METHODS: A comprehensive search of electronic databases, PubMed, Scopus, Google Scholar, Educational Research Complete, and Journal Storage (JSTOR), will be conducted to identify relevant articles. The search will be limited to articles published in the English language between 2000 and 2023. The search strategy will be designed and adapted for each database using a combination of keywords and subject headings related to personalised learning and health sciences higher education. Eligibility criteria will be applied to screen and select articles. Data extraction and quality assessment will be performed, and thematic synthesis will be used to analyse the extracted data.
DISCUSSION: The results of the scoping review will present a comprehensive and coherent overview of the literature on personalised learning in health sciences higher education. Key themes and topics related to personalised learning, its definitions, models, implementation strategies, benefits, and limitations, will be identified. The geographical and temporal distribution of research on personalised learning in health sciences higher education will also be described. This scoping review will provide a structured synthesis of the available evidence on personalised learning in health sciences higher education, highlighting potential gaps and areas for future research. The findings will contribute to ongoing scholarly and policy debates on personalised learning in higher education, informing the development of best practices, guidelines, and future research agendas.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the utilization of coxibs and traditional nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (tNSAIDs) indicated for postoperative orthopaedic pain control using defined daily dose (DDD) and ratio of use density to use rate (UD/UR).
METHOD: A retrospective drug utilization review (DUR) of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) at an inpatient department of a private teaching hospital in Seremban, Malaysia was conducted. Patients' demographic characteristics, medications prescribed, clinical lab results, visual analogue scale (VAS) pain scores and length of hospital stay were documented. Orthopaedic surgeries, namely arthroscopy, reconstructive, and fracture fixation, were included. Stratified random sampling was used to select patients. Data were collected through patients' medical records. The DDD per 100 admissions and the indicator UD/UR were calculated with the World Health Organization's DDD as a benchmark. The inclusion criteria were patients undergoing orthopaedic surgery prescribed with coxibs (celecoxib capsules, etoricoxib tablets, parecoxib injections) and tNSAIDs (dexketoprofen injections, diclofenac sodium tablets). Data were analysed descriptively. This research was approved by the academic institution and the hospital research ethics committee.
RESULT: A total of 195 records of patients who received NSAIDs were randomly selected among 1169 cases. In term of the types of orthopaedic surgery, the ratio of included records for arthroscopy:fracture fixation:reconstructive surgery was 55.4:35.9:8.7. Most of the inpatients had low rates of common comorbidities such as cardiovascular disease as supported by their baseline parameters. The majority were not prescribed with other concomitant prescriptions that could cause drug interaction (74.9%), or gastroprotective agents (77.4%). Overall, DDDs per 100 admissions for all NSAIDs were less than 100, except for parecoxib injections (389.23). The UD/UR for all NSAIDs were less than 100, except for etoricoxib tablets (105.75) and parecoxib injections (108.00).
DISCUSSION: As per guidelines, the majority (96.9%) received other analgesics to ensure a multimodal approach was carried out to control pain. From the UD/UR results, the arthroscopy surgery was probably the most appropriate in terms of NSAID utilization.
CONCLUSION: The prescribing pattern of NSAIDs except parecoxib was appropriate based on adverse effect and concurrent medication profile. The findings of this DUR provide insight for a low-risk patient population at a private specialized teaching hospital on the recommended use of NSAIDs for postoperative orthopaedic pain control.
DESIGN: Systematic review and Meta-analysis.
METHODS: We are systematically searching five databases [PubMed, Embase, CT.gov, ICTRP, CINAHL (EBSCO)]. We are following the PRISMA statement and the EPOC guidelines. The meta-analysis will be conducted using Revman-5.4.1 from Cochrane collaboration, UK. This review's protocol was also registered in PROSPERO, University of York, UK (CRD42022299718).
RESULTS: In this meta-analysis, we plan to give a conclusive overview of the available evidence on the efficacy of the medications used to manage gout in reducing COVID-19 mortality, ICU admission, ventilation rate and hospitalization duration. If the results were positive, these drugs would greatly add to the scarce treatment options against COVID-19. Furthermore, these drugs might provide an excellent alternative to inconvenient and expensive drugs. Additionally, most of these drugs have a well-established safety profile for use during nursing, making them a much safer option for nursing mothers with COVID-19.
METHODS: We searched PubMed, EMBASE and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from database inception to 31 August 2018 for systematic reviews and/or meta-analyses of studies that examined the impact of distal technology and reported any clinical or patient-related outcomes among people with type 1 or type 2 diabetes.
RESULTS: The umbrella review identified 95 reviews, including 162 meta-analyses with 46 unique outcomes. Evidence from meta-analyses of randomized controlled studies supports the use of distal technology, especially telehealth and mHealth (healthcare delivered by mobile technology), in people with diabetes for improving HbA1c values by 2-4 mmol/mol (0.2-0.4%). For other health outcomes, such as changes in fasting plasma glucose levels, risk of diabetic ketoacidosis or frequency of severe hypoglycaemia, the evidence was weaker. No evidence was reported for most patient-reported outcomes including quality of life, self-efficacy and medication-taking. The evidence base was poor, with most studies rated as low to very low quality.
CONCLUSION: Distal technologies were associated with a modest improvement in glycaemic control, but it was unclear if they improved major clinical outcomes or were cost-effective in people with diabetes. More robust research to improve wider outcomes in people with diabetes is needed before such technologies can be recommended as part of routine care for any patient group.