Browsing by Author "Bayrak M."

Now showing 1 - 3 of 3
  • No Thumbnail Available
    Item
    COVID-19: vaccination vs. hospitalization
    (Springer Science and Business Media Deutschland GmbH, 2022) Uzun O.; Akpolat T.; Varol A.; Turan S.; Bektas S.G.; Cetinkaya P.D.; Dursun M.; Bakan N.; Ketencioglu B.B.; Bayrak M.; Baris S.A.; Guner R.; Gunal O.; Nural S.; Deniz P.P.; Toprak O.B.; Ozkan G.; Gumus A.; Kerget F.; Ercelik M.; Ataoglu O.; Yuksel A.; Ates G.; Kutsoylu O.E.; Kose N.; Kizilirmak D.; Keskin S.; Gultekin O.; Coskun N.; Yilmaz E.S.; Uslu S.; Basyigit İ.; Ergan B.; Deveci F.; Yakar M.N.; Zuhur C.; Sagcan G.; Yuce Z.T.; Kuluozturk M.; Sezgin M.E.; Sezgin E.N.A.; Havlucu Y.; Cuhadaroglu C.; Kilinc O.; Boyaci H.; Altunay H.; Akti M.; Dursun Z.B.; Kalem A.K.; Isik S.A.; Akyildiz L.; Aykac N.; Almaz M.S.; Kokturk N.; Itil O.
    Objective: Vaccination is the most efficient way to control the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, but vaccination rates remain below the target level in most countries. This multicenter study aimed to evaluate the vaccination status of hospitalized patients and compare two different booster vaccine protocols. Setting: Inoculation in Turkey began in mid-January 2021. Sinovac was the only available vaccine until April 2021, when BioNTech was added. At the beginning of July 2021, the government offered a third booster dose to healthcare workers and people aged > 50 years who had received the two doses of Sinovac. Of the participants who received a booster, most chose BioNTech as the third dose. Methods: We collected data from 25 hospitals in 16 cities. Patients hospitalized between August 1 and 10, 2021, were included and categorized into eight groups according to their vaccination status. Results: We identified 1401 patients, of which 529 (37.7%) were admitted to intensive care units. Nearly half (47.8%) of the patients were not vaccinated, and those with two doses of Sinovac formed the second largest group (32.9%). Hospitalizations were lower in the group which received 2 doses of Sinovac and a booster dose of BioNTech than in the group which received 3 doses of Sinovac. Conclusion: Effective vaccinations decreased COVID-19-related hospitalizations. The efficacy after two doses of Sinovac may decrease over time; however, it may be enhanced by adding a booster dose. Moreover, unvaccinated patients may be persuaded to undergo vaccination. © 2022, The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany.
  • No Thumbnail Available
    Item
    COVID-19: booster(s) vs. hospitalization and Intensive Care Unit admission
    (Verduci Editore s.r.l, 2023) Toprak O.B.; Akpolat T.; Uzun O.; Pinar Deniz P.; Kokturk N.; Varol A.; Guzel E.; Ercelik M.; Gultekin O.; Guner R.; Turan S.; Gökbulut Bektaş Ş.; Coskun N.; Bakan N.; Nuri Yakar M.; Eren Kutsoylu O.; Ergan B.; Argun Bariş S.; Başyiğit İ.; Boyaci H.; Çetinkaya F.; Çolak H.; Aykac N.; Baran Ketencioğlu B.; Türe Yüce Z.; Akkaya Isik S.; Serap Yilmaz E.; Karaoğlanoğlu S.; Berik Safci S.; Ozkan G.; Kose N.; Kizilirmak D.; Havlucu Y.; Nural S.; Kerget F.; Sunal Ö.; Yuksel A.; Bestepe Dursun Z.; Deveci F.; Kuluozturk M.; Ataoglu O.; Dursun M.; Keskin S.; Emin Sezgin M.; Aktepe Sezgin E.N.; Eser F.; Akyildiz L.; Selim Almaz M.; Kayaaslan B.; Hasanoğlu İ.; Bayrak M.; Gümüş A.; Sağcan G.; Cuhadaroglu C.; Kucuk H.; Onyilmaz T.; Mete B.; Kilinc O.; Oya Itil B.
    OBJECTIVE: As the pandemic continues, different vaccine protocols have been implemented to maintain the protection of vaccines and to provide protection against new variants. The aim of this study was to assess hospitalized patients' vaccination status and document the efficacy of boosters. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The patients that were hospitalized due to COVID-19 were enrolled from 28 hospitals in Turkey for five months from September 2021. 5,331 confirmed COVID-19 patients from collaborating centers were randomly enrolled to understand/estimate the distribution of vaccination status in hospitalized patients and to compare the efficacy of vaccination/booster protocols. RESULTS: 2,779 men and 2,552 women of which 2,408 (45.2%) were admitted to Intensive Care Units participated in this study. It was found that the highest risk reduction for all age groups was found in groups that received 4 doses. Four doses of vaccination for every 3.7 people under 50 years of age, for every 5.7 people in the 50-64 age group, and for every 4.3 people over 65 years of age will prevent 1 patient from being admitted to intensive care. Regardless of the type of vaccine, it was found that the risk of ICU hospitalization decreased in those who were vaccinated compared to those who were not vaccinated. Regardless of the type of vaccine, the ICU risk was found to decrease 1.25-fold in those who received 1 or 2 doses of vaccine, 1.18-fold in those who received 3 doses, and 3.26-fold in those who received 4 doses. CONCLUSIONS: The results suggested that the addition of a fourth dose is more effective in preventing intensive unit care even in disadvantaged. © 2023 Verduci Editore s.r.l. All rights reserved.
  • No Thumbnail Available
    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.