METHODS: This cross-sectional study involved children aged 4-12 years old with moderate to severe AD. Age and sex-matched healthy children were recruited as the comparison group. The Children's Sleep Habits Questionnaire (CSHQ) and the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) were used to assess sleep disturbance and behavioral problems, respectively. Higher scores in both questionnaires signify more disturbance.
RESULTS: Seventy patients and 141 controls were recruited. Median (interquartile range) age of patients was 5 (4,8) years. Patients had later sleep time (p
Methods: An online questionnaire survey method was used. Based on sample size calculation, a total of 1,508 UiTM staff and students from ten selected campuses of Universiti Teknologi MARA (UiTM) were invited to participate in this survey. An up-to-date e-mail list of staff in the selected campuses was used as the sampling frame for the study, whereas the students were recruited from the official university student Facebook portal.
Results: A total of 788 respondents participated in this survey, 72.2% of them knew about facial candling, though only 35.4% had tried the treatment. Approximately one-fifth of respondents agreed that facial candling might treat AR. It was found that a higher number of users than nonusers agreed that facial candling was a traditional medicine (78.9% vs 55.0%); could be used on the face and ears (83.5% vs 45.4%); and could be self-administered at home (83.5 vs 45.4%). Interestingly, more than half of them were uncertain about its long-term effects and adverse reactions.
Conclusion: This study confirms the facial candling use among patients with AR although the percentage is low. The patients and general public need to be better informed about the use of facial candling in AR and its associated risks.
METHODS: This retrospective study was conducted in emergency departments of two tertiary hospitals from June 1 to August 31, 2021. Consecutive patients aged >18 years admitted for COVID-19-related HRF (World Health Organization criteria: confirmed COVID-19 pneumonia with respiratory rate > 30 breaths/min, severe respiratory distress, or peripheral oxygen saturation < 90% on room air) requiring NRB + NC or HFNC were screened for enrollment. Primary outcome was improvement of partial pressure arterial oxygen (PaO2) at two hours. Secondary outcomes were intubation rate, ventilator-free days, hospital length of stay, and 28-day mortality. Data were analyzed using linear regression with inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) based on propensity score.
RESULTS: Among the 110 patients recruited, 52 (47.3%) were treated with NRB + NC, and 58 (52.7%) with HFNC. There were significant improvements in patients' PaO2, PaO2/FIO2 ratio, and respiratory rate two hours after the initiation of NRB + NC and HFNC. Comparing the two groups, after IPTW adjustment, there were no statistically significant differences in PaO2 improvement (adjusted mean ratio [MR] 2.81; 95% CI -5.82 to 11.43; p = .524), intubation rate (adjusted OR 1.76; 95% CI 0.44 to 6.92; p = .423), ventilator-free days (adjusted MR 0.00; 95% CI -8.84 to 8.85; p = .999), hospital length of stay (adjusted MR 3.04; 95% CI -2.62 to 8.69; p = .293), and 28-day mortality (adjusted OR 0.68; 95% CI 0.15 to 2.98; p = .608).
CONCLUSION: HFNC may be beneficial in COVID-19 HRF. NRB + NC is a viable alternative, especially in resource-limited settings, given similar improvement in oxygenation at two hours, and no significant differences in long-term outcomes. The effectiveness of NRB + NC needs to be investigated by a powered randomized controlled trial.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Water samples were subjected to in situ and laboratory water quality analyses and focused on pH, turbidity, chlorine, Escherichia coli, total coliform, total hardness, iron (Fe), aluminium (Al), zinc (Zn), magnesium (Mg) and sodium (Na). All procedures followed the American Public Health Association (APHA) testing procedures.
RESULTS: Based on the results obtained, the values of each parameter were found to be within the safe limits set by the NDWQS except for total coliform and iron (Fe). PCA has indicated that turbidity, total coliform, E. coli, Na, and Al were the major factors that contributed to the drinking water contamination in river water intake.
CONCLUSION: Overall, the water from all sampling point stations after undergoing water treatment process was found to be safe as drinking water. It is important to evaluate the drinking water quality of the treatment plant to ensure that consumers have access to safe and clean drinking water as well as community awareness on drinking water quality is essential to promote public health and environmental protection.