Araştırma Çıktıları | TR-Dizin | WoS | Scopus | PubMed
Permanent URI for this communityhttps://hdl.handle.net/11727/4806
Browse
5 results
Search Results
Item Comparison Of Clinical Characteristics Of Second And Third Peaks Of COVID-19 Pandemic: Effects Of Vaccination And Preventive Measures(2022) Ozdemir, Ozer; Arslan, Atakan; Bulbul, Hande M.; Ozdemir, PelinBACKGROUND: Understanding the differences in consequent peaks of COVID-19 may guide us for better predicting future disease characteristics. In this study, we aimed to compare clinical and radiological characteristics as well as out-comes of hospitalized patients with the diagnosis of COVID-19 in second and third peaks of disease.METHODS: We retrospectively included 303 hospitalized patients with COVID-19. The study population was examined in two groups: patients hospitalized between October 2020 and January 2021 during second peak and patients hospital-ized between March and June 2021 during third peak.RESULTS: There were 171 patients in group 1 and 132 patients in group 2. The patients in group 2 were younger (64 +/- 13.27 vs. 56.02 +/- 15.39, respectively; P<0.001) and female proportion was higher (64.9% and 48.5% males; P=0.005). Smoking history and presence of comorbidities were less in group 2 (41.5% vs. 25.7%, P=0.008; and 78.5% vs. 59.1%, P<0.001) and symptom duration was shorter (median 7 days vs. 6 days, P=0.039). CT severity scores, LDH, CRP, D-di-mer, Ferritin, and creatinine levels were lower in group 2 (P=0.003, P=0.008, P<0.001, P<0.001, P<0.001, respectively), and mortality ratio was lower (N.=39 [28%] vs. N.=15 [11.4%], P=0.01). Duration of hospital stay and need for intensive unit care were similar across groups (median 8 days vs. 7 days, P=0.673 and N.=39 [22.8%] vs. N.=33 [25.2%], P=0.683).CONCLUSIONS: Although duration of hospital stay was lower in third peak, clinical severity scores and prognostic markers were lower compared with second peak. These may reflect the increased proportion of immunized people, and the effect of preventive measures.Item Olfactory disorders in patients with mild to moderate COVID-19: spontaneous recovery in one-month follow up(2021) Inan, Serhat; Ozer, Fulya; Erbek, Selim Sermed; Caylakli, Fatma; Odemis, Ilker; Kursun, Ebru; 0000-0003-2638-0163; 0000-0001-5381-6861; 0000-0001-8821-4481; 0000-0002-7333-2896; AFK-3690-2022; AAJ-1407-2021; AAG-2486-2022; ABC-1809-2020; AAP-7195-2020Objective: In this study, we aimed to evaluate olfactory disorders (OD) and recovery processes in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection at three time periods within one month from the time of diagnosis. Methods: A total of 96 patients with COVID-19 participated in the study. Self-reported changes in olfactory functions and their effects on quality of life (QoL) were evaluated using the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, the Questionnaire of Olfactory Disorders-Negative Statements (QOD-NS), and Sino-Nasal Outcome Test (SNOT)-22. At the time of diagnosis, the patients were divided into three groups: anosmia, hyposmia, and no OD (control) group. Subsequently, olfactory functions were retested at the time of the first negative polymerase chain reaction (PCR) control test and one month from the time of diagnosis. Results: During the COVID-19 infection, 68.7% of patients had OD; of these, 37% had anosmia, and 29% had hyposmia. Dysgeusia was found in 44.8% of the patients. OD was the primary symptom in 10.8% of the patients. The QoL scores of those with anosmia and hyposmia were significantly lower than those with no OD in all three surveys (P <.05). The QOD-NS scores of those with OD lasting more than 14 days were significantly lower in all three surveys (P <.05). Of the patients with OD, 4.34% had no spontaneous recovery at the end of the first month. Conclusion: Recovery of OD is faster in patients with hyposmia than in those with anosmia. Although COVID-19related permanent OD is not commonly observed, treatment of OD that lasts for more than 15 days would be beneficial to avoid permanent sequelae.Item Investigation of the effects of psychological factors on implementing protective behaviors against coronavirus(2021) Bucakc, Merve Gul; Gunhan, Ipek Selin; Erku, Ozlem Kahraman; 0000-0002-9788-6797; ABD-2782-2021Objective: This study aims at investigating the psychological factors that may influence the implementation of protective behaviors of Turkish people against the novel coronavirus pandemic. For this purpose, the relationship between the implementation of the protective behaviors and risk perception, risk taking behaviors, positive and negative affect and coping strategies were examined. Method: Data collection tools were The Protective Behavior Implementation Scale, The Positive and Negative Affect Schedule, The Ways of Coping with Stress Scale and The Sensation Seeking-Risk Taking Scale. 