The mini-mental state examination (MMSE) is a screening test used worldwide for identifying changes in the scope of cognition. Studies have shown the influence of education, age and sex in the MMSE score. However, in Brazil, the studies consider only one factor to score it. The aim of this study was to establish a prediction equation for the MMSE. An exploratory cross-sectional study was developed and trained researchers examined participants at the community. The volunteers were evaluated by the MMSE and also by the Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS). The MMSE score was the dependent variable. Age, educational level, sex, and GDS score were the independent variables. Multivariate regression analysis was used to determine the model of best prediction value for MMSE scores. A total of 250 participants aged 20-99 years, without cognitive impairment, were assessed. The educational level, age, and sex explained 38% of the total variance of the MMSE score (p<0.0001) and resulted in the following equation: MMSE=23.350+0.265(years of schooling)-0.042(age)+1.323(sex), in which female=1 and male=2. The MMSE scores can be better explained and predicted when educational level, age, and sex are considered. These results enhance the knowledge regarding the variables that influence the MMSE score, as well as provide a way to consider all of them in the test score, providing a better screening of these patients.

No abstract

Objective: To describe the demographic profile and the management of patients with low back pain (LBP) complaints presenting to the Emergency Department (ED) of a Brazilian public hospital. Methods: Retrospective, cross-sectional study using a convenience sample of patients with LBP triaged at the studied ED through the Manchester Triage System along a year. Data were extracted from electronic medical records. LBP presentations were classified as non-traumatic, traumatic, and non-spinal related pain according to the signs and symptoms reported. Data included patients’ demographic profile, pain severity and management (e.g., imaging exams, medication prescription and hospitalization). Results: Data from 2016 patients was analyzed. Most were middle-aged adults (mean age = 40.5years, SD 15.7), female (n = 1043, 51.7%) and presented moderate pain intensity (score range 4 to 7 on the Visual Analogue Scale, n=1,471; 74.1%). Non-traumatic pain (n = 1,016; 50.4%) was the main cause of care-seeking. A total of 36.9% (n = 743) underwent imaging exams and 42.2% (n = 850) received medication. Patients with non-spinal related pain were three times more likely to receive opioid medication (OR = 2.96; 95%CI 2.30 to 3.79). Conclusion: Non-traumatic LBP (i.e., no history of trauma or red flags) was the main cause of LBP care-seeking in a Brazilian ED. Most patients were treated conservatively and without hospitalization. Opioids prescription and imaging exams, although performed on a smaller scale, were still used for of the management of this type of LBP.

Background Vasoactive drugs are one of the most common patient-related barriers to early mobilization. Little is known about the hemodynamic effects of early mobilization on patients receiving vasoactive drugs. This study aims to observe and describe the impact of mobilization on the vital signs of critical patients receiving vasoactive drugs as well as the occurrence of adverse events. Methods This is a cohort study performed in an Intensive Care Unit with patients receiving vasoactive drugs. All patients, either mobilized or non-mobilized, had their clinical data such as vital signs [heart rate, respiratory rate, systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, mean arterial pressure, and oxygen saturation], type and dosage of the vasoactive drug, and respiratory support collected at rest. For mobilized patients, the vital signs were also collected after mobilization, and so was the highest level of mobility achieved and the occurrence of adverse events. The criteria involved in the decision of mobilizing the patients were registered. Results 53 patients were included in this study and 222 physiotherapy sessions were monitored. In most of the sessions (n = 150, 67.6%), patients were mobilized despite the use of vasoactive drugs. There was a statistically significant increase in heart rate and respiratory rate after mobilization when compared to rest (p<0.05). Only two (1.3%) out of 150 mobilizations presented an adverse event. Most of the time, non-mobilizations were justified by the existence of a clinical contraindication (n = 61, 84.7%). Conclusions The alterations observed in the vital signs of mobilized patients may have reflected physiological adjustments of patients’ cardiovascular and respiratory systems to the increase in physical demand imposed by the early mobilization. The adverse events were rare, not serious, and reversed through actions such as a minimal increase of the vasoactive drug dosage.

No abstract