OBJECTIVES: The present meta-analysis aimed to compare the effectiveness of a single dosage versus several doses of antibiotics in preventing the development of surgical site infections.
METHODS: PubMed was used to find clinical trials evaluating the effectiveness of a single dosage versus several doses of antibiotics in avoiding the development of surgical site infections. The study included trials that were published between 1984 and 2022. Seventy-four clinical trials were included in the analysis. Odds ratios were used to compare groups with 95% confidence intervals. The data were displayed using OR to generate a forest plot. Review Manager (RevMan version 5.4) was used to do the meta-analysis.
RESULTS: Regarding clean operations, there were 389 surgical site infections out of 5,634 patients in a single dose group (6.90%) and 349 surgical site infections out of 5,621 patients in multiple doses group (6.21%) (OR = 1.11, lower CI = 0.95, upper CI = 1.30). Regarding clean-contaminated operations, there were 137 surgical site infections out of 2,715 patients in a single dose group (5.05%) and 137 surgical site infections out of 2,355 patients in multiple doses group (5.82%) (OR = 0.87, lower CI = 0.68, upper CI = 1.11). Regarding contaminated operations, there were 302 surgical site infections out of 3,262 patients in a single dose group (9.26%) and 276 surgical site infections out of 3,212 patients in multiple doses group (8.59%) (OR = 1.11, lower CI = 0.84, upper CI = 1.47). In general, there were 828 surgical site infections out of 11,611 patients in a single dose group (7.13%) and 762 surgical site infections out of 11,188 patients in multiple doses group (6.81%) (OR = 1.05, lower CI = 0.93, upper CI = 1.20). The difference between groups was not significant.
CONCLUSION: The present study showed that using a single-dose antimicrobial prophylaxis was equally effective as using multiple doses of antibiotics in decreasing surgical site infections.
METHODS: This retrospective cohort study involved a population of heart failure (HF) patients who visited cardiology clinics at An-Najah National University Hospital and the National Hospital, Palestine. The primary outcome measures of interest were the proportions of patients prescribed guideline-based cardiovascular medications (GBCMs), such as angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs)/angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs), β-blockers, and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs), and the corresponding optimized doses at ≥ 50 % of targets and the reasons underlying the non-prescription of GDMT.
RESULTS: A total of 70.5%, 56.6%, and 88.6% of patients were on ACEIs/ARBs, MRAs, and β-blockers, respectively. Of all patients, 38.7% were on the triple GDMT regimen.
CONCLUSION: Less than half the patients received the triple combination treatment. Age, diabetes mellitus, chronic renal disease, and admission to the hospital for HF all had significant independent relationships with the reduced utilization and inadequate dosage of GDMT.
METHODS: This study utilized convenience sampling to investigate the mental health of undergraduates in UAE universities using a bilingual DASS-21 questionnaire via Google Forms. Analysis was conducted using SPSS version 29.0, employing descriptive statistics, Chi-squared tests, Mann-Whitney tests, Kruskal-Wallis tests, and Multinomial Logistic Regression to analyze relationships between sociodemographic variables and mental health scores.
RESULTS: The study examined 332 students, with most female participants (81 %, n = 269) and individuals aged 18-20 (89.8 %, n = 298). It revealed higher mean DASS scores among females: Depression (M = 15.80, p = 0.030), Anxiety (M = 17.63, p
AIM: To document knowledge, perception, and attitude of the public from Two large countries in the MENA region (Egypt and Saudi Arabia) towards participation in clinical trials focused on evaluating potential COVID-19 treatments.
METHOD: A cross-sectional study was conducted that used a snowball sampling strategy for recruitment. General population 18 years old or older, who lived in Saudi Arabia or Egypt were invited. The survey was adopted from literature and was approved by an ethics committee.
RESULTS: Out of 800 participants in the survey, 407 participants were from Egypt, and 393 were from Saudi Arabia. Most participants (48%) had moderate knowledge, i.e., > 60% < 80%. The results revealed poor attitude (88.5%) and poor perceptions (45.8%) regarding participation in COVID-19 clinical trials. Education and residence were identified as determinants of participants' knowledge, attitude, and perceptions. Participants' knowledge and understanding of COVID-19 trials did not impact their willingness to participate. This coupled with a poor attitude and perception among the masses drastically affects any potential for participation in future clinical trials. Conclusion: A relatively small proportion of participants were interested in enrolling in COVID-19 studies. Increased collective engagement through social media and healthcare professionals can help improve attitudes and perceptions toward trial participation.
