OBJECTIVES: 1. To assess the effects of CPAP on AoP in preterm infants (this may be compared to supportive care or mechanical ventilation). 2. To assess the effects of different CPAP delivery systems on AoP in preterm infants.

SEARCH METHODS: Searches were conducted in September 2022 in the following databases: Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL. We also searched clinical trial registries and the reference lists of studies selected for inclusion.

SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in which researchers determined that CPAP was necessary for AoP in preterm infants (born before 37 weeks). Cross-over studies were also included, provided sufficient data were available for analysis.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used the standard methods of Cochrane and Cochrane Neonatal, including independent assessment of risk of bias and extraction of data by at least two review authors. Discrepancies were resolved by involvement of a third author. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence for the following outcomes: 1) failed CPAP; 2) apnoea; 3) adverse effects of CPAP.

MAIN RESULTS: We included four single-centre trials conducted in Malaysia, Spain, Germany, and North America, involving 138 infants with a mean/median gestation of 26 to 28 weeks. Two studies were parallel-group RCTs and two were cross-over trials. None of the studies compared CPAP with supportive care. All trials compared one form of CPAP with another. Two compared a variable flow device with ventilator CPAP, one compared two different variable flow devices, and one compared a variable flow device with bubble CPAP. Interventions were administered for periods ranging between six and 48 hours, with pressures between 4 and 6 cm H2O. We assessed all trials as having a high risk of bias for blinding of participants and personnel, and two studies for blinding of outcome assessors. We found a high risk of a carry-over effect in two studies where the washout period was not adequately described, and a high risk of bias in a study that appeared to use an analysis method not generally accepted for cross-over studies. Comparison 1. CPAP and supportive care compared to supportive care alone We did not identify any study for inclusion in this comparison. Comparison 2. CPAP delivered by different types of devices 2a. Variable flow compared to ventilator CPAP Two studies were included in this comparison. We are very uncertain whether there is any difference in the incidence of failed CPAP, defined as the need for mechanical ventilation (risk ratio (RR) 0.16, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.01 to 2.90; 1 study, 26 participants; very low-certainty). We are very uncertain whether there is any difference in the frequency of apnoea events (mean difference (MD) per four-hour interval -0.10, 95% CI -1.30 to 1.10; 1 study, 26 participants; very low-certainty). We are uncertain whether there is any difference in adverse events. Neurodevelopmental outcomes were not reported. 2b. Variable flow compared to bubble CPAP We included one study in this comparison, but it did not report our pre-specified outcomes. 2c. Infant Flow variable flow CPAP compared to Medijet variable flow CPAP We are very uncertain whether there is any difference in the incidence of failed CPAP (RR 2.62, 95% CI 0.91 to 7.53; 1 study, 80 participants; very low-certainty). The frequency of apnoea was not reported, and we do not know whether there is any difference in adverse events. Neurodevelopmental outcomes were not reported. Comparison 3. CPAP compared to mechanical ventilation We did not identify any studies for inclusion in this comparison.

METHODS: A single-arm interventional pre-and post-pilot study was conducted on a sample of healthcare lecturers and workers who are involved in supervising healthcare students. A purposive sampling technique was used to recruit 50 healthcare educators in Malaysia. The program was conducted by trained facilitators and 31 participants completed a locally validated self-rated questionnaire to measure their self-efficacy and declarative knowledge in preventing suicide; immediately before and after the intervention.

RESULTS: Significant improvement was seen in the overall outcome following the intervention, mostly in the self-efficacy domain. No significant improvement was seen in the domain of declarative knowledge possibly due to ceiling effects; an already high baseline knowledge about suicide among healthcare workers. This is an exception in a single item that assesses a common misperception in assessing suicide risk where significant improvement was seen following the program.

AIM: Our aim is to develop and validate a pharmaceutical assessment screening tool (PAST) to guide medical ward pharmacists in our local hospitals to effectively prioritise patient care.

METHOD: This study involved 2 major phases; (1) development of PAST through literature review and group discussion, (2) validation of PAST using a three-round Delphi survey. Twenty-four experts were invited by email to participate in the Delphi survey. In each round, experts were required to rate the relevance and completeness of PAST criteria and were given chance for open feedback. The 75% consensus benchmark was set and criteria with achieved consensus were retained in PAST. Experts' suggestions were considered and added into PAST for rating. After each round, experts were provided with anonymised feedback and results from the previous round.

