AIM: To present a systematic review of nursing research that uses SEM.
DISCUSSION: The review revealed poor reporting of information about the determination of sample size, missing data, normality and outliers. Most studies neither computed composite reliability nor assessed convergent and discriminant validity. There was a lack of consistency in performing the analysis. Some of the studies conducted exploratory factor analysis before performing confirmatory factor analysis, without discussing its necessity. Although most studies declared the estimation method and software used, there were many that did not.
CONCLUSION: Little information about the different steps of conducting SEM analysis was provided in the studies. Weaknesses and areas of improvement for future empirical SEM studies were identified.
IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: When conducting SEM, there are many issues that should be addressed. Overlooking these issues may invalidate findings. The results of this review provide nurse researchers with best practice guidelines for conducting SEM and pave the way for researchers to adopt this method in their studies.
METHODS: Six hemi-mandible samples were scanned using the i-CAT CBCT system. The scanned data was transferred to the OsiriX software for measurement protocol and subsequently into Mimics software to fabricate customized cutting jigs and 3D biomodels based on rapid prototyping technology. The hemi-mandibles were segmented into 5 dentoalveolar blocks using the customized jigs. Digital calliper was used to measure six distances surrounding the mandibular canal on each section. The same distances were measured on the corresponding cross-sectional OsiriX images and the 3D biomodels of each dentoalveolar block.
RESULTS: Statistically no significant difference was found when measurements from OsiriX images and 3D biomodels were compared to the "gold standard" -direct digital calliper measurement of the cadaveric dentoalveolar blocks. Moreover, the mean value difference of the various measurements between the different study components was also minimal.
CONCLUSION: Various distances surrounding the mandibular canal from 3D biomodels produced from the CBCT scanned data was similar to that of direct digital calliper measurements of the cadaveric specimens.
METHODS: It was formulated using high pressure homogenization followed by probe sonication and formulation variables were optimized using Central Composite Design. The particle size (PS), zeta potential (ZP), entrapment efficiency (EE), drug release, cytotoxicity on NIH 3T3 fibroblasts cells and HaCaT keratinocytes cells and efficacy on RAW264.7 cells for optimized formulation was determined.
RESULTS: The PS, ZP and EE were found to be 85.26 nm, -23.7 ± 7.45 mV, 99.2 ± 2.62 % (Mes) and 84 ± 1.51 % (Cur), respectively. The good correlation between predicted and obtained value indicated suitability and reproducibility of experimental design. NLCs showed spherical shape as confirmed by TEM. In vitro drug release profile of prepared formulation showed that Mes exhibited 100 % release at 48 h, whereas Cur exhibited 82.23 ± 2.97% release at 120 h. Both the drugs exhibited sustained release upon incorporation into the NLCs. The absence of any significant cell death during MTT assay performed on NIH 3T3 fibroblasts cells and HaCaT keratinocytes cells indicated that NLCs' were safe for use. Furthermore, significant reduction in nitric oxide level during anti-inflammatory evaluation of formulation on RAW264.7 cells showed excellent potential for the formulation to treat inflammation. The formulation was found stable as no significant difference between the PS, ZP and EE of the fresh and aged NLCs was observed.
CONCLUSION: The outcomes of study deciphered successful formulation of Mes-Cur NLCs.
SIGNIFICANCE: The LC/ESI-MS/MS prazosin method was highly sensitive and selective. Bedside sampling reduced the orthostatic hypotension incidence and subject dropout rate.
METHODS: After sample preparation, prazosin and terazosin (IS) were detected on mass spectrometer operating in multiple reaction monitoring mode using positive ionization. Mobile phase flow rate was set at 0.40 mL/min with sample run time of 1.75 min. The bioanalytical method was validated as per EMEA and FDA guidelines. Bedside sampling was performed in bioequivalence study for the first 4 h after dosing. The three primary pharmacokinetic parameters, Cmax, AUC0-t and AUC0-∞ and 90% confidence interval were determined.
RESULTS: The small injection volume of 1 μL minimized instrumentation contamination and prolonged the analytical column lifespan. Linearity was obtained between 0.5 and 30.0 ng/mL, with coefficient of determination, r2 ≥ 0.99. The mean extraction recovery of prazosin and IS was >92%, with precision value (CV, %) ≤ 10.3%. Only two orthostatic hypotension adverse events were reported. The two prazosin formulations were found to be bioequivalent.
CONCLUSION: The LC/ESI-MS/MS method has shown robustness and reliability exemplified by the incurred sample re-analysis result. Bedside sampling should be proposed for bioequivalence or pharmacokinetic studies of drugs demonstrating adverse event of orthostatic hypotension.