Methods: In this study, to find published articles electronically from 2006 to 2019, the published articles in national and international databases of SID, MagIran, IranMedex, IranDoc, Google Scholar, Cochrane Library, Embase, ScienceDirect, Scopus, PubMed, and Web of Science (ISI) were used. Heterogenic index between studies was determined by Cochrane test (Q)c and I2. Due to heterogeneity, the random effects model was used to estimate standardize difference of the mean score of lavender test in order to assess the labor pain between intervention and control group.
Results: In this meta-analysis and systematic review, finally 13 eligible articles met the inclusion criteria of the study. The sample size from original studies enrolled in the meta-analysis entered in the intervention group was 794 individuals and in the control group was 795 individuals. Mean score for pain in the control group was 7.2 ± 0.42 and in the intervention group was 5.4 ± 0.58 and this difference was statistically significant (p ≤ 0.001).
Conclusion: The results of this study showed that lavender can reduce labor pain, which can be considered by health policy makers and gynecologists.
Methods: Overall, 142 participants (height: 1.80 ± 0.15 m, BMI: 26.08± 6.70, age: 35±15 yr) with at least a year of working experience completed both questionnaires, the online ROSA and the Cornell musculoskeletal discomfort, in 2016 in Malaysia.
Results: Relationship between the total scores of both questionnaires for lower back, shoulder and neck pain were significant but exhibited a weak to moderate relationship (range of r values from 0.012 (CI 95%, -0.153-0.176) to 0.503 (CI 95%, 0.369-0.616).
Conclusion: The online ROSA does not appear to be a reasonable tool for evaluating the severity of lower back, shoulder and neck pain among office workers as the correlations were low. We suggest continued use of the musculoskeletal discomfort questionnaire. Additional studies are required to further examine the ROSA for other anatomical regions.
Methods: A parallel randomised controlled single blinded study was conducted with a sample size of 70 patients who were randomised into two groups. One group underwent MRM using ultrasonic dissector (Group A) and the other one using electrocautery (Group B). Intra- and post-operative outcomes were compared.
Results: Group A had an average operating time of 30.86 min, which was statistically less than that of Group B. The mean mop count and the daily drain output in Group A were less as compared to Group B and the differences were statistically significant. Drain was removed early in Group A as compared to Group B. However, post-operative pain scores and seroma formation were not statistically significant among the two groups.
Conclusion: Ultrasonic dissector group had significantly lesser intra-operative bleeding, operating time and post-operative drain output when compared to electrocautery group. However, the two groups had no significant difference in post-operative pain scores and seroma formation.
Methods: Fifty-five primary knee OA (median age 69.0, interquartile range [IQR] 11.0) participated in the cross-sectional study. Three performance-based tests were performed in two sessions with a 1-week interval; 30-s chair stand test, 40-m fast-paced walk test and 9-step stair climb test. Relative reliability included intra-class correlation and Spearman's correlation coefficient (SPC). Absolute reliability included standard error of measurement, minimum detectable change, coefficient of variance, limit of agreement (LOA) and ratio LOA. Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score-Physical Function Short Form (KOOS-PS), knee extensor strength and pain scale were analysed for convergent validity using Pearson's correlation coefficient and SPC. Analysis of Covariance was utilised for known-groups validity.
Results: Relative and absolute reliability were all acceptable. LOA showed small systematic bias. Acceptable construct validity was only found with knee extensor strength. All tests demonstrated known-groups validity with medium to large effect size.
Conclusion: The OARSI minimum core set of performance-based tests demonstrated acceptable relative and absolute reliability and good known-groups validity but poor convergent validity.
Methods: Thirty-two patients undergoing elective AH were randomised into Group ITM (ITM 0.2 mg + 2.5 mL 0.5% bupivacaine) (n = 16) and Group EB (0.25% bupivacaine bolus + continuous infusion of 0.1% bupivacaine-fentanyl 2 μg/mL) (n = 16).The procedure was performed before induction, and all patients subsequently received standard general anaesthesia. Both groups were provided patient-controlled analgaesia morphine (PCAM) as a backup. Visual analogue scale (VAS) scores, total morphine consumption, hospital stay duration, early mobilisation time and first PCAM demand time were recorded.
Results: The median VAS score was lower for ITM than for EB after the 1st hour [1.0 (IqR 1.0) versus 3.0 (IqR 3.0), P < 0.001], 8th hour [1.0 (IqR 1.0) versus 2.0 (IqR 1.0), P = 0.018] and 16th hour [1.0 (IqR1.0) versus (1.0 (IqR 1.0), P = 0.006]. The mean VAS score at the 4th hour was also lower for ITM [1.8 (SD 1.2) versus 2.9 (SD 1.4), P = 0.027]. Total morphine consumption [11.3 (SD 6.6) versus 16.5 (SD 4.8) mg, P = 0.016] and early mobilisation time [2.1 (SD 0.3) versus 2.6 (SD 0.9) days, P = 0.025] were also less for ITM. No significant differences were noted for other assessments.
Conclusions: The VAS score was better for ITM than for EB at earlier hours after surgery. However, in terms of acceptable analgaesia (VAS ≤ 3), both techniques were comparable over 24 hours.