STUDY DESIGN: The present study was conducted on 151 women with gynecological cancers as the case group and 152 healthy women with no history of such cancers as control group. The dematographic details of participants from both control and case groups were collected using a checklist, and the pattern of their fingerprints was prepared and examined. The data were analyzed for their significance using chi-square test and t- test. Odds ratio with 95% confidence intervals were calculated.

RESULTS: Dermatoglyphic analysis showed that arch and loop patterns significantly changed in cases group as compared to control. However, the odds ratio suggested that loop pattern in 6 or more fingers might be a risk factor for developing gynecological cancers.

METHODS: A steering group was formed to review the existing guideline and propose amendments to the 17-item checklist. A Delphi consensus exercise was utilised to determine agreement across a list of proposed modifications to the STROCSS 2017 guideline. An expert panel of 46 surgeons were invited to assess the proposed updates via Google Forms.

RESULTS: The response rate was 91% (n = 42/46). High agreement was reached across all the items and the guideline was finalised in the first round. The checklist maintained 17-items, with modifications primarily considered to improve content and readability.

METHODS: This systematic review was registered prospectively on Prospero (CRD42020188715). It was designed using the COSMIN guidelines and reported in line with the PRISMA checklist. Two reviewers independently searched Medline, Embase, SportDiscus, and CINAHL Plus databases from inception to the 24th July 2022 with an update of the search conducted until 14th of October 2023. The COSMIN risk of bias checklist was used to assess the risk of bias in each study. The updated criteria for good measurement properties were used to rate individual studies and then the overall pooled results. The level of evidence was rated by two reviewers independently using a modified GRADE approach.

RESULTS: Fifteen studies were included in this review, 13 reporting absolute JPE and 2 reporting constant JPE. The measurement properties assessed were reliability, measurement error, and validity. The measurement of JPE showed sufficient reliability and validity, however, the level of evidence was low/very low for both measurement properties, apart from convergent validity of the constant JPE, which was high.

Method: This study was conducted between November and December 2016 at two primary care clinics that offered integrated diabetes care at the time. These sites were selected to assess the discriminative validity of the PACIC. Site 1 is a Malaysian Ministry of Health-run primary care clinic while site 2 is a university-run hospital-based primary care clinic. Only site 1 annually monitors patient performance and encourages them to achieve their HbA1c targets using a standard checklist. Patients with diabetes mellitus who understood English were recruited. Participants were asked to fill out the PACIC at baseline and two weeks later.

Results: A total of 200 out of the 212 invited agreed to participate (response rate=94.3%). Confirmatory factor analysis confirmed the 5-factor structure of the PACIC. The overall PACIC score and the score in two of the five domains were significantly higher at site 1 than at site 2. The overall Cronbach's alpha was 0.924. At test-retest, intra-class correlation coefficient values ranged from 0.641 to 0.882.

Methods: Patients presenting to the emergency department from August to October 2014 due to MVA-related injuries were recruited. After a period of at least one month, they were followed-up and screened using the validated Malay Post Traumatic Stress Disorder Checklist Civilian version. A score of 30 was chosen as the cut-off point for PTSD.

Results: In total, 112 patients presented to the emergency department following MVAs during the study period. Of these, 60.7% agreed for the follow-up. Among the respondents, the mean age was 26 years, 91.2% were males, 66.2% were married, 85.3% were Malays and 88.3% were Muslims. The calculated incidence of PTSD was 7.4%. There was no significant difference noted between the PTSD and non-PTSD groups.

Settings and Design: This was a cross-sectional study conducted in a Neurological Centre at Hospital Tengku Ampuan Afzan, Kuantan, Pahang, Malaysia, from January 2016 to December 2016.

Subjects and Methods: A total of 209 patients; 133 males and 76 females, in the age range of 16-84 years, were randomly recruited for this study. All the selected patients were subjected to the checklist for diagnosis of PCS as per International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems 10th edition classification at a 2-week interval.

Statistical Analysis Used: Descriptive statistic and Multivariable Logistic Regression Model were used for frequency and percentage analyses of categorical variables, using SPSS version 23.0.

Results: Only 20 patients were identified with PCS. There were more female (70%) patients with PCS than the male (30%) patients. The prevalence of PCS for 2 weeks, 3 and 6 months since injuries were 9.6%, 8.1%, and 8.1% respectively. Majority (80%) of the patients were found to have PCS due to road traffic accidents, while the remaining were attributed to assault (15%), and falls (5%). Among the sample population, 25% were smokers, while 10% of them had either skull fracture or premorbidity.

METHOD: Two categories of participants, i.e., medical doctors (n = 11) and final year medical students (Group 1, n = 5; Group 2, n = 10) participated in four separate focus group discussions. Nielsen's 5 dimensions of usability (i.e. learnability, effectiveness, memorability, errors, and satisfaction) and Pentland's narrative network were adapted as the framework to study the usability and the implementation of the checklist in a real clinical setting respectively.

RESULTS: Both categories (medical doctors and medical students) of participants found that the TWED checklist was easy to learn and effective in promoting metacognition. For medical student participants, items "T" and "W" were believed to be the two most useful aspects of the checklist, whereas for the doctor participants, it was item "D". Regarding its implementation, item "T" was applied iteratively, items "W" and "E" were applied when the outcomes did not turn out as expected, and item "D" was applied infrequently. The one checkpoint where all four items were applied was after the initial history taking and physical examination had been performed to generate the initial clinical impression.

METHODS: A total of 88 final year medical students were assigned to either an educational intervention group or a control group in a non-equivalent group post-test only design. Participants in the intervention group received a tutorial on the use of a mnemonic checklist aimed to minimize cognitive errors in clinical decision-making. Two weeks later, the participants in both groups were given a script concordance test consisting of 10 cases, with 3 items per case, to assess their clinical decisions when additional data are given in the case scenarios.

RESULTS: The Mann-Whitney U-test performed on the total scores from both groups showed no statistical significance (U = 792, z = -1.408, p = 0.159). When comparisons were made for the first half and the second half of the SCT, it was found that participants in the intervention group performed significantly better than participants in the control group in the first half of the test, with median scores of 9.15 (IQR 8.00-10.28) vs. 8.18 (IQR 7.16-9.24) respectively, U = 642.5, z = -2.661, p = 0.008. No significant difference was found in the second half of the test, with the median score of 9.58 (IQR 8.90-10.56) vs. 9.81 (IQR 8.83-11.12) for the intervention group and control group respectively (U = 897.5, z = -0.524, p = 0.60).

METHODS: Two groups of final-year medical students from Universiti Sains Malaysia, Malaysia, were recruited to participate in this quasi-experimental study. The intervention group (n = 21) received educational intervention that introduced the TWED checklist, while the control group (n = 19) received a tutorial on basic electrocardiography. Post-intervention, both groups received a similar assessment on clinical decision-making based on five case scenarios.

RESULTS: The mean score of the intervention group was significantly higher than that of the control group (18.50 ± 4.45 marks vs. 12.50 ± 2.84 marks, p < 0.001). In three of the five case scenarios, students in the intervention group obtained higher scores than those in the control group.