364 of the participants were female and 193 were male. The age range was 20-64 and the mean age was 34.69. Results: The hierarchical regression analysis showed that a positive relationship between age, sex and protective behaviors exists. Another positive relationship was found between protective behaviors, risk perception and positive affect. Moreover, a negative relationship was present between submissive coping and protective behaviors. Discussion: Psychological factors are influential on the implementation of the protective behaviors against the coronavirus. As the perceived risk regarding the disease increases, protective behaviors are elevated. Else, the increasement in the protective behaviors are related to the positive affect. People who carry out protective behaviors are observed not to be using submissive coping. This may be related to the self-control perception. In addition to that, increased age is associated with applying more protective behaviors and women are found to be more likely to use protective behaviors than men. The study is important as it investigated the impact of psychological factors on cultural settings.Item Turkish Thoracic Society Experts Consensus Report: Recommendations for Pulmonary Function Tests During and After COVID 19 Pandemic(2020) Gemicioglu, Bilun; Borekci, Sermin; Dilektasli, Asli Gorek; Ulubay, Gaye; Azap, Ozlem; Saryal, Sevgi; 0000-0002-3171-8926; 0000-0003-2478-9985; 32584237; AAK-4089-2021; AAB-5064-2021The recommendation of conducting pulmonary function tests (PFTs) from different societies during and after the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic was rated by the experts of the Turkish Thoracic Society (TTS) and presented as the TTS experts consensus report. Information about the topic has been provided. Globally, as of mid-May 2020, there have been over 4.4 million confirmed cases of COVID-19. There are two main routes of transmission of COVID-19: respiratory droplets and contact transmission. PFTs are non-invasive tests that are commonly performed in routine assessment and follow-up of patients in the pulmonology units. However, PFTs may generate aerosols and require sharing common surfaces. With regard to the high prevalence of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in the community, PFTs should not be performed routinely in confirmed or suspected patients with COVID-19 during the pandemic. Because of the risk of human-to-human transmission of COVID-19, PFTs should be restricted to a small patient population with selected indications. Triage for COVID-19 should be performed prior to testing. Only essential PFTs such as spirometry, diffusion capacity of the lungs for carbon monoxide (DLCO), arterial blood gas analysis, or pulse oximetry should be performed in the selected cases. Tests should be scheduled to allow sufficient time for donning and doffing of the technical personnel with the full personal protective equipment (PPE) (gown, a filtering respirator mask, goggles or full-face shield, and disposable gloves), ventilation of the room, and application of post-test cleaning and disinfection procedures of the equipment and the testing room.Item Unclear Issues Regarding COVID-19(2020) Esendagli, Dorina; 0000-0002-6619-2952; 32612430; ABF-9398-2020Scientists from all over the world have been intensively working to discover different aspects of Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) since the first cluster of cases was reported in China. Herein, we aimed to investigate unclear issues related to transmission and pathogenesis of disease as well as accuracy of diagnostic tests and treatment modalities. A literature search on PubMed, Ovid, and EMBASE databases was conducted, and articles pertinent to identified search terms were extracted. A snow-ball search strategy was followed in order to retrieve additional relevant articles. It was reported that viral spread may occur during the asymptomatic phase of infection, and viral load was suggested to be a useful marker to assess disease severity. In contrast to immune response against viral infections, cytotoxic T lymphocytes decline in SARS-CoV-2 infection, which can be partially explained by direct invasion of T lymphocytes or apoptosis activated by SARS-CoV-2. Dysregulation of the urokinase pathway, cleavage of the SARS-CoV-2 Spike protein by FXa and FIIa, and consumption coagulopathy were the proposed mechanisms of the coagulation dysfunction in COVID-19. False-negative rates of reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction varied between 3% and 41% across studies. The probability of the positive test was proposed to decrease with the number of days past from symptom onset. Safety issues related to infection spread limit the use of high flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) and continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) in hypoxic patients. Further studies are required to elucidate the challenging issues, thus enhancing the management of COVID-19 patients.