=0.994 and AUC=0.518 (95% CI 0.439-0.598), p=0.658, respectively).Both short frailty instruments are suitable predictors of mortality in older patients who were admitted to a geriatric ward. The Clinical Frailty Scale, but not the frailty phenotype, predicted at least some of the secondary outcomes, i.e., the outcome unplanned admission to hospital during follow-up.