A Mobility Team using a mobility protocol initiated earlier physical therapy that was feasible, safe, did not increase costs, and was associated with decreased intensive care unit and hospital length of stay in survivors who received physical therapy during intensive care unit treatment compared with patients who received usual care.

Ultrasound allows for a non-invasive structural assessment of nerves, muscles, and surrounding tissues, and therefore it is increasingly being used as a supplement to traditional electrodiagnostic studies. As investigators have begun to use ultrasound to explore peripheral nerves, it has become clear that conditions such as entrapment, hereditary neuropathies, acquired neuropathies, trauma, and nerve tumors result in an increase in nerve cross-sectional area. Reference values have not been published for the cross-sectional area of many nerves commonly studied in diseases of the peripheral nervous system, so our goal was to obtain reference values for the nerve cross-sectional area at the following sites: radial at antecubital fossa; radial at distal spiral groove; musculocutaneous in upper arm; trunks of the brachial plexus; vagus at carotid bifurcation; sciatic in distal thigh; tibial in popliteal fossa; tibial in proximal calf; tibial at ankle; peroneal in popliteal fossa; peroneal at fibular head; and sural in distal calf. Mean cross-sectional area, as well as side-to-side differences, are reported for each site, and qualitative data are provided to guide imaging at each site. The information provided in this study should serve as the starting point for quantitatively evaluating these nerve sites with ultrasound.

OBJECTIVE—Among individuals with diabetes, a comparison of HbA1c (A1C) levels between African Americans and non-Hispanic whites was evaluated. Data sources included PubMed, Web of Science, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health, the Cochrane Library, the Combined Health Information Database, and the Education Resources Information Center. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS—We executed a search for articles published between 1993 and 2005. Data on sample size, age, sex, A1C, geographical location, and study design were extracted. Cross-sectional data and baseline data from clinical trials and cohort studies for African Americans and non-Hispanic whites with diabetes were included. Diabetic subjects aged <18 years and those with pre-diabetes or gestational diabetes were excluded. We conducted a meta-analysis to estimate the difference in the mean values of A1C for African Americans and non-Hispanic whites. RESULTS—A total of 391 studies were reviewed, of which 78 contained A1C data. Eleven had data on A1C for African Americans and non-Hispanic whites and met selection criteria. A meta-analysis revealed the standard effect to be 0.31 (95% CI 0.39–0.25). This standard effect correlates to an A1C difference between groups of ∼0.65%, indicating a higher A1C across studies for African Americans. Grouping studies by study type (cross-sectional or cohort), method of data collection for A1C (chart review or blood draw), and insurance status (managed care or nonmanaged care) showed similar results. CONCLUSIONS—The higher A1C observed in this meta-analysis among African Americans compared with non-Hispanic whites may contribute to disparity in diabetes morbidity and mortality in this population.

No abstract

OBJECTIVE -Hispanics have higher rates of diabetes and diabetes-related complications than do non-Hispanic whites. A meta-analysis was conducted to estimate the difference between the mean values of A1C for these two groups.RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS -We executed a PubMed search of articles published from 1993 through July 2007. Data sources included PubMed, Web of Science, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health, the Cochrane Library, Combined Health Information Database, and Education Resources Information Center. Data on sample size, age, sex, A1C, geographical location, and study design were extracted. Cross-sectional data and baseline data from clinical trials and cohort studies for Hispanics and non-Hispanic whites with diabetes were included. Studies were excluded if they included individuals Ͻ18 years of age or patients with pre-diabetes or gestational diabetes.RESULTS -A total of 495 studies were reviewed, of which 73 contained data on A1C for Hispanics and non-Hispanic whites, and 11 met the inclusion criteria. Meta-analysis revealed a statistically significant mean difference (P Ͻ 0.0001) of Ϫ0.46 (95% CI Ϫ0.63 to Ϫ0.33), correlating to an ϳ0.5% higher A1C for Hispanics. Grouping studies by design (cross-sectional or cohort), method of data collection for A1C (chart review or blood sampling), and care type (managed or nonmanaged) yielded similar results.CONCLUSIONS -In this meta-analysis, A1C was ϳ0.5% higher in Hispanic patients with diabetes than in non-Hispanic patients. Understanding the reasons for this disparity should be a focus for future research. Diabetes Care 31:240-246, 2008