ORCID Profile
0000-0002-1236-8377
Current Organisation
Murray Primary Health Network
Does something not look right? The information on this page has been harvested from data sources that may not be up to date. We continue to work with information providers to improve coverage and quality. To report an issue, use the Feedback Form.
Publisher: MedCrave Group, LLC
Date: 23-09-2019
Publisher: FapUNIFESP (SciELO)
Date: 06-09-2018
DOI: 10.1590/S1679-45082018AO4236
Abstract: ABSTRACT Objective To assess the ten-year risk of hip and osteoporotic fracture in home care patients using the FRAX® tool. Methods A retrospective, cross-sectional observational study including patients aged ≥ 40 and ≤ 90 years and receiving home care from a private provider. The risk of fracture was calculated using an online calculator. High risk was defined as risk of hip fracture greater than 3% or risk of osteoporotic fracture greater than 20%. Data were expressed as absolute number (n), relative frequency (%), mean, standard deviation (±) and probability value (p). Results Eighty-three (37.7%) out of 222 patients were at high risk of fracture. Of these, 81 (36.7%) were at high risk of hip fracture, as follows: 18 patients aged 70-80 years (17 female) and 63 patients aged 80-90 years (51 female). High risk of osteoporotic fracture was limited to two female patients (0.1%) aged over 80 years. Conclusion FRAX® analysis revealed similar fracture risks in the s le and the older adult population overall. Prospective investigation of fracture rates in home care patients, identification of true risk factors and construction of a home care patient-specific clinical score are warranted.
Publisher: Wiley
Date: 17-02-2019
DOI: 10.1111/TMI.13213
Abstract: In view of erroneous type 2 diabetes prevalence reported in 3 small Pacific Island countries, a study was conducted to investigate whether this error occurred in other countries which have conducted WHO STEPS surveys associated with glucose thresholds for point-of-care (POC) measuring devices calibrated to plasma. Published STEPS surveys conducted over 2001-2017 were obtained. For each survey, information was obtained on diabetes prevalence, POC glucose measuring device, blood s le tested and the fasting glucose threshold used for prevalence calculations. POC device user manuals were obtained to determine calibration. The current WHO glucose threshold for type 2 diabetes was used: ≥7.0 mmol/l for plasma glucose ≥6.1 mmol/l for whole blood glucose. POC devices were used in 75 of the STEPS surveys identified to measure blood glucose. An incorrect glucose threshold was employed in 17 surveys (23%) to define diabetes. The correct threshold was applied in 20 surveys (27%). Estimates from meta-analysis and meta-regression show that diabetes prevalence in surveys using the incorrect glucose thresholds have prevalences 50% higher than surveys which use the correct glucose threshold. A definite conclusion could not be made for 38 surveys (51%) because of the absence or unclear information on the glucose metre and/or the threshold employed. WHO STEPS surveys with likely incorrect published diabetes prevalences have been conducted across the globe, resulting in a 50% artefactual inflation. Inaccurate reporting of diabetes prevalence from widely cited STEPS surveys would have significant impacts on disease burden monitoring, policy development and resource allocation.
No related grants have been discovered for Vitor Moraes Rocha.