METHODS: This was a prospective single center study which recruited 217 asymptomatic adult male participants in a coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) quarantine center who had tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 8-10 days prior to isolation. Paired NPS and saliva specimens were collected and processed within 5 hours of sample collection. Real time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) targeting Envelope (E) and RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp) genes was performed and the results were compared.
RESULTS: Overall, 160 of the 217 (74%) participants tested positive for COVID-19 based on saliva, NPS, or both testing methods. The detection rate for SARS-CoV-2 was higher in saliva compared to NPS testing (93.1%, 149/160 vs 52.5%, 84/160, P < .001). The concordance between the 2 tests was 45.6% (virus was detected in both saliva and NPS in 73/160), whereas 47.5% were discordant (87/160 tested positive for 1 whereas negative for the other). The cycle threshold (Ct) values for E and RdRp genes were significantly lower in saliva specimens compared to NP swab specimens.
CONCLUSIONS: Our findings demonstrate that saliva is a better alternative specimen for detection of SARS-CoV-2. Taking into consideration, the simplicity of specimen collection, shortage of PPE and the transmissibility of the virus, saliva could enable self-collection for an accurate SARS-CoV-2 surveillance testing.
Methods: A cross sectional study was conducted for 2 months in out-patient departments at a tertiary care hospital in Khobar, Saudi Arabia. The study collected data from patients with chronic illnesses through convenience sampling. Pearson correlation (ρ) was conducted to report concurrent validity of GMAS. A correlation coefficient value ≥ 0.5 with p-value SAR 10,000, i.e., USD 2666.2 (56.4%). The mean adherence scores obtained from MARS, ARMS and GMAS were 7.09, 19.9, and 27.4. The correlation (ρ) between GMAS and MARS scores was 0.65, and between GMAS and ARMS scores was -0.79, p
METHODS: DIA-RAMADAN was a real-world, observational, international, non-comparative study. The global study population was divided into three regional subgroups, with data gathered at inclusion 6-8 weeks prior to Ramadan (V0), during Ramadan (4.5 weeks) and 4-6 weeks after Ramadan (V1). Primary endpoint was the proportion of patients reporting ≥ 1 symptomatic hypoglycaemic events (HE), which were collected using a patient diary along with other adverse events.
RESULTS: Patient numbers from the three regions were n = 564 (46.5%; Indian sub-continent), n = 354 (29.1%; Middle East) and n = 296 (24.4%; South-East Asia). Patient baseline characteristics, demographics, fasting habits and antidiabetic treatments varied between regions. There were similar proportions of symptomatic HE between regions, with no severe HE. Significant weight reductions were observed in all regions following Ramadan, along with reductions in HbA1c and fasting plasma glucose.
CONCLUSION: These real-world study data indicate that gliclazide MR is safe and effective for management of type 2 diabetes during Ramadan in all three regions studied as part of DIA-RAMADAN.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov identifier NCT04132934. INFOGRAPHIC.
METHODS: A total of 377 school children, male and female, aged 5-6 years old, participated and were assigned to either the intervention or a control group. During the 2 months intervention period, children in the test group were trained on proper hand hygiene practices and techniques with the aid of the interactive android-based tablets. The numbers of absent days of all the children were recorded for 2 months before the intervention and during the intervention.
RESULTS: In the test group, there was a 25% increase in the total number of absent days from the pre-intervention period to the intervention period, a much lesser increment observed as compared to that of control group in which the increase was much higher at 89%. Results showed a significant difference (P
METHODS: A comprehensive search was conducted in Pubmed, and Scopus, and relevant studies published between 2015 and 2020 were selected following the PRISMA guideline. The main inclusion criteria were that articles must be revolving on method for osteoblast differentiation in vitro study. Therefore, in vivo and human or animal clinical studies were excluded. The search outcomes identified all articles containing the word "odontoblast", "differentiation", and "mesenchymal stem cell".
RESULTS: The literature search identified 99 related studies, but only 11 articles met the inclusion criteria. These include 5 odontoblastic differentiation induction with scaffold, 6 inductions without scaffolds. The data collected were characterised into two main categories: type of cells undergo odontoblastic differentiation, and odontoblastic differentiation techniques using scaffolds or non-scaffold.
CONCLUSION: Based on the data analysis, the scaffold-based odontoblastic induction method seems to be a better option compared to the non-scaffold method. In addition of that, the combination of growth factors in scaffold-based methods could possibly enhance the differentiation. Thus, further detailed studies are still required to understand the mechanism and the way to enhance odontoblastic differentiation.