RESULTS: Three Delphi rounds resulted in the final tool (rearranged as mnemonic 'STORIMAP'). STORIMAP consists of 8 main criteria with 29 subcomponents. Marks are allocated for each criteria in STORIMAP which can be combined to a total of 15 marks. Patient acuity level is determined based on the final score and clerking priority is assigned accordingly.

OBJECTIVES: The current systematic review aims to synthesize existing feasibility studies on LRI among persons with cancer.

METHODS: A literature search was conducted from the databases PubMed, ScienceDirect, PsychArticles, Scopus, Psychology and Behavioral Science Collection, Cochrane, EBSCO, and other methods. Eligible articles were selected based on the predetermined inclusion criteria and data extraction revolved around the study design, intervention procedure, and feasibility and psychological outcome measures.

RESULTS: The search yielded 8,627 articles, to which respondents simultaneously receiving other forms of psychological interventions were excluded. Eight were selected for evaluation. Four were integrated interventions while the remaining were conducted with the standard intervention. The sample size range from 5 to 90 persons with cancer. All reviewed articles reported optimum feasibility, as presented by recruitment capability, participant retention rate, acceptability and satisfaction, intervention implementation, and evaluation of intervention outcome measures. However, a majority of psychological outcome measures indicated no statistical significance.

METHODS: The authors will perform comprehensive searches of published studies in electronic databases such as PMC, PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane Library and Web of Science by using the following search terms: 'self-efficacy' AND 'adversity quotient' AND 'stress' AND 'academic performance' AND 'student' AND 'COVID-19 pandemic'. Only full-text articles in English language are included. Two reviewers will independently conduct the article selection, data extraction, and quality assessment. Any possible disagreement will be resolved by discussion, and one arbitrator (NA) will adjudicate unresolved disagreements.

RESULTS: This review will provide an updated overview of investigating the relationship between self-efficacy, adversity quotient, COVID-19-related stress and academic performance on a range of undergraduate student during the COVID-19 pandemic. Ultimately, based on this systematic review, we will recommend the direction for future research.

CONCLUSION: The result of the study may help the researchers to find an updated overview of various studies in related topic.

OBJECTIVES: To determine if prophylactic nasal CPAP (started within the first 15 minutes) or very early nasal CPAP regardless of respiratory status (started within the first hour of life), reduces the use of mechanical ventilation and the incidence of bronchopulmonary dysplasia without any adverse effects in preterm infants.

SEARCH METHODS: A comprehensive search was run on 6 November 2020 in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL via CRS Web) and MEDLINE via Ovid. We also searched the reference lists of retrieved studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs in preterm infants (under 37 weeks of gestation). We included trials if they compared prophylactic nasal CPAP (started within the first 15 minutes) or very early nasal CPAP (started within the first hour of life) in infants with minimal signs of respiratory distress with 'supportive care', such as supplemental oxygen therapy, standard nasal cannula, or mechanical ventilation. We excluded studies where prophylactic CPAP was compared with CPAP along with co-interventions.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used the standard methods of Cochrane Neonatal, including independent study selection, assessment of trial quality, and extraction of data by two review authors.

