Background: The COVID‐19 pandemic, which first appeared in Wuhan, China, in December 2019 and spread rapidly around the globe, continues to be a serious threat today. Rapid and accurate diagnostic methods are needed to identify, isolate and treat patients as soon as possible because of the rapid contagion of COVID‐19. In the present study, the relation of the semi‐quantitative scoring method with computed tomography in the diagnosis of COVID‐19 in determining the severity of the disease with clinical and laboratory parameters and survival of the patients were investigated along with its value in prognostic prediction.Material and method: A total of 277 adult patients who were followed up in the chest diseases clinic because of COVID‐19 pneumonia between 11.03.2020 and 31.05.2020 were evaluated retrospectively in the present study. Both lungs were divided into five regions in line with their anatomical structures, and semiquantitative radiological scoring was made between 0 and 25 points according to the distribution of lesions in each region. The relations between semiquantitative radiological score and age, gender, comorbidity, and clinical and laboratory parameters were examined.Results: A significant correlation was detected between advanced age, lymphopenia, low oxygen saturation, high ferritin, D‐dimer, and radiological score in the univariate analysis performed in the present study. The cut‐off value of the semiquantitative radiology score was found to be 15 (AUC: 0.615, 95% CI: 0.554–0.617,p = 0.106) in ROC analysis. The survival was found to be better in cases with a radiology score below 15, in Kaplan–Meier analysis (HR: 4.71, 95% CI: 1.43–15.46,p < 0.01). In the radiological score and nonparametric correlation analyses, positive correlations were detected between CRP, D‐dimer, AST, LDH, ferritin, and pro‐BNP, and a negative correlation was found between partial oxygen pressure and oxygen saturation (p = 0.01,r = 0.321/0.313/0.362/0.343/0.313/0.333/−0.235/−0.231, respectively)Conclusion: It was found that the scoring system that was calculated quantitatively in thorax HRCTs in Covid‐19 patients is a predictive actor in determining the severity and prognosis of the disease in correlation with clinical and laboratory parameters. Considering patients who have a score of 15 and above with semiquantitative scoring risky in terms of poor prognosis and short survival and close follow‐up and early treatment may be effective to reduce mortality rates.

Healthcare workers (HCWs) are at the forefront of the fight against coronavirus. The purpose of this study was to evaluate COVID-19 phobia levels of HCWs of a pandemic hospital and explore associated factors. This was a descriptive cross-sectional study conducted on HCWs employed in a pandemic hospital. A total of 365 HCWs (95 physicians, 187 nurses and 83 assistant healthcare staffs) were included in the study. In order to evaluate COVID-19 phobia, coronavirus-19 phobia scale (C19P-S) was administrated. Chronophobia levels of frontline and nonfrontline HCWs were compared. Additionally, the effect of working in different departments, profession and associated factors on COVID-19 phobia was evaluated. Overall, 172 HCWs completed the C19P-S and agreed to participate in the study. Mean total CP19P-S score of the HCWs included in the study was 50.1 ± 17.3. Of the study population, 59.3% participants were frontline HCWs and 40.7% were non-frontline HCWs. When frontline HCWs and nonfrontline HCWs were compared in terms of total C19P-S and subscales scores (psychological, psycho-somatic, economic, social), no statistically significant differences were found (p= 0.914, p= 0.687, p= 0.766, p= 0.347, p= 0.794, respectively).When the HCWs were divided into three groups according to departments (clinics, intensive care unit (ICU), emergency department) where they worked regardless of whether they cared for patients with COVID-19, HCWs employed in the ICUs had the highest scores regarding total C19P-S and subscales scores (p= 0.002, p= 0.001, p= 0.001, p= 0.012, p= 0.002,respectively) . Profession based comparison revealed no significant difference between the groups regarding total C19P-S score (p= 0.117). It is essential to make a comprehensive evaluation regarding the effects of pandemics on HCWs, not only for controlling the COVID-19 pandemic but also to protect the mental health of HCWs. Critical care professions appear to need particular attention among HCWs. The C19P-S, which assesses coronaphobia levels with psychological, psycho-somatic, economic, and social aspects could be a convenient screening tool for evaluating COVID-19 phobia levels in HWCs.

The NoSAS score is a new tool for the identification of high-risk patients for sleep-disordered breathing (SDB). The aim of this study was to validate the NoSAS score in a sleep clinical population in Turkey and compare its performance with the Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS), STOP-Bang, and Berlin questionnaires for high-risk SDB. This was a retrospective study. Patients who had a full-night PSG examination between 01.03.2017 and 01.01.2018 at the sleep center of our hospital were included in the study. Demographic characteristics, anthropometrics measurements, ESS, STOP-Bang, and Berlin scores were collected from the existing data of the patients. The NoSAS score was subsequently calculated based on available data. Predictive parameters for each screening questionnaires were calculated to compare the discriminative power of those for high-risk SDB. A total of 450 patients were included in the study. The sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV of the NoSAS score were 81%, 51.2%, 88.2%, and 37.5% for an AHI (apnea–hypopnea index) ≥ 5 event/h and 84.5%, 38.2%, 66%, and 63.4% for an AHI ≥ 15 event/h, respectively. AUC percentages for the NoSAS score, STOP-Bang questionnaire, Berlin questionnaire, and ESS were 0.740, 0.737, 0.626, and 0.571 for an AHI ≥ 5 events/h and 0.715, 0.704, 0.574, and 0.621 for an AHI ≥ 30 events/h. The NoSAS score had a false negative rate of 2.9% for severe SDB. The NoSAS score had a good degree of differentiation for SDB and can be used as an easily applicable, subjective, and effective screening tool in a sleep clinical population in Turkey. Not only in moderate to severe SDB but also in mild SDB, the NoSAS score performed better than the other 3 screening tools.

Turkthoracj, Turkish Thoracic Journal