METHODS: This systematic review was reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. The literature search was carried out through PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus. Original articles written in English and published between 2013 and 2023 were considered. Study quality was appraised using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. Narrative synthesis was undertaken due to methodological heterogeneity in the included studies.
RESULTS: A total of 13 cross-sectional studies, two randomized controlled trials, two cohort studies, two mixed methods studies and one quasi-experiment with a control group were included. An overall low level of diabetes risk perception was reported particularly in those without apparent risk for diabetes. The 20 included studies reported widely varied measures for calculating diabetes risk perception. The influence of environmental factors on the risk perception of diabetes was highlighted.
LIMITATIONS: The use of study-specific and non-validated measures in the included studies weakens the authors' ability to compare across studies. The role of language and publication bias within this systematic review should be acknowledged as we included only English-language studies published in peer-reviewed journals. Another limitation is the exclusion of dimensions of risk perception such as optimistic bias as search terms.
CONCLUSION: The overall low risk perception of diabetes calls for urgent need of public health interventions to increase the risk perception of diabetes. In the future, researchers should ensure the validity and reliability of the measures being used. The influence of environmental factors on the diabetes risk perception indicates that diabetes preventive interventions targeting environmental factors may be effective in increasing the risk perception of diabetes.
METHODS: This retrospective study comprised 284 right eyes. Patients aged 18 years or older with myopia up to -12.00 D and/or astigmatism up to -6.00 DC and who underwent femtosecond LASIK were recruited. Patients were divided into three subgroups: low myopia (-0.50 to -3.00 D), moderate myopia (>-3.00 to ≤-6.00 D), and high myopia (>-6.00 D), according to their pre-LASIK spherical equivalent (SE). The variables included for analysis were PCC (central 0-3.0 mm, pericentral 3.0-6.0 mm, and peripheral region 6.0-9.0 mm), PCE, PCA, internal anterior chamber depth, intraocular pressure, and central cornea thickness at the pre- and post-LASIK stages.
RESULTS: The central PCC remained unchanged across all three myopia subgroups at 1 month when compared to the pre-LASIK stage and remained stable at 6 months. The pericentral regions became flatter across all myopia subgroups at 1 month postsurgery (P < 0.001) and remained unchanged at 6 months. This trend was not seen in the peripheral cornea regions, which remained unchanged at 1 and 6 months post-LASIK when compared to pre-LASIK mean readings. There were minimal changes in post-LASIK posterior cornea astigmatism throughout follow-up. There was no incidence of post-LASIK surgery ectasia in this study population.
CONCLUSION: Post-LASIK, the different cornea subregions behaved differently. Overall, the posterior cornea surface remained stable post-LASIK across all myopia subgroups throughout follow-up.
METHODS: Participants from nine federal prisons with PNEP completed focus groups using nominal group technique, a rapid mixed-method consensus strategy. Responses were generated, rank-ordered, and prioritized by each stakeholder group. We identified the highest-ranking responses (≥10 % of the overall votes) to questions about barriers and facilitators to PNEP uptake.
RESULTS: Between September 2023 and February 2024, 16 focus groups were conducted with 118 participants (n = 51 correctional officers; n = 67 healthcare workers). Among correctional officers, the top perceived barriers were bullying from peers (22 %), fear of being targeted by correctional officers (14 %), and fear of repercussions due to drug use (13 %). The top facilitators were safe injection sites (30 %), provision of wrap-around services (16 %), and education of correctional officers (10 %). Among healthcare workers, the top perceived barriers were lack of confidentiality (16 %), fear of being targeted by correctional officers (12 %), and a long and complex application process (11 %). The top facilitators were education of correctional officers (29 %), delivery of PNEP by an external provider (15 %), automatic approval for participation in the PNEP (13 %), and safe injection sites (12 %).
CONCLUSION: Multiple modifiable barriers and solutions to improving PNEP uptake in Canadian federal prisons were identified by correctional employees. Both participant groups identified the potential for safe injection sites and education to correctional officers as enabling PNEP uptake. These data will inform Canadian efforts to improve engagement and to expand PNEP coverage.
METHODS: PubMed, EMBASE, and Medline were searched, including English in-hospital (IHCA) and out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) SRs, and comparing mechanical versus manual CPR. A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR-2) and GRADE were used to assess the quality of included SRs/studies. We included both IHCA and OHCA, which compared mechanical and manual CPR. We analyzed at least one of the outcomes of interest, including ROSC, survival to hospital admission, survival to hospital discharge, 30-day survival, and survival to hospital discharge with good neurological function. Furthermore, subgroup analyses were performed for age, gender, initial rhythm, arrest location, and type of CPR devices.
RESULTS: We identified 249 potentially relevant records, of which 238 were excluded. Eleven SRs were analyzed in the Umbrella review (January 2014-March 2022). Furthermore, for a new, additional SR, we identified eight eligible studies (not included in any prior SR) for an in-depth analysis between April 1, 2021, and February 15, 2024. The higher chances of using mechanical CPR for male patients were significantly observed in three studies. Two studies showed that younger patients received more mechanical treatment than older patients. However, studies did not comment on the outcomes based on the patient's gender or age. Most SRs and studies were of low to moderate quality. The pooled findings did not show the superiority of mechanical compared to manual CPR except in a few selected subgroups.
CONCLUSIONS: Given the significant heterogeneity and methodological limitations of the included studies and SRs, our findings do not provide definitive evidence to support the superiority of mechanical CPR over manual CPR. However, mechanical CPR can serve better where high-quality manual CPR cannot be performed in selected situations.
METHODS: ML algorithms logistic regression (LR), decision tree (DT), random forest (RF), and support vector machine (SVM) models were applied. Academic performance prediction in pre-clinical years was made using three input parameters: age during admission, pre-university Cumulative Grade Point Average (CGPA), and total matriculation semester. PCC was deployed to identify the correlation between pre-university CGPA and dental school grades. The proposed models' classification accuracy ranged from 29% to 57%, ranked from highest to lowest as follows: RF, SVM, DT, and LR. Pre-university CGPA was shown to be predictive of dental students' academic performance; however, alone they did not yield optimal outcomes. RF was the most precise algorithm for predicting grades A, B, and C, followed by LR, DT, and SVM. In forecasting failure, LR predicted three grades with the highest recall, SVM predicted two grades, and DT predicted one. RF performance was insignificant.
CONCLUSION: The findings demonstrated the application of ML algorithms and PCC to predict dental students' academic performance. However, it was limited by several factors. Each algorithm has unique performance qualities, and trade-offs between different performance metrics may be necessary. No definitive model stood out as the best algorithm for predicting student academic success in this study.