Repository logo
  • English
  • Català
  • Čeština
  • Deutsch
  • Español
  • Français
  • Gàidhlig
  • Italiano
  • Latviešu
  • Magyar
  • Nederlands
  • Polski
  • Português
  • Português do Brasil
  • Srpski (lat)
  • Suomi
  • Svenska
  • Türkçe
  • Tiếng Việt
  • Қазақ
  • বাংলা
  • हिंदी
  • Ελληνικά
  • Српски
  • Yкраї́нська
  • Log In
    Have you forgotten your password?
Repository logoRepository logo
  • Communities & Collections
  • All Contents
  • English
  • Català
  • Čeština
  • Deutsch
  • Español
  • Français
  • Gàidhlig
  • Italiano
  • Latviešu
  • Magyar
  • Nederlands
  • Polski
  • Português
  • Português do Brasil
  • Srpski (lat)
  • Suomi
  • Svenska
  • Türkçe
  • Tiếng Việt
  • Қазақ
  • বাংলা
  • हिंदी
  • Ελληνικά
  • Српски
  • Yкраї́нська
  • Log In
    Have you forgotten your password?
  1. Home
  2. Browse by Author

Browsing by Author "Kartal M."

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
Results Per Page
Sort Options
  • No Thumbnail Available
    Item
    Adaptation, reliability, and validity study of the hwalek–sengstock elder abuse screening test (H-S/EAST): A Turkish version
    (Turkiye Klinikleri Journal of Medical Sciences, 2017) Özçakar N.; Toprak Ergönen A.; Kartal M.; Baydur H.
    Background/aim: The most important issues in elder abuse and neglect are lack of awareness and difficulties in determining the situation. Our aim is to determine the reliability and validity of the Turkish version of the Hwalek–Sengstock Elder Abuse Screening Test (H-S/EAST). Materials and methods: The H-S/EAST (15-itemed, three-dimensional: direct abuse, characteristics of vulnerability, and potentially abusive situation) was translated according to the guidelines and experts evaluated it for content validity and cultural adaptation. Participants’ (n = 252) mean age was 73.4 ± 6.4 years and 58.3% were female. The World Health Organization Quality of Life Instrument-Older Adults Module (WHOQOL-OLD) and the Barthel Index were used for validity. Cronbach’s alpha for internal consistency, exploratory factor analysis for content validity, t-test for construct validity, and discriminant ability were used. SPSS 15.0 was used for analysis and statistical significance was P < 0.05. Results: In test–retest reliability, internal consistency coefficient values for direct abuse, characteristics of vulnerability, and potentially abusive situation were 0.88, 0.73, and 0.80, respectively. Cronbach’s alpha for internal consistency of the H-S/EAST was 0.741. Exploratory factor analysis obtained 5 factors, and explained variance was 61.8%. Cut-off value was 6, and sensitivity, specificity, and area under the ROC curve were 76.9%, 96.2%, and 0.938, respectively. Conclusion: The Turkish version of the H-S/EAST can be used as a reliable, valid clinical tool for the assessment of elder abuse. © TÜBİTAK.
  • 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.

Manisa Celal Bayar University copyright © 2002-2025 LYRASIS

  • Cookie settings
  • Privacy policy
  • End User Agreement
  • Send Feedback