METHODS: A total of 29 international experts with clinical and/or research experience in GD completed three iterative rounds of a Delphi survey. Experts rated proposed criteria in progressive rounds until a pre-determined level of agreement was achieved.
RESULTS: For DSM-5 IGD criteria, there was an agreement both that a subset had high diagnostic validity, clinical utility and prognostic value and that some (e.g. tolerance, deception) had low diagnostic validity, clinical utility and prognostic value. Crucially, some DSM-5 criteria (e.g. escapism/mood regulation, tolerance) were regarded as incapable of distinguishing between problematic and non-problematic gaming. In contrast, ICD-11 diagnostic guidelines for GD (except for the criterion relating to diminished non-gaming interests) were judged as presenting high diagnostic validity, clinical utility and prognostic value.
CONCLUSIONS: This Delphi survey provides a foundation for identifying the most diagnostically valid and clinically useful criteria for GD. There was expert agreement that some DSM-5 criteria were not clinically relevant and may pathologize non-problematic patterns of gaming, whereas ICD-11 diagnostic guidelines are likely to diagnose GD adequately and avoid pathologizing.
RESULTS: Here, we present the CircPrime web-based platform, providing a user-friendly solution for DNA primer design and thermocycling conditions for circRNA identification with routine PCR methods.
CONCLUSIONS: User-friendly CircPrime web platform ( http://circprime.elgene.net/ ) works with outputs of the most popular bioinformatic predictors of circRNAs to design specific circular RNA primers. CircPrime works with circRNA coordinates and any reference genome from the National Center for Biotechnology Information database).
METHODS: A single-center prospective randomised controlled trial involving 30 doctors from Sarawak General Hospital, Malaysia was conducted from September 2016 to February 2017 to compare the effectiveness of BL versus F2FL for emergency airway management training. Participants in the BL arm were given a period of 12 days to go through the online materials in a learning management system while those in the F2FL arm attended a-day of face-to-face lectures (8 h). Participants from both arms then attended a day of hands-on session consisting of simulation skills training with airway manikins. Pre- and post-tests in knowledge and practical skills were administered. E-learning experience and the perception towards BL among participants in the BL arm were also assessed.
RESULTS: Significant improvements in post-test scores as compared to pre-test scores were noted for participants in both BL and F2FL arms for knowledge, practical, and total scores. The degree of increment between the BL group and the F2FL arms for all categories were not significantly different (total scores: 35 marks, inter-quartile range (IQR) 15.0 - 41.0 vs. 31 marks, IQR 24.0 - 41.0, p = 0.690; theory scores: 18 marks, IQR 9 - 24 vs. 19 marks, IQR 15 - 20, p = 0.992; practical scores: 11 marks, IQR 5 -18 vs. 10 marks, IQR 9 - 20, p = 0.461 respectively). The overall perception towards BL was positive.
CONCLUSIONS: Blended learning is as effective as face-to-face learning for emergency airway management training of junior doctors, suggesting that blended learning may be a feasible alternative to face-to-face learning for such skill training in emergency departments.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: Malaysian National Medical Research NMRR-16-696-30190 . Registered 28 April 2016.