OBJECTIVE: This narrative review's objective was to explore the use of AOM in relation to their medical indications, efficacy, and cardiovascular safety.
METHODS AND MATERIALS: We have conducted a narrative review of the literature on approved/non-approved AOM used for obesity and overweight. We have shed light on the emerging trials of therapies and evolving remedies.
RESULTS: Recently, there has been an enormous change in the use of AOM with high consumption that deserves extensive surveillance for the long-term consequences and impact on social, mental, and physical health. Nearly six AOMs and combined therapy are approved by the Food and Drug Administration. The recent guidelines for obesity management have shifted the focus from weight loss to goals that the patient considers essential and toward targeting the root cause of obesity.
CONCLUSION: The use of AOM increased enormously despite its sometimes-dubious safety and ineffectiveness. The public and medical professionals should be vigilant to the real-world benefits of anti-obesity drugs and their achieved effectiveness with an improved safety profile.
OBJECTIVES: We explored the perspectives of healthcare practitioners on current issues about medication safety in hospitals and community settings in Saudi Arabia in order to identify challenges to improving it and explore the future of medication safety practice.
METHODS: A total of 65 physicians, pharmacists, academics and nurses attended a one-day meeting in March 2010, designed especially for the purpose of this study. The participants were divided into nine round-table discussion sessions. Three major themes were explored in these sessions, including: major factors contributing to medication safety problems, challenges to improving medication safety practice, and participants' suggestions for improving medication safety. The round-table discussion sessions were videotaped and transcribed verbatim and analyzed by two independent researchers.
RESULTS: The round-table discussions revealed that major factors contributing to medication safety problems included unrestricted public access to medications from various hospitals and community pharmacies, communication gaps between healthcare institutions, limited use of important technologies such as computerized provider order entry, and the lack of medication safety programs in hospitals. Challenges to current medication safety practice identified by participants included underreporting of medication errors and adverse drug reactions, multilingualism and differing backgrounds of healthcare professionals, lack of communication between healthcare providers and patients, and high workloads. Suggestions for improving medication safety practices in Saudi Arabia included continuous education for healthcare professionals and competency assessment focusing on medication safety, development of a culture that encourages medication error and adverse drug reactions reporting, use of technology proven to decrease medication errors, and promotion and implementation of national patient safety initiatives.
CONCLUSIONS: Healthcare professionals have identified major challenges and opportunities for medication safety in Saudi Arabia. Policy makers and practitioners should consider these factors when designing future programs aimed at improving the safe use of medications.
METHODS: PBL was implemented within two drug delivery courses in 2015, in anticipation that the use of formulation or industrial instead of clinical or pharmacy practice based triggers, would open up student interest and understanding towards learning pharmaceutics in relation to industrial pharmacy. Two cohorts were monitored through final year examination results and PBL feedback to evaluate student perception and acceptance of the use of PBL. Previous cohorts were only exposed to conventional tutorials.
RESULTS: Both cohorts showed better performance in their final examination results (2015 & 2016) compared to the previous year (2014) when students were only exposed to tutorials. The maximum and average marks obtained were also higher. There was significant difference between the maximum marks for Drug Delivery Systems 2 and the average marks for Drug Delivery Systems 1 with P
METHODS: This study was conducted as face-to-face, semi-structured interview. Respondents from private pharmaceutical industries, community pharmacists, general practitioners, private hospital pharmacists, governments, academicians and senior pharmacist were recruited using purposive sampling. Using phenomenological study approach, interviews were conducted, and audio recorded with their consent. Data were transcribed verbatim and analysed using thematic analysis with Atlas.ti 8 software and categorised as strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats (SWOT).
RESULTS: A total of 28 respondents were interviewed. There was a mixed perception regarding the price transparency implementation in Malaysia's private healthcare settings. The potential strengths include it will provide price standardization, reduce price manipulation and competition, hence allowing the industry players to focus more on patient-care services. Moreover, the private stakeholders were concerned that the practice may affect stakeholders' business and marketing strategy, reduce profit margin, increase general practitioner's consultation fees and causing impact on geographical discrepancies. The practice was viewed as an opportunity to disseminate the truth price information to consumer and strengthen collaboration between healthcare industries and Ministry of Health although this may become a threat that affect the business survival.
CONCLUSION: Price transparency initiatives would benefit the pharmaceutical industries, consumer and countries, but it needs to be implemented appropriately to prevent price manipulation, market monopoly, and business closure. Future study may want to evaluate the impact of the initiatives on the business in the industry.