Browsing by Author "Aslan D."
Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
Results Per Page
Sort Options
Item A multicenter nationwide reference intervals study for common biochemical analytes in Turkey using Abbott analyzers(Walter de Gruyter GmbH, 2014) Ozarda Y.; Ichihara K.; Aslan D.; Aybek H.; Ari Z.; Taneli F.; Coker C.; Akan P.; Sisman A.R.; Bahceci O.; Sezgin N.; Demir M.; Yucel G.; Akbas H.; Ozdem S.; Polat G.; Erbagci A.B.; Orkmez M.; Mete N.; Evliyaoglu O.; Kiyici A.; Vatansev H.; Ozturk B.; Yucel D.; Kayaalp D.; Dogan K.; Pinar A.; Gurbilek M.; Cetinkaya C.D.; Akin O.; Serdar M.; Kurt I.; Erdinc S.; Kadicesme O.; Ilhan N.; Atali D.S.; Bakan E.; Polat H.; Noyan T.; Can M.; Bedir A.; Okuyucu A.; Deger O.; Agac S.; Ademoglu E.; Kaya A.; Nogay T.; Eren N.; Dirican M.; Tuncer G.; Aykus M.; Gunes Y.; Ozmen S.U.; Kawano R.; Tezcan S.; Demirpence O.; Degirmen E.Background: A nationwide multicenter study was organized to establish reference intervals (RIs) in the Turkish population for 25 commonly tested biochemical analytes and to explore sources of variation in reference values, including regionality. Methods: Blood samples were collected nationwide in 28 laboratories from the seven regions (≥400 samples/region, 3066 in all). The sera were collectively analyzed in Uludag University in Bursa using Abbott reagents and analyzer. Reference materials were used for standardization of test results. After secondary exclusion using the latent abnormal values exclusion method, RIs were derived by a parametric method employing the modified Box-Cox formula and compared with the RIs by the non-parametric method. Three-level nested ANOVA was used to evaluate variations among sexes, ages and regions. Associations between test results and age, body mass index (BMI) and region were determined by multiple regression analysis (MRA). Results: By ANOVA, differences of reference values among seven regions were significant in none of the 25 analytes. Significant sex-related and age-related differences were observed for 10 and seven analytes, respectively. MRA revealed BMI-related changes in results for uric acid, glucose, triglycerides, high-density lipoprotein (HDL)-cholesterol, alanine aminotransferase, and γ-glutamyltransferase. Their RIs were thus derived by applying stricter criteria excluding individuals with BMI >28 kg/m2. Ranges of RIs by non-parametric method were wider than those by parametric method especially for those analytes affected by BMI. Conclusions: With the lack of regional differences and the well-standardized status of test results, the RIs derived from this nationwide study can be used for the entire Turkish population. © by De Gruyter 2014.Item Nationwide prospective audit for the evaluation of appendicitis risk prediction models in adults: Right iliac fossa treatment (RIFT) - Turkey(Oxford University Press, 2024) Yalcinkaya A.; Yalcinkaya A.; Balci B.; Keskin C.; Erkan I.; Yildiz A.; Kamer E.; Leventoglu S.; Caglikulekci M.; Zarbaliyev E.; Sevmis M.; Ulgen Y.; Altinel Y.; Meric