METHODS: The reporting of this systematic review is in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. We carried out a literature search through three databases (Scopus, PubMed, Web of Science) and targeted original article published in English between 2012 and 2021. Quality appraisal of the eligible articles was conducted using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. Findings were synthesized using content analysis.
RESULTS: A total of 86 studies were included. We found a variety of questionnaires assessing risk perception of NCDs, with many differences in their development, domains, items and validity. We also identified several personal, sociopsychological and structural factors associated with risk perception of NCDs.
LIMITATIONS: Most of the included studies were of cross-sectional design, and therefore the quality of evidence was considered low and exhibit a high risk of bias. The role of publication bias within this systematic review should be acknowledged as we did not include grey literature. Additionally, language bias must be considered as we only included English-language publications.
CONCLUSION: Further development and testing of available questionnaire is warranted to ensure their robustness and validity in measuring risk perception of NCDs. All the identified factors deserve further exploration in longitudinal and experimental studies.
METHODS: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and CINAHL Plus for articles published from their date of inception to June 2021. RCTs investigating the efficacy or safety of VNS on post-stroke recovery were included. The outcomes were upper limb sensorimotor function, health-related quality of life, level of independence, cardiovascular effects, and adverse events. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool, while the certainty of the evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) criteria. Review Manager 5.4 was used to conduct the meta-analysis.
RESULTS: Seven RCTs (n = 236 subjects) met the eligibility criteria. Upper limb sensorimotor function, assessed by the Fugl-Meyer Assessment for Upper Extremity (FMA-UE), improved at day 1 (n = 4 RCTs; standardized mean difference [SMD] 1.01; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.35-1.66) and day 90 post-intervention (n = 3 RCTs; SMD 0.64; 95% CI: 0.31-0.98; moderate certainty of evidence) but not at day 30 follow-up (n = 2 RCTs; SMD 1.54; 95% CI: -0.39 to 3.46). Clinically significant upper limb sensorimotor function recovery, as defined by ≥6 points increase in FMA-UE, was significantly higher at day 1 (n = 2 RCTs; risk ratio [RR] 2.01; 95% CI: 1.02-3.94) and day 90 post-intervention (n = 2 RCTs; RR 2.14; 95% CI: 1.32-3.45; moderate certainty of the evidence). The between-group effect sizes for upper limb sensorimotor function recovery was medium to large (Hedges' g 0.535-2.659). While the level of independence improved with VNS, its impact on health-related quality of life remains unclear as this was only studied in two trials with mixed results. Generally, adverse events reported were mild and self-limiting.
CONCLUSION: VNS may be an effective and safe adjunct to standard rehabilitation for post-stroke recovery; however, its clinical significance and long-term efficacy and safety remain unclear.
METHODS: All patients with suspected ITB or CD were prospectively recruited. A standardized protocol was applied, and the diagnosis was made accordingly. The protocol consists of history and examination, ileocolonoscopy with biopsies, and tuberculosis workup. The diagnosis of probable ITB was made based on at least one positive finding. All other patients were diagnosed as probable CD. Patients were treated either with anti-tubercular therapy or steroids. Reassessment was then carried out clinically, biochemically, and endoscopically. In patients with suboptimal response, the treatment was either switched or escalated depending on the reassessment.
RESULTS: 164 patients were recruited with final diagnosis of 30 (18.3%) ITB and 134 (81.7%) CD. 1 (3.3%) out of 30 patients with ITB was initially treated as CD. 16 (11.9%) out of 134 patients with CD were initially treated as ITB. The initial overall accuracy for the protocol was 147/164 (89.6%). All patients received the correct diagnosis by 12 weeks after reassessment.
CONCLUSION: In our population, most patients had CD rather than ITB. The standardized protocol had a high accuracy in differentiating CD from ITB.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: A systematic review was conducted by examining online databases (Scopus, MEDLINE and Science Direct) to identify health economic evaluation studies of COVID-19 vaccines. Critical appraisal of studies was conducted using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS).
RESULTS: A total of nine studies were selected for analysis. Results show two strategies that were cost-effective compared to its comparators: mass vaccination program compared to no vaccination and universal vaccination approach compared to a risk-stratified vaccination approach. Several other strategies were found to increase the cost-consequences in the COVID-19 vaccination program: higher vaccine effectiveness, higher vaccination pace, increased vaccination coverage, and vaccine prioritisation for an at-risk population. The study findings were restricted to analysis based on the current available data.
CONCLUSION: COVID-19 vaccination policies should aim for increased vaccine production as well as a rapid and extensive vaccine delivery system to ensure the maximal value of vaccination strategies. These results can aid policymakers in opting for the most efficient approach to vaccinating the population during this COVID-19 pandemic and future pandemic.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Therefore, based on current evidence and expert opinion, Malaysian expert panels from various disciplines have gathered to discuss the management of ESUS patients with PFO. This consensus sought to educate Malaysian healthcare professionals to diagnose and manage PFO in ESUS patients based on local resources and facilities.
RESULTS: Based on consensus, the Malaysian expert recommended PFO closure for embolic stroke patients who were younger than 60, had high RoPE scores and did not require long-term anticoagulation. However, the decision should be made after other mechanisms of stroke have been ruled out via thorough investigation and multidisciplinary evaluation. The PFO screening should be made using readily available imaging modalities, ideally contrasttransthoracic echocardiogram (c-TTE) or contrasttranscranial Doppler (c-TCD). The contrast-transesophageal echocardiogram (c-TEE) should be used for the confirmation of PFO diagnosis. The experts advised closing PFO as early as possible because there is limited evidence for late closure. For the post-closure follow-up management, dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) for one to three months, followed by single antiplatelet therapy (APT) for six months, is advised. Nonetheless, with joint care from a cardiologist and a neurologist, the multidisciplinary team will decide on the continuation of therapy.