METHODS: In the first stage, a preliminary list of items measuring socio-cultural and religious beliefs during menstruation was generated. In the second stage, exploratory factor analysis was performed. Finally, confirmatory factor analysis using reflective measurement model and structural equation modelling was performed using partial least squares. The practices of these beliefs were included as mediating effect. Biological symptoms of menstruation were added in as another factor.
RESULTS: A total of 400 female students from the Universiti Malaysia Sarawak, Malaysia were recruited. A preliminary list of 22 items was first generated. From the confirmatory factor analysis, two factors were iteratively removed due to poor factor loadings. Four factors were retained, i.e., i) "religious beliefs"; ii) "unpleasant (or dirty) nature of menstruation"; iii) "personal restrictions (dietary and behavior)"; and iv) "restrictions of interactions with male gender". In structural equation modelling, only 2 factors, i.e., the practices of "personal restrictions (dietary and behavioural)" and "restriction of interactions with males" had significant negative impact on quality of life.
CONCLUSION: Menstruation should not be viewed purely from a biological lens as there are layers of sociocultural and religious beliefs surrounding it.
METHODS: Women at 28-32 weeks' gestation attending antenatal clinic for routine care were screened using the Rome IV chronic constipation criterion. Eligible women were approached and consented. Participants were randomized to oral polyethylene glycol (10 g/day) or lactulose (10 g/day) for 4 weeks. A bowel movement diary was kept and outcomes using the Patient Assessment of Constipation Symptoms questionnaire (PAC-SYM), Patient Assessment of Constipation Quality of Life questionnaire (PAC-QoL) and Bristol Stool Form Scale (BSFS), which were evaluated at the start and end of the four-week period. Relative risks (RR) were determined for the coprimary outcomes of complete spontaneous bowel movement (CSBM) and PAC-SYM mean score improvement (decrease in score of >1 from the baseline).
RESULTS: A total of 4323 women underwent screening, of which 780 fulfilled the Rome IV criterion, and 360 consented to participate (180 randomized to PEG and lactulose, respectively). Data from 247 women who completed the study were analyzed. CSBM was achieved in 107/124 (86.3%) versus 102/123 (82.9%) (RR 1.04, 95% CI: 0.93-1.16, P = 0.464) for PEG and lactulose trial arms, respectively. PAC-SYM mean score improvement was 62/118 (52.5%) in the PEG arm versus 44/118 (37.3%) in the lactulose arm (RR 1.40, 95% CI: 1.05-1.88). Of secondary outcomes, a significant difference was found in favor of PEG, with respect to PAC-SYM abdominal symptoms subscale, normal stool versus loose stool consistency and side effects of vomiting and diarrhea. After controlling for parity, baseline PAC-SYM, PAC-QoL scores, characteristics different at baseline, only diarrhea and loose stools remained significant.
CONCLUSION: Both PEG 4000 and lactulose are effective laxatives in pregnancy with similar performance after adjusted analysis. Diarrhea and loose stools are less frequently reported with PEG.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This is a prospective single centre randomised single blinded comparative study conducted in HUSM. The primary endpoints for this study are the overall complete stone clearance rate and complication rate, while the secondary outcome for this study are duration of procedure and rate of usage of adjunct methods. Objective data analysis is conducted using independent sample t-test and chi-squared test.
RESULTS: A total of 66 patients underwent endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) for choledocholithiasis which is CBD stone. 34 patients were allocated to EST plus EPLBD arm (n=34), and 32 patients were in EST alone arm (n=32) using randomisation method. For intention to treat, patients from EST alone arm that unable to achieve complete stone clearance will be switched to EST plus EPLBD arm. The overall complete stone removal rate for both groups were comparable (EST plus EPLDB: 100% versus EST alone: 93.8%; p= 0.139). The two patients from EST alone group (6.2%) that unable to achieve complete stone clearance were converted to EST plus EPLBD group for intention to treat and able to achieve complete stone clearance by EST plus EPLBD. For procedural time, both arms are comparable as well (EST plus EPLDB: 15.8 minutes vs EST alone: 15.5 minutes; p= 0.860). Complications such as pancreatitis occurred in one patient in EST plus EPLBD arm (EST plus EPLDB: 2.9 % vs EST alone: 0 %; p= 0.328), and bleeding occurred in one patient in EST alone arm (EST plus EPLDB: 0 % vs EST alone: 3.1 %; p= 0.299) , but it is not statistically significant. No perforation or cholangitis complication occurred in both groups. No adjunct usage was observed in both groups.
CONCLUSION: In this study with limited sample size, both EST plus EPLBD and EST alone are effective and has comparable procedural time in removing CBD stone. Even though both methods are equally effective, EPLBD plus EST is an alternative solution if complete stone clearance is unable to achieve via EST alone.