No abstract

Background and Objectives:This systematic review with meta-analysis (PROSPERO: CRD42021249336) was performed to estimate the pooled lifetime prevalence of bipolar symptoms (BS) and bipolar disorder (BD) in people with epilepsy (PWE).Methods:A search was performed on June 5th, 2021, in four databases (MEDLINE/PubMed, Ovid EMBASE, Ovid APA PsycInfo, and Web of Science) for original research reporting on BS/BD in PWE, with no restriction on language or time of publication. Inclusion criteria were as follows: 1) original research, 2) cross-sectional study design component, 3) reported a lifetime prevalence of BS/BD or enough information to calculate an estimate, and 4) reported the method by which participants were deemed bipolar. Studies based on an exclusively pediatric population were excluded. To calculate pooled lifetime prevalence of BS/BD, two meta-analytic random-effects models were fitted, one for BS, and the other for BD. Risk of bias was assessed using a standardized appraisal tool for studies reporting prevalence. Certainty of evidence was evaluated using the GRADE approach.Results:A total of 750 records were screened, and 17 studies were included for analysis: seven provided prevalence estimates for only BS, eight for only BD, and two for both BS and BD. After outlier exclusion and subgroup analysis using screening method as a moderator, the pooled prevalence of BS in PWE was 12.3% [95% CI; 10.6-14.1%] (7,506 PWE). The pooled prevalence of BD in PWE was 4.5% [95% CI; 2.2-7.4%] (48,334 PWE). Considerable heterogeneity was present – more so for BD than for BS – and could be explained through differences in population demographics and study methodology.Discussion:This study’s main limitation was regarding the certainty of evidence. Notwithstanding, our estimates of prevalence should prompt further research on BS/BD in PWE. Given the significant morbidity associated to BD, clinicians should carefully screen PWE for BS.

Visual Abstract

BACKGROUND: Life-threatening hemorrhage is a major cause of preventable mortality in trauma. Studies have demonstrated the effectiveness and safety of commercial tourniquets when used by adult civilians. However, there are no data about tourniquet application by children.This study's goal is to determine which of three commercially available tourniquets is most effective when used by children. METHODS:A randomized crossover study was conducted in four elementary schools in Montreal to compare three commercially available tourniquets.The study population is primary school children aged 10 to 12 years (5th-6th grade). A total of 181 students were invited to participate; 96 obtained parental approval and were recruited. Participants underwent a short 7-minute video training on the use of three commercial tourniquets and were subsequently given a 2-minute practice period. Students were evaluated on their ability to successfully apply the tourniquet and the time to complete application. After applying all three tourniquets, the students selected their favorite model. The primary outcome is the proportion of successful applications per tourniquet model. Secondary outcomes include time to successful application for each tourniquet model and tourniquet model preference. RESULTS:The mechanical advantage tourniquet (MAT) outperformed the combat application tourniquet (CAT) and the stretch wrap and tuck tourniquet (SWATT) in terms of success rate (MAT, 67%; CAT, 44%; SWATT, 24%; p < 0.0001), time to application (MAT, 57 seconds; CAT, 80 seconds; SWATT, 90 seconds; p < 0.0001), and preference (MAT, 64%; CAT, 30%; SWATT, 6%; p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: In this study, the MAT performs better in terms of success rate, time to application, and preference when used by school-aged children. This study can be helpful when facilities are purchasing tourniquets for use by students.