Background. Shared decision making (SDM) is becoming more and more important for the patient-physician interaction. There has not been a study in Romania evaluating patients’ point of view in the SDM process yet. Therefore, the present study aims to evaluate the psychometric parameters of the translated Romanian version of SDM-Q-9. Material and methods. A multicentric cross-sectional study was performed comprising eight recruitment centers. The sample consisted of in- and outpatients who referred to Hospital Units for treatment for atrial fibrillation or collagen diseases. Furthermore, patients who were members of Autoimmune Disease Patient Society were able to participate via an online survey. All participants completed the Romanian translated SDM-Q-9. Results. Altogether, 665 questionnaires were filled in within the hospital setting (n = 324; 48.7%) and online (n = 341; 51.3%). The Romanian version had good internal consistency (Cronbach α coefficient of 0.96.) Corrected item correlations were good ranging from 0.64 to 0.89 with low corrected item correlations for item 1 and item 7. PCA found a one-factorial solution (similar with previous reports) but the first item had the lowest loading. Conclusion. SDM-Q-9 is a useful tool for evaluation and improvement in health care that was validated in Romania and can be used in clinical setting in this country.

Background Shared decision making (SDM) is very important from patients' perspective. This process has not yet been evaluated in Romania. The study aims to evaluate SDM from the patients' perspective and to evaluate patients' characteristics that associate with SDM. Material and methods A cross‐sectional multicentric study comprising eight recruitment centres was performed. Inpatients and outpatients who referred to Hospital Units treating autoimmune diseases or atrial fibrillation were included. Another sample consisted of members of the Autoimmune Disease Patient Society, who completed an online anonymous questionnaire. All participants completed the Romanian translated version of the 9‐item Shared Decision Making Questionnaire (SDM‐Q‐9), as these samples were used for the validation of this questionnaire, too. Patients had to refer to the visit in which the decision concerning the antithrombotic treatment was taken (atrial fibrillation patients), or the immunosuppressive treatment was last time changed (autoimmune disease patients). Ordinal regression having the total SDM score as dependent variable was used. Results A total of 665 questionnaires were filled in within the hospital setting (n = 324; 48.7%) and online (n = 341; 51.3%). The median score for SDM was 34 of 45, but it differed between hospital completion –39/45 and online completion (anonymous) –20/45 (P < .001). Patients with higher education were influenced most by the setting, giving the best marks in hospital and low marks online, while those with lower education gave lower marks in both settings. In ordinal regression with SDM score as dependent variable, hospital completion of the questionnaire (OR = 9.5, 95% confidence interval, 5.69‐16), collagen disease diagnosis (OR = 2.4, 95% confidence interval, 1.39‐4.14), and immunosuppressive treatment (OR = 2.16, 95% confidence interval, 1.43‐3.26) were independent predictors. Conclusion In our study, full anonymity was associated with significantly lower scores for the SDM process. The patients with higher education were most influenced by this condition, while those with the lowest education were the most critical.

Introduction Peripheral neurologic manifestations may be associated with most of the collagen vascular diseases including systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), yet most of the times it is not clear what therapy should be prescribed. EULAR recommendations for the management of systemic lupus erythematosus with neuropsychiatric manifestations suggest the use of glucocorticoids and immunosuppressive agents for the treatment of SLE associated peripheral neuropathy (PN) (strength of statement A, category of evidence 1), however these recommendations are based on studies that did not focus specifically on PN but rather on neuropsychiatric manifestations of SLE out of which only one was a randomized controlled clinical trial that included 7 patients with peripheral neuropathy. The objective of this systematic review is to determine whether the pathogenic treatments (corticosteroids, immunosuppressive agents, intravenous immunoglobulins, plasmapheresis) are effective for SLE associated PN. Methods We searched MEDLINE for all the studies that included the pathogenic treatment of SLE associated PN. The purpose was to identify randomized clinical trials, and in the absence of these, we included observational studies and case reports or case series. Results The search returned only retrospective case reports or case series. Only one prospective study, a randomized controlled study, was focused on neuropsychiatric SLE and included few patients with PN (7). Some studies reported cases of PN responsive to glucocorticoids (GC), cyclophosphamide (CYC), rituximab (RTX), azathioprine (AZA), plasmapheresis (PPH), intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG), mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) or different combinations of these immunosuppressive agents, whereas others noticed effectiveness of sequential treatments (i.e. administration of a therapeutic agent after another single agent or a combination of agents had previously failed). Many studies did not mention how the outcomes were objectively measured. Conclusions There are no interventional studies dedicated to the SLE associated PN, only retrospective case reports or case series which not only did they show contradictory results, but they also represent the lowest level of evidence. There is a strong need for new analytical studies dedicated to SLE associated PN. Protocol registered with PROSPERO (number CRD42019121748).

There is increasing evidence of both central and peripheral nervous system (PNS) involvement in COVID-19. We conducted this systematic literature review to investigate the characteristics, management and outcomes of patients with PNS, including the types and severity of cranial nerves (CN) involvement. We systematically searched on PubMed for studies reporting adult patients diagnosed with COVID-19 and PNS involvement until July 2021. From 1670 records, 225 articles matched the inclusion criteria, with a total of 1320 neurological events, in 1004 patients. There were 805 (61%) CN, 350 (26.5%) PNS, and 165 (12.5%) PNS plus CN events. The most frequently involved CN were the facial, vestibulo-cochlear and olfactory nerve in 27.3%, 25.4% and 16.1%, respectively. Guillain-Barre syndrome spectrum was identified in 84.2% of PNS events. We analysed 328 patients reported in 225 articles with CN, PNS, and PNS plus CN involvement. The patients with CN involvement were younger (mean age 46.2±17.1, p = .003), and were more frequently treated as outpatients (p < .001), mostly with glucocorticoids (p < .001). Patients that had PNS with or without CN involvement were more likely to be hospitalized (p < .001), and to receive intravenous immunoglobulins (p = .002) or plasma exchange (p = .002). Patients with CN, PNS, and PNS plus CN had severe COVID -19 disease in 24.8%, 37.3%, 34.9% respectively. The most common neurological outcome was mild/moderate sequelae in patients with CN, PNS, and PNS plus CN in 54.7%, 67.5% and 67.8% respectively (p = .1) and no significant difference was found between the three categories regarding death, disease severity, time from disease onset to neurological symptoms, lack of improvement and complete recovery. CN involvement was the most frequent PNS finding. All three categories of PNS involvement were rather associated to non-severe COVID-19 but it may be an important cause of hospitalization and post COVID-19 sequelae.