STUDY DESIGN: The present study was conducted on 151 women with gynecological cancers as the case group and 152 healthy women with no history of such cancers as control group. The dematographic details of participants from both control and case groups were collected using a checklist, and the pattern of their fingerprints was prepared and examined. The data were analyzed for their significance using chi-square test and t- test. Odds ratio with 95% confidence intervals were calculated.
RESULTS: Dermatoglyphic analysis showed that arch and loop patterns significantly changed in cases group as compared to control. However, the odds ratio suggested that loop pattern in 6 or more fingers might be a risk factor for developing gynecological cancers.
CONCLUSION: Our results showed that there is an association between fingerprint patterns and gynecological cancers and so, dermatoglyphic analysis may aid in the early diagnosis of these cancers.
METHODS: A total of 88 final year medical students were assigned to either an educational intervention group or a control group in a non-equivalent group post-test only design. Participants in the intervention group received a tutorial on the use of a mnemonic checklist aimed to minimize cognitive errors in clinical decision-making. Two weeks later, the participants in both groups were given a script concordance test consisting of 10 cases, with 3 items per case, to assess their clinical decisions when additional data are given in the case scenarios.
RESULTS: The Mann-Whitney U-test performed on the total scores from both groups showed no statistical significance (U = 792, z = -1.408, p = 0.159). When comparisons were made for the first half and the second half of the SCT, it was found that participants in the intervention group performed significantly better than participants in the control group in the first half of the test, with median scores of 9.15 (IQR 8.00-10.28) vs. 8.18 (IQR 7.16-9.24) respectively, U = 642.5, z = -2.661, p = 0.008. No significant difference was found in the second half of the test, with the median score of 9.58 (IQR 8.90-10.56) vs. 9.81 (IQR 8.83-11.12) for the intervention group and control group respectively (U = 897.5, z = -0.524, p = 0.60).
CONCLUSION: Checklist use in differential diagnoses consideration did show some benefit. However, this benefit seems to have been traded off by the time and effort in using it. More research is needed to determine whether this benefit could be translated into clinical practice after repetitive use.
Methods: Patients presenting to the emergency department from August to October 2014 due to MVA-related injuries were recruited. After a period of at least one month, they were followed-up and screened using the validated Malay Post Traumatic Stress Disorder Checklist Civilian version. A score of 30 was chosen as the cut-off point for PTSD.
Results: In total, 112 patients presented to the emergency department following MVAs during the study period. Of these, 60.7% agreed for the follow-up. Among the respondents, the mean age was 26 years, 91.2% were males, 66.2% were married, 85.3% were Malays and 88.3% were Muslims. The calculated incidence of PTSD was 7.4%. There was no significant difference noted between the PTSD and non-PTSD groups.
Conclusion: A considerable number of MVA victims in Malaysia may develop PTSD after the accident. Further research is needed to explore the factors that contribute or protect to develop the condition.
METHODS: Two groups of final-year medical students from Universiti Sains Malaysia, Malaysia, were recruited to participate in this quasi-experimental study. The intervention group (n = 21) received educational intervention that introduced the TWED checklist, while the control group (n = 19) received a tutorial on basic electrocardiography. Post-intervention, both groups received a similar assessment on clinical decision-making based on five case scenarios.
RESULTS: The mean score of the intervention group was significantly higher than that of the control group (18.50 ± 4.45 marks vs. 12.50 ± 2.84 marks, p < 0.001). In three of the five case scenarios, students in the intervention group obtained higher scores than those in the control group.
CONCLUSION: The results of this study support the use of the TWED checklist to facilitate metacognition in clinical decision-making.