MAIN RESULTS: We included eight trials (seven from the previous version of the review and one new study), recruiting 3201 babies, in the meta-analysis. Four trials, involving 765 babies, compared CPAP with supportive care, and three trials (2364 babies) compared CPAP with mechanical ventilation. One trial (72 babies) compared prophylactic CPAP with very early CPAP. Apart from a lack of blinding of the intervention, we judged seven studies to have a low risk of bias. However, one study had a high risk of selection bias. Prophylactic or very early CPAP compared to supportive care There may be a reduction in failed treatment (risk ratio (RR) 0.6, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.49 to 0.74; risk difference (RD) -0.16, 95% CI -0.34 to 0.02; 4 studies, 765 infants; very low certainty evidence). CPAP possibly reduces BPD at 36 weeks (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.14; 3 studies, 683 infants, moderate certainty evidence); there may be little or no difference in death (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.93; 4 studies, 765 infants; moderate certainty evidence). Prophylactic CPAP may reduce the composite outcome of death or BPD (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.40 to 1.19; 1 study, 256 infants; low certainty evidence). There may be no difference in pulmonary air leak (pneumothorax) (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.35 to 1.16; 3 studies, 568 infants; low certainty evidence), or intraventricular haemorrhage (IVH) Grade 3 or 4 (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.39 to 2.37; 2 studies, 486 infants; moderate certainty evidence). Neurodevelopmental impairment was not reported in any of the studies. Prophylactic or very early CPAP compared to mechanical ventilation There was probably a reduction in the incidence of BPD at 36 weeks (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.8 to 0.99; RD -0.04, 95% CI -0.08 to 0.00; 3 studies, 2150 infants; moderate certainty evidence); and death or BPD (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.97; RD -0.05, 95% CI -0.09 to 0.01; 3 studies, 2358 infants; moderate certainty evidence). There was also probably a reduction in the need for mechanical ventilation (failed treatment) (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.54; RD -0.50, 95% CI -0.54 to -0.45; 2 studies, 1042 infants; moderate certainty evidence). There was probably a reduction in the incidence of death (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.03; 3 studies, 2358 infants; moderate certainty evidence); pulmonary air leak (pneumothorax) (RR 1.24, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.69; 3 studies, 2357 infants; low certainty evidence); and IVH Grade 3 or 4 (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.39; 3 studies, 2301 infants; moderate certainty evidence). One study in this comparison reported that there was probably little or no difference between the groups in the incidence of neurodevelopmental impairment at 18 to 22 months (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.32; 976 infants; moderate certainty evidence). Prophylactic CPAP compared with very early CPAP There was one study in this comparison. We are very uncertain whether there is any difference in the incidence of BPD (RR 0.5, 95% CI 0.05 to 5.27; very low certainty evidence). The combined outcome of death and BPD was not reported, and failed treatment was reported but without data. There may have been little to no effect on death (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.29 to1.94; 1 study, 72 infants; very low certainty evidence). Intraventricular haemorrhage Grade 3 or 4 and neurodevelopmental outcomes were not reported in this study. Pulmonary air leak (pneumothorax) was reported in this study, but there were no events in either group.

OBJECTIVES: To summarize and synthesize evidence on the utility and methodological quality of cognitive-based interventions on cognitive performance and associated secondary outcomes among healthy older adults in Asia, as well as novel, culture-specific components of cognitive interventions across the region.

DATA SOURCES: The PubMed/Medline, Web of Science, Scopus, and ScienceDirect databases were searched through May 2020.

ELIGIBILITY: Studies including individuals aged 60 years and above, who had no previous history of physical and/or mental illness. Few restrictions placed on intervention design, duration and mode of delivery, provided that participants were randomized to study conditions, and intervention included components addressing at least one cognitive domain.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of our present study is to determine the effectiveness of a comprehensive, multidomain intervention on CF; to evaluate its cost effectiveness and the factors influencing adherence toward this intensive intervention.

METHODS: A total of 1,000 community dwelling older adults, aged 60 years and above will be screened for CF. This randomized controlled trial involves recruitment of 330 older adults with CF from urban, semi-urban, and rural areas in Malaysia. Multidomain intervention comprised of physical, nutritional, cognitive, and psychosocial aspects will be provided to participants in the experimental group (n = 165). The control group (n = 165) will continue their usual care with their physician. Primary outcomes include CF status, physical function, psychosocial and nutritional status as well as cognitive performance. Vascular health and gut microbiome will be assessed using blood and stool samples. A 24-month intensive intervention will be prescribed to the participants and its sustainability will be assessed for the following 12 months. The effective intervention strategies will be integrated as a personalized telerehabilitation package for the reversal of CF for future use.

RESULTS: The multidomain intervention developed from this trial is expected to be cost effective compared to usual care as well as able is to reverse CF.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the effect of continuous distending pressure in the form of CPAP on the need for IPPV and associated morbidity in spontaneously breathing preterm infants with respiratory distress.

