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.
Conclusion: Less than 10% of patients with MTBI had PCS after 6 months' following trauma. None of the variables tested were significant factors for the development of PCS symptoms.
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.
CONCLUSION: A metacognitive checklist aimed to check cognitive errors may be a useful tool that can be implemented in the real clinical setting.
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).
CONCLUSION: Checklist use in differential diagnoses consideration did show some benefit. However, this benefit seems to have been traded off by the time and effort in using it. More research is needed to determine whether this benefit could be translated into clinical practice after repetitive use.
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.
CONCLUSION: The measure of cervical JPE showed sufficient reliability and validity but with low/very low levels of evidence. Further studies are required to investigate the reliability and validity of this test as well as the responsiveness of the measure.
New information: One species is a new record for China (Dischistodus pseudochrysopoecilus) and 23 species are newly found in the Xisha Islands.
METHODS: A systematic search was conducted using five (Goh et al., 2013) [5] databases: Cochrane, PubMed, Scopus, Science Direct, EBSCO and grey literature. Two reviewers independently screened studies using predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria and performed data extraction. Assessment of methodological quality was completed using the Newcastle-Ottawa checklist.
RESULTS: The quality of most studies were of high quality, with the majority reporting no association between lifestyle factors and NAFLD. A total of 6 studies were included in this systematic review. The prevalence of NAFLD among adolescents varied between 8.0% (Fraser et al., 2007) in a study on 5586 adolescents aged 12-19 and 16.0% (Chen et al., 2009) in another survey of 1724 adolescents aged 12-13 years old. Snacking habits and lack of physical activity had potential associations with adolescent NAFLD. Current evidence shows that lifestyle factor (Western dietary pattern) is associated with a higher risk of developing NAFLD among adolescents.
CONCLUSIONS: Lifestyle factors, including snacking habits and lack of physical activity, were associated with a higher risk of developing NAFLD among adolescents from high-income countries. The difference in the prevalence of NAFLD between countries with different incomes requires further investigation.
METHODS: The current investigation extends a recently published study in the International Endodontic Journal (Nagendrababu V, Faggion Jr CM, Pulikkotil SJ, Alatta A, Dummer PM Methodological assessment and overall confidence in the results of systematic reviews with network meta-analyses in Endodontics. International Endodontic Journal 2022;55:393-404) that assessed the methodological quality of systematic reviews with NMAs in Endodontics using the A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews (AMSTAR 2) tool. In the present study, the PRISMA for NMA checklist with 32 items was used to assess the reporting quality of the systematic reviews with NMAs (n = 12). Two independent assessors assigned '1' when an item was completely addressed, '0.5' when it was partially addressed, and '0' when it was not addressed. Disagreements were resolved through reviewer discussion until consensus was reached. If conflicts persisted, a third reviewer made the final decision. The PRISMA for NMA scores were shared with the relevant authors of the individual reviews to reduce the likelihood of misinterpretation and verify the scores assigned. The results for each individual item of the PRISMA-NMA items were calculated by summing the individual scores awarded; the maximum score for each item was 12.
RESULTS: All the systematic reviews with NMAs adequately reported the following items: Title, Introduction section (Objectives), Methods section (Eligibility criteria and Information sources), Results section (Study selection, Study characteristics and Risk of bias within studies), and Discussion section (Summary of evidence). The items that were reported least often were the "geometry of the network" and "the summary of network geometry" with only 2 manuscripts (17%) including these items.
CONCLUSION: A number of the items in the PRISMA-NMA checklist were adequately addressed in the NMAs; however, none adequately reported all the PRISMA-NMA items. The inadequacies of published NMAs that have been identified should be taken into consideration by authors of NMAs in Endodontics and by editors when managing the peer review process. In future, researchers who are writing systematic reviews with NMAs should comply with the PRISMA-NMA checklist.
CLINICAL RELEVANCE: None of the included systematic reviews with NMA adequately reported all the PRISMA-NMA items. Inadequate reporting of a systematic review with NMA increases the possibility that it will provide invalid results. Therefore, authors should follow the PRISMA-NMA guidelines when reporting systematic reviews with NMA in Endodontics.