Browsing by Author "Tan S."

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • No Thumbnail Available
    Item
    Comparative validity and reliability study of the QIDS-SR16 in Turkish and American college student samples; [Türk ve amerikalı üniversite öǧrencilerinde hızlı depresif belirti envanteri-özbildirim formu'nun (HDBE16-ÖF) karşılaştırmalı olarak geçerlik ve güvenirliǧi]
    (Cukurova Univ Tip Fakultesi Psikiyatri Anabilim Dali, 2011) Mergen H.; Bernstein I.H.; Tavli V.; Ongel K.; Tavli T.; Tan S.
    Comparative validity and reliability study of the QIDS-SR16 in Turkish and American college student samples Objective: To evaluate the validity and reliability of the Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology, selfreported version, in a Turkish student sample (QIDS-SR16-T) by comparing it to (a) the American version (QIDS-SR16- US) and (b) the Turkish version of the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI-II-T). Materials and Methods: Slightly modified versions of the QIDS-SR16-T, and the BDI-II-T were administered to 626 outpatients at the Uludaǧ University campus-based family health center. The QIDS-SR16-US was administered to 584 respondents at an American university. SAS and MPlus were used to provide descriptive statistics, classical exploratory factor analysis, and item response theory analyses (in the form of a multiple group confirmatory factor analysis). Results: The internal consistency (Cronbach α) of the QIDS-SR16-T was 0.77. Both QIDS-SR16 versions were unidimensional, but the BDI-II-T was not. The mean QIDSSR16- T and QIDS-SR16-US item-total correlations were similar. The correlation between the QIDS-SR16-T and BDIII- T was 0.72 (.90 when disattenuated). Multiple-group confirmatory factor analysis suggested that the QIDSSR16- T and QIDS-SR16-US had the same factor loadings but different intercepts. This reflects group differences in level of depression, perhaps because the Turkish respondents, unlike their US counterparts, were seen in a medical context where illness-related depression is more prevalent. Scores on the QIDS-SR16-T and the BDI-II-T were also equated. Discussion: The QIDS-SR16-T has good psychometric properties and convergent validity with the BDI-II-T. Its use is recommended when a self-reported instrument is appropriate.
  • 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.