SEARCH METHODS: We used the standard strategy of Cochrane Neonatal to search CENTRAL (2020, Issue 6); Ovid MEDLINE and Epub Ahead of Print, In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, Daily and Versions; and CINAHL on 30 June 2020. We also searched clinical trials databases and the reference lists of retrieved articles for randomised controlled trials and quasi-randomised trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised or quasi-randomised trials of preterm infants with respiratory distress were eligible. Interventions were CPAP by mask, nasal prong, nasopharyngeal tube or endotracheal tube, compared with spontaneous breathing with supplemental oxygen as necessary.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methods of Cochrane and its Neonatal Review Group, including independent assessment of risk of bias and extraction of data by two review authors. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence. Subgroup analyses were planned on the basis of birth weight (greater than or less than 1000 g or 1500 g), gestational age (groups divided at about 28 weeks and 32 weeks), timing of application (early versus late in the course of respiratory distress), pressure applied (high versus low) and trial setting (tertiary compared with non-tertiary hospitals; high income compared with low income) MAIN RESULTS: We included five studies involving 322 infants; two studies used face mask CPAP, two studies used nasal CPAP and one study used endotracheal CPAP and continuing negative pressure for a small number of less ill babies. For this update, we included one new trial. CPAP was associated with lower risk of treatment failure (death or use of assisted ventilation) (typical risk ratio (RR) 0.64, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.50 to 0.82; typical risk difference (RD) -0.19, 95% CI -0.28 to -0.09; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 6, 95% CI 4 to 11; I2 = 50%; 5 studies, 322 infants; very low-certainty evidence), lower use of ventilatory assistance (typical RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.96; typical RD -0.13, 95% CI -0.25 to -0.02; NNTB 8, 95% CI 4 to 50; I2 = 55%; very low-certainty evidence) and lower overall mortality (typical RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.83; typical RD -0.11, 95% CI -0.18 to -0.04; NNTB 9, 95% CI 2 to 13; I2 = 0%; 5 studies, 322 infants; moderate-certainty evidence). CPAP was associated with increased risk of pneumothorax (typical RR 2.48, 95% CI 1.16 to 5.30; typical RD 0.09, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.16; number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) 11, 95% CI 7 to 50; I2 = 0%; 4 studies, 274 infants; low-certainty evidence). There was no evidence of a difference in bronchopulmonary dysplasia, defined as oxygen dependency at 28 days (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.35 to 3.13; I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 209 infants; very low-certainty evidence). The trials did not report use of surfactant, intraventricular haemorrhage, retinopathy of prematurity, necrotising enterocolitis and neurodevelopment outcomes in childhood.

OBJECTIVES: • To determine if early compared with delayed initiation of CPAP results in lower mortality and reduced need for intermittent positive-pressure ventilation in preterm infants in respiratory distress ○ Subgroup analyses were planned a priori on the basis of weight (with subdivisions at 1000 grams and 1500 grams), gestation (with subdivisions at 28 and 32 weeks), and according to whether surfactant was used ▫ Sensitivity analyses based on trial quality were also planned ○ For this update, we have excluded trials using continuous negative pressure SEARCH METHODS: We used the standard search strategy of Cochrane Neonatal to search the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2020, Issue 6), in the Cochrane Library; Ovid MEDLINE(R) and Epub Ahead of Print, In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations Daily and Versions(R); and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literatue (CINAHL), on 30 June 2020. We also searched clinical trials databases and the reference lists of retrieved articles for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs.

SELECTION CRITERIA: We included trials that used random or quasi-random allocation to either early or delayed CPAP for spontaneously breathing preterm infants in respiratory distress.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used the standard methods of Cochrane and Cochrane Neonatal, including independent assessment of trial quality and extraction of data by two review authors. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence.

MAIN RESULTS: We found four studies that recruited a total of 119 infants. Two were quasi-randomised, and the other two did not provide details on the method of randomisation or allocation used. None of these studies used blinding of the intervention or the outcome assessor. Evidence showed uncertainty about whether early CPAP has an effect on subsequent use of intermittent positive-pressure ventilation (IPPV) (typical risk ratio (RR) 0.77, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.43 to 1.38; typical risk difference (RD) -0.08, 95% CI -0.23 to 0.08; I² = 0%, 4 studies, 119 infants; very low-certainty evidence) or mortality (typical RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.43 to 2.03; typical RD -0.02, 95% CI -0.15 to 0.12; I² = 33%, 4 studies, 119 infants; very low-certainty evidence). The outcome 'failed treatment' was not reported in any of these studies. There was an uncertain effect on air leak (pneumothorax) (typical RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.39 to 3.04, I² = 0%, 3 studies, 98 infants; very low-certainty evidence). No trials reported intraventricular haemorrhage or necrotising enterocolitis. No cases of retinopathy of prematurity were reported in one study (21 infants). One case of bronchopulmonary dysplasia was reported in each group in one study involving 29 infants. Long-term outcomes were not reported.