OBJECTIVES: This research presents a novel homogeneous Pythagorean fuzzy framework for distributing the COVID-19 vaccine dose by integrating a new formulation of the PFWZIC and PFDOSM methods.

METHODS: The methodology is divided into two phases. Firstly, an augmented dataset was generated that included 300 recipients based on five COVID-19 vaccine distribution criteria (i.e., vaccine recipient memberships, chronic disease conditions, age, geographic location severity and disabilities). Then, a decision matrix was constructed on the basis of an intersection of the 'recipients list' and 'COVID-19 distribution criteria'. Then, the MCDM methods were integrated. An extended PFWZIC was developed, followed by the development of PFDOSM.

RESULTS: (1) PFWZIC effectively weighted the vaccine distribution criteria. (2) The PFDOSM-based group prioritisation was considered in the final distribution result. (3) The prioritisation ranks of the vaccine recipients were subject to a systematic ranking that is supported by high correlation results over nine scenarios of the changing criteria weights values.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty physical parameters have been studied and compared according to different assessment scales in each of 258 patients with obstructive jaundice treated in three medical settings.

METHODS: We conducted a parallel-group, single-blinded, randomised controlled trial at the University of Malaya Medical Centre, Malaysia. Seventy-three patients with advanced cancer with an overall suffering score ≥4/10 based on the Suffering Pictogram were recruited and randomly assigned into either the MBST group (n=34) or the control group (n=39).

RESULTS: There was a statistically significant reduction in the overall suffering score in the MBST group compared with the control group (U=432.5, median1=-2.0, median2=-1.0, z=-2.645, p=0.008). There was also significant improvement in the total Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale score (U=483.5, median1=-4.0, median2=-3.0, z=-1.994, p=0.046), and the total Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Spiritual Well-Being score (U=252.0, median1=+14.5, median2=+5.0, z=-4.549, p=0.000) in the MBST group compared with the control group.

METHOD: The model uses a Stepwise Multiple Regression (SWMR) method for selecting lagged mobility index and testing correlated with daily cases based on a 0.05 level of significance.

RESULT: The models's predictability ranges are from 75% to 92%. It is also found that the mobility index plays a more important role, in comparison to testing rates, in determining daily confirmed cases.

METHODS: A systematic literature search was conducted on PubMed and Embase electronic databases, using keywords related to travel medicine and ophthalmology. Inclusion was based on the relevant contribution to epidemiology, aetiology, diagnostics, management and long-term consequences of travel-related eye conditions. The data were analysed using narrative synthesis.

KEY FINDINGS: This literature review highlighted that various travel-related eye conditions may occur. Travellers should be aware of the risk of travel-related ocular complications, which can arise from ocular infections, high-risk activities, high altitude and space travel. The economic and logistical challenges associated with medical tourism for ophthalmic procedures are discussed. For travellers with pre-existing eye conditions or visual impairment, careful planning may be needed to promote eye health and ensure safety of travel.

OBJECTIVES: The study aimed to describe and assess the recommendations of published position statements regarding several aspects of biosimilars across specialties and determine whether these positions have changed with the emergence of new evidence.

METHODS: We systematically searched for published position statements of biosimilars in online databases and included statements written in English. The search was from the inception of the databases until May 2023. Two reviewers independently extracted the data. Only position statements that included recommendations to guide the use of biosimilars in clinical practice and were issued by health organisations and societies, including expert panels, were included. We synthesised recommendations on five aspects: prescribing practice, extrapolation of indication, interchangeability, treatment initiation with biosimilars in biologic-naïve patients, and pharmacovigilance.

RESULTS: The review included 25 papers involving eight specialties, 16 of which were from European countries, 1 from an international organisation representing 49 countries, and 6 from various countries. The papers were published between 2009 and 2020, with 19 published between 2015 and 2020. Of the five aspects of biosimilars assessed, nearly half (11 of 25) of the papers at the time they were published did not base their positions on a scientific or evidence-based approach. Only 4 of the 25 position papers were identified as revisions of their previous papers. With increasing experience in biosimilars and the emergence of new evidence, about 60% (16 of 25) of the papers contained outdated recommendations, particularly on two aspects. They were extrapolations of indications and interchangeability (including switching). The recommendations for most papers for three other aspects were still appropriate. These were prescribing biosimilars by their brand name and active ingredient, initiating treatment with biosimilars in biologic-naïve patients, and monitoring the long-term safety of biosimilars through pharmacovigilance. For four of the revised papers, their position evolved from opposing indication extrapolation for biosimilars to accepting it, while the position of two papers shifted from not recommending biosimilar switching to permitting the practice. Meanwhile, most papers were against automatic substitution by pharmacists because the evidence for this practice was still limited.