S.; Akbas A.; Hacim N.A.; Vartanoglu Aktokmanyan T.; Aktimur Y.E.; Calikoglu F.; Gullu H.F.; Durma A.G.; Acar S.; Ciftci E.; Balik E.; Kulle C.B.; Ozata I.H.; Tufekci T.; Tatar C.; Sevinc M.M.; Sevik H.; Ertürk C.; Kiraz I.N.; Ozben V.; Aytac E.; Aliyeva Z.; Mutlu A.U.; Tanal M.; Celayir M.F.; Bozkurt E.; Yetkin S.G.; Ergin E.; Attaallah W.; Uprak T.K.; Omak A.; Simsek O.; Bozkurt M.A.; Kara Y.; Bozdag E.; Yirgin H.; Ozcan A.; Okkabaz N.; Ozdenkaya Y.; Haksal M.C.; Pekuz C.K.; Duru S.; Sivrikoz E.; Ozdemir Y.; Tan N.; Yarbug Karayali F.; Taghiyeva A.; Tirnova I.; Erenler Bayraktar I.; Bayraktar O.; Emsal E.Z.; Dalkilic M.I.; Yesiltas M.; Tok H.; Karakas D.O.; Pusane A.; Demirer A.I.; Sahin H.B.; Gok A.F.K.; Bozkurt H.A.; Yildirim M.; Uzunyolcu G.; Yanar H.T.; Ergun S.; Kutluk F.; Uludag S.S.; Zengin A.K.; Ozcelik M.F.; Sanli A.N.; Altuntas Y.E.; Memisoglu E.; Sari R.; Akdogan O.; Kucuk H.F.; Ozkan O.F.; Ulgur H.S.; Kirkan E.F.; Yuksekdag S.; Rencuzogullari A.; Aktas M.K.; Aba M.; Demirel A.O.; Eray I.C.; Aydogan B.; Cetinkunar S.; Yener K.; Sozutek A.; Irkorucu O.; Bayrak M.; Altintas Y.; Alabaz O.; Atasever A.; Erdogrul G.; Kupeli A.H.; Muhammedoglu B.; Kokdas S.; Kaya M.; Uysal E.; Yildirim A.C.; Zeren S.; Ekici M.F.; Algin M.C.; Kucuk G.O.; Eraslan H.; Aybar E.; Polat S.; Ceylan A.; Isik O.; Kural S.; Aktas A.; Bakar B.; Uzunoglu M.Y.; Gulcu B.; Ozturk E.; Devay A.O.; Taspinar E.; Balcin O.; Aksoy F.; Garip G.; Yalkin O.; Iflazoglu N.; Yigit D.; Kaya R.B.; Ugur M.; Kilic E.; Dedemoglu A.; Arslan R.E.; Temiz M.; Aydin C.; Demirli Atici S.; Kaya T.; Ozturk S.; Calik B.; Kilinc G.; Acar T.; Acar N.; Cengiz F.; Ureyen O.; Tan S.; Ilhan E.; Turk Y.; Durak A.T.; Yilmaz M.; Mercan M.; Atci R.; Sokmen S.; Bisgin T.; Egeli T.; Yildirim Y.; Safak T.; Celik K.; Yilmaz E.M.; Kirnap M.; Demirkiran A.E.; Sekerci U.U.; Karacan E.; Bilgic E.; Ozmen M.M.; Guldogan C.E.; Gundogdu E.; Moran M.; Erol T.; Dincer H.A.; Kirimtay B.; Yilmaz S.; Cennet O.; Yildiz A.; Sahin C.; Akyol C.; Koc M.A.; Ersoz S.; Turhan A.; Konca C.; Tezcaner T.; Erkent M.; Aydin O.; Avci T.; Altiner S.; Osmanov I.; Emral A.C.; Cetinkaya G.; Lapsekili E.; Sakca M.; Cimen S.; Ozen D.; Kozan E.B.; Dogan L.; Haberal E.; Kayhan O.; Aksel B.; Karabacak H.; Azili C.; Yazici F.; Apaydin M.; Kaya I.O.; Cetinkaya E.; Akin T.; Gunes G.; Turap H.; Aslan D.; Demirbag A.E.; Bolukbasi B.; Karaca B.E.; Ozturk E.; Ozeller E.; Kayacan G.S.; Borcek A.O.; Ece I.; Yormaz S.; Colak B.; Calisir A.; Sahin M.; Arslan K.; Hasirci I.; Ulutas M.E.; Metin S.H.; Gultekin F.A.; Ozkan Z.; Ilhan O.; Gundogdu T.; Liman R.K.; Kanat B.H.; Aydin A.; Sungurtekin U.; Ozgen U.; Aykota M.R.; Altintoprak F.; Gonullu E.; Cakmak G.; Dulger U.C.; Mantoglu B.; Demir H.; Akin E.; Eroz E.; Nazli O.; Dere O.; Dadasoglu M.A.; Kara E.; Tutcu S.; Solak I.; Gencer I.; Dalkiran A.; Sevinc B.; Karahan O.; Damburaci N.; Sari E.; Akay T.; Calta A.F.; Ozdemir A.; Ohri N.; Ermis I.; Bozbiyik O.; Ozdemir M.; Goktepe B.; Demir B.; Kilincarslan O.; Gunduz U.R.; Olcum M.; Dincer O.I.; Cakir R.C.; Dinc