Methods: We assessed study-related records to determine the pace of data collection, response from potential participants, and feedback following data and sample collection. Overall and stratified measures of data and sample availability were summarised. Crude prevalence of key risk factors was examined.
Results: Approximately half (49.5%) of invited individuals consented to participate in this study, for a final sample size of 203 (161 adults and 42 children). Women were more likely to consent to participate compared with men, whereas children, young adults and individuals of Malay ethnicity were less likely to consent compared with older individuals or those of any other ethnicity. At least one biological sample (blood from all participants - finger-prick and venous [for serum, plasma and whole blood samples], hair or urine for adults only) was successfully collected from all participants, with blood test data available from over 90% of individuals. Among adults, urine samples were most commonly collected (97.5%), followed by any blood samples (91.9%) and hair samples (83.2%). Cardiometabolic risk factor burden was high (prevalence of elevated HbA1c among adults: 23.8%; of elevated triglycerides among adults: 38.1%; of elevated total cholesterol among children: 19.5%).
Conclusions: In this study, we show that it is feasible to create biodata resources using existing HDSS frameworks, and identify a potentially high burden of cardiometabolic risk factors that requires further evaluation in this population.
MATRIALS AND METHODS: The conventional protocol and three microwave protocols of tissue processing were used in this study. A pilot study was done prior to the real run to determine the baseline timing for microwave protocol. The baseline timing was fixed at 2 minutes,30 minutes,5 minutes and 25 minutes. The processing time of the microwave protocol was adjusted from 62 minutes to 70 minutes to 77 minutes by increasing the dehydration and wax impregnation time while the time for tissue fixation and clearing remain the same throughout all the microwave protocols.
RESULTS: The group 2 microwave protocol produced the sections that is closely comparable to group 1 conventional protocol. The morphological quality of histopathology slides is best observed when the processing time of microwave protocol is 62 minutes.
CONCLUSION: The most appropriate microwave protocol for tissue processing is group 2 as the morphological quality of histopathology slides are more superior than that of group 1 with an overall percentage of 80% of satisfactory slides in group 2 and 76.68% in group 1.
New information: On a 'taxon expedition'-style field course at Kuala Belalong Field Studies Centre in Brunei Darussalam (Borneo), a new species, Clavicornaltica belalongensis n. sp., was discovered and taxonomically treated by the course participants. We also present the first DNA barcodes for the genus.
OBJECTIVE: Several European and international consensus statements concerning faecal microbiota transplantation have been issued. While these documents provide overall guidance, we aim to provide a detailed description of all processes that relate to the collection, handling and clinical application of human donor stool in this document.
METHODS: Collaborative subgroups of experts on stool banking drafted concepts for all domains pertaining to stool banking. During a working group meeting in the United European Gastroenterology Week 2019 in Barcelona, these concepts were discussed and finalised to be included in our overall guidance document about faecal microbiota transplantation.
RESULTS: A guidance document for all domains pertaining to stool banking was created. This document includes standard operating manuals for several processes involved with stool banking, such as handling of donor material, storage and donor screening.
CONCLUSION: The implementation of faecal microbiota transplantation by stool banks in concordance with our guidance document will enable quality assurance and guarantee the availability of donor faeces preparations for patients.
METHODS: The following electronic resources were searched: Medline @EBSCOHOST(Medline), Embase, PubMed, and CINAHL databases. Manual searches were also conducted. The main outcome of interest was the acceptability of HPV DNA testing by self-sampling in comparison with clinician-collected sampling.
RESULTS: In total, 23 articles were included in this systematic review. The majority (19 studies) were quantitative intervention studies and 4 studies were qualitative observational studies. Eleven studies reported a preference for self-sampling by women compared with clinician-collected sampling (64.7%-93%). The remaining studies found that women preferred clinician-collected sampling because mainly of respondents' lack of confidence in their ability to complete self-sampling correctly. In most articles reviewed, the studied associated factors, such as demographic factors (age, marital status, and ethnicity), socioeconomic factors (income, education level), reproductive factors (condom use, number of children, current use of contraception, and number of partners), and habits (smoking status) were not found to be significantly associated with preference.
CONCLUSIONS: Both methods of sampling were found to be acceptable to women. Self-sampling is cost-effective and could increase the screening coverage among underscreened populations. However, more information about the quality, reliability, and accuracy of self-sampling is needed to increase women's confidence about using to this method.
OBJECTIVES: We evaluated the relative sensitivity for HPV detection of self-collection compared with practitioner-collected cervical specimens in the context of the Australian National Cervical Screening Program (NCSP).
STUDY DESIGN: 303 women aged ≥18 years attending a single tertiary referral centre took their own sample using a flocked-swab, and then had a practitioner-collected sample taken at colposcopy. All samples were tested at a single laboratory on the six PCR-based HPV assays which can be utilised in the NCSP; Roche cobas 4800 and cobas, Abbott RealTime, BD Onclarity, Cepheid Xpert, and Seegene Anyplex.
RESULTS: HPV16/18 results had high observed agreement between self- and practitioner-collected samples on all assays (range: 0.94-0.99), with good agreement for non-HPV16/18 oncogenic HPV types (range: 0.64-0.73).
CONCLUSIONS: Self-collection for HPV-based cervical screening shows good concordance and relative sensitivity when compared to practitionercollected samples across assays in the NCSP.