Objective
Agriculture is a hazardous industry. However, previous studies have focused on injuries to agricultural workers without comparison with injuries to nonagricultural workers. Therefore, we compared the clinical characteristics and outcomes of injuries reported at an emergency department (ED) between agricultural workers and nonagricultural workers.
Methods
We established a prospective ED-based agricultural injury surveillance system at a tertiary university hospital. Adult patients visiting the ED for an injury were divided into farmer and non-farmer groups depending on their engagement with agriculture. Using an adjusted multivariate analysis and propensity score matching (age, sex, inhabitant, and insurance type), we compared the clinical characteristics and outcomes of injuries between the farmer and non-farmer groups.
Results
In total, 38,556 injured adult patients (37,746 in the non-farmer group and 810 in the farmer group) were available for the unmatched sample analysis. The 1,620 matched subjects were equally classified after one-to-one nearest-neighbor propensity score matching. A multivariate logistic regression analysis of the unmatched sample revealed higher adjusted odds ratios (ORs) for intensive care unit admission (adjusted OR, 1.752; P=0.003) and overall surgery (adjusted OR, 1.870; P<0.001) in the farmer group. In contrast, univariate logistic regression analyses of the propensity score–matched sample found a higher OR in the farmer group only for overall surgery (OR, 1.786; P<0.001).
Conclusion
Injuries of agricultural workers had higher odds only of requiring surgery; differences in injury-related mortality between groups were not statistically significant in either the matched or unmatched sample analyses.

Objective
This study investigated the hospital diagnoses and characteristics of uncooperative prehospital patients suspected of acute stroke who could not undergo a prehospital stroke screening test (PHSST).
Methods
This retrospective observational study was conducted at a single academic hospital with a regional stroke center. We analyzed three scenario-based prehospital stroke screening performances using the final hospital diagnoses: (1) a conservative approach only in patients who underwent the PHSST, (2) a real-world approach that considered all uncooperative patients as screening positive, and (3) a contrapositive approach that all uncooperative patients were considered as negative.
Results
Of the 2,836 emergency medical services (EMS)-transported adult patients who met the prehospital criteria for suspicion of acute stroke, 486 (17.1%) were uncooperative, and 570 (20.1%) had a confirmed final diagnosis of acute stroke. The diagnosis in the uncooperative group did not differ from that in the cooperative group (22.0% vs. 19.7%, P=0.246). The diagnostic performances of the PHSST in the conservative approach were as follows: 79.5% sensitivity (95% confidence interval [CI], 75.5%–83.1%), 90.2% specificity (95% CI, 88.8%–91.6%), and 0.849 area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC; 95% CI, 0.829–0.868). The sensitivity and specificity were 83.3% (95% CI, 80.0%–86.3%) and 75.2% (95% CI, 73.3%–76.9%), respectively, in the real-world approach and 64.6% (95% CI, 60.5%–68.5%) and 91.9% (95% CI, 90.7%–93.0%), respectively, in the contrapositive approach. No significant difference was evident in the AUC between the real-world approach and the contrapositive approach (0.792 [95% CI, 0.775–0.810] vs. 0.782 [95% CI, 0.762–0.803], P>0.05).
Conclusion
We found overestimation (false positive) and underestimation (false negative) in the uncooperative group depending on the scenario-based EMS stroke screening policy for uncooperative prehospital patients suspected of acute stroke.