B.; Sahin E.; Uludag E.; Arslan Y.; Posteki G.; Oktay A.; Tatar O.C.; Guler S.A.; Utkan N.Z.; Tayar S.; Copelci Y.; Kartal M.; Kalayci T.; Yeni M.; Buyukkasap A.C.; Vural S.; Kesicioglu T.; Aydin I.; Gulmez M.; Saracoglu C.; Topcu O.; Kurt A.; Soylu S.; Kurt B.; Serin M.; Basceken S.I.; Gundes E.; Savda M.; Balkan A.Z.A.; Yildiz M.N.; Uzunkoy A.; Karaca E.; Berkan A.; Isik A.; Yildiz Y.A.; Ergul Z.; Yasar N.F.; Badak B.; Ozen A.; Velipasaoglu M.; Ure I.Background: Appendicitis is the most prevalent surgical emergency. The negative appendicectomy rate and diagnostic uncertainty are important concerns. This study aimed to assess the effectiveness of current appendicitis risk prediction models in patients with acute right iliac fossa pain. Methods: A nationwide prospective observational study was conducted, including all consecutive adult patients who presented with right iliac fossa pain. Diagnostic, clinical and negative appendicectomy rate data were recorded. The Alvarado score, Appendicitis Inflammatory Response (AIR), Raja Isteri Pengiran Anak Saleha Appendicitis (RIPASA) and Adult Appendicitis Score systems were calculated with collected data to classify patients into risk categories. Diagnostic value and categorization performance were evaluated, with use of risk category-based metrics including 'true positive rate' (percentage of appendicitis patients in the highest risk category), 'failure rate' (percentage of patients with appendicitis in the lowest risk category) and 'categorization resolution' (true positive rate/failure rate). Results: A total of 3358 patients from 84 centres were included. Female patients were less likely to undergo surgery than men (71.5% versus 82.5% respectively; relative risk 0.866, 95% c.i. 0.834 to 0.901, P < 0.001); with a three-fold higher negative appendicectomy rate (11.3% versus 4.1% respectively; relative risk 2.744, 95% c.i. 2.047 to 3.677, P < 0.001). Ultrasonography was utilized in 56.8% and computed tomography in 75.2% of all patients. The Adult Appendicitis Score had the best diagnostic performance for the whole population; however, only RIPASA was significant in men. All scoring systems were successful in females patients, but Adult Appendicitis Score had the highest area under the receiver operating characteristic curve value. The RIPASA and the Adult Appendicitis Score had the best categorization resolution values, complemented by their exceedingly low failure rates in both male and female patients. Alvarado and AIR had extremely high failure rates in men. Conclusion: The negative appendicectomy rate was low overall, but women had an almost three-fold higher negative appendicectomy rate despite lower likelihood to undergo surgery. The overuse of imaging tests, best exemplified by the 75.2% frequency of patients undergoing computed tomography, may lead to increased costs. Risk-scoring systems such as RIPASA and Adult Appendicitis Score appear to be superior to Alvarado and AIR. © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of BJS Foundation Ltd.