METHODS: MSC were isolated from human bone marrow mononuclear cells based on plastic adherent properties and expanded in vitro in the culture medium. Human mesenchymal stem cells (hMSC) were characterised using microscopy, immunophenotyping, and their ability to differentiate into adipocytes, chondrocytes, and osteocytes. hMSC were then injected into athymic mice, which had induced glomerulonephropathy (GN).
RESULTS: Test mice (induced GN and infused hMSC) were shown to have anti-human CD105(+) cells present in the kidneys and were also positive to anti-human desmin, a marker for mesangial cells. Furthermore, immunofluorescence assays also demonstrated that anti-human desmin(+) cells in the glomeruli of these test mice were in the proliferation stage, being positive to anti-human Ki-67.
CONCLUSIONS: These findings indicate that hMSC found in renal glomeruli differentiated into mesangial cells in vivo after glomerular injury occurred.
Methods: In this prospective pilot study, patients seeking restorative treatment were screened for dental anxiety and dental concern about treatment using the Dental Anxiety Scale-Revised (DAS-R) and Dental Concern Assessment (DCA) questionnaires. Participants with a DAS-R score of 9 or above were randomly assigned to an experimental or control group. The patients in the experimental group received two psycho-logical interventions (psychoeducation and progressive muscular relaxation) prior to dental treatment. Dur-ing treatment, patients received another psychological intervention (music distraction). No psychological interventions were given to control patients. DAS-R and DCA scores were used to assess dental anxiety and concern, respectively, before treatment, after treatment, and at follow-up. Nonparametric tests were used for intergroup and intragroup statistical analyses.
Results: Out of 64 patients surveyed, 33 (51.6%) had experienced dental anxiety. Of those, 2 were exclud-ed, and 31 patients with a mean ± SD age of 41.2 ± 15.9 y completed the study. No intergroup differences in dental anxiety were found in terms of pretreatment, posttreatment, and follow-up treatment. The mean rank value of the dental anxiety score was less in the experimental group (13.53) than the control group (18.31), albeit not significant. More specifically, differences (Kruskal-Wallis %2 = 14.82, P = 0.001, effect size = 0.33) were found in the experimental group for pretreatment, posttreatment, and follow-up treatment levels of dental anxiety for extraction (P = 0.01), injection (P = 0.02), and sound/vibration of the drill (P = 0.00). No significant intragroup differences between pretreatment, posttreatment, and follow-up treatment were found in the control group.
Conclusions: The combined brief psychological interventions reduced dental anxiety.
Relevance for patients: The psychological interventions of the present study could be applied right before or during dental treatment to reduce the dental anxiety of patients. However, additional research involving larger groups is needed to replicate the results of this pilot study.
METHODS: A prospective pre- and post-intervention study was conducted among medical inpatients in a Malaysian secondary care hospital. DVT and bleeding risks were stratified using validated Padua Risk Assessment Model (RAM) and International Medical Prevention Registry on Venous Thromboembolism (IMPROVE) Bleeding Risk Assessment Model. Pharmacist-driven DRAT was developed and implemented post-interventional phase. DVT prophylaxis use was determined and its appropriateness was compared between pre and post study using multivariate logistic regression with IBM SPSS software version 21.0.
RESULTS: Overall, 286 patients (n=142 pre-intervention versus n=144 post-intervention) were conveniently recruited. The prevalence of DVT prophylaxis use was 10.8%. Appropriate thromboprophylaxis prescribing increased from 64.8% to 68.1% post-DRAT implementation. Of note, among high DVT risk patients, DRAT intervention was observed to be a significant predictor of appropriate thromboprophylaxis use (14.3% versus 31.3%; adjusted odds ratio=2.80; 95% CI 1.01 to 7.80; p<0.05).
CONCLUSION: The appropriateness of DVT prophylaxis use was suboptimal but doubled after implementation of DRAT intervention. Thus, an integrated risk stratification checklist is an effective approach for the improvement of rational DVT prophylaxis use.