METHODS: The authors will perform comprehensive searches of published studies in electronic databases such as PMC, PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane Library and Web of Science by using the following search terms: 'self-efficacy' AND 'adversity quotient' AND 'stress' AND 'academic performance' AND 'student' AND 'COVID-19 pandemic'. Only full-text articles in English language are included. Two reviewers will independently conduct the article selection, data extraction, and quality assessment. Any possible disagreement will be resolved by discussion, and one arbitrator (NA) will adjudicate unresolved disagreements.
RESULTS: This review will provide an updated overview of investigating the relationship between self-efficacy, adversity quotient, COVID-19-related stress and academic performance on a range of undergraduate student during the COVID-19 pandemic. Ultimately, based on this systematic review, we will recommend the direction for future research.
CONCLUSION: The result of the study may help the researchers to find an updated overview of various studies in related topic.
ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Data from published studies will be used. Therefore, ethical approval is not required prior to this systematic review. The results will be published in a peer-reviewed journal.
METHODS: Twelve quassinoids from E. longifolia and their interactions with DHFR were evaluated via Autodock 4.2 software and Biovia Discovery Studio Visualiser. Their drug-likeness and pharmacokinetic properties were also assessed using the ADMETlab 2.0 program.
RESULTS: The molecular docking results showed that eleven quassinoids showed better docking scores than methotrexate, in which the binding energy (BE) of these quassinoids ranged from - 7.87 to -9.58 kcal/mol. Their inhibition constant (Ki) ranged from 0.095 to 1.71 μM. At the same time, the BE and Ki values for methotrexate were -7.80 kcal/mol and 1.64 μM, respectively.
CONCLUSION: From the analysis, 6-dehydrolongilactone and eurycomalide B are among the twelve compounds that showed great potential as hit-to-lead compounds based on the docking score on DHFR, drug-likeness, and ADMET properties. These results suggest a great potential to pursue validation studies via in vitro and in vivo models.
METHOD: Based on a pre-registered protocol (PROSPERO: CRD42021256352), we searched PubMed, Web of Knowledge/Science, Ovid Medline, Embase and APA PsycINFO up to 16th November 2021, with no language/type of document restrictions. We included observational studies reporting at least one measure of vision in people of any age meeting DSM/ICD criteria for ADHD and in people without ADHD; or the prevalence of ADHD in people with and without vision disorders. Study quality was assessed with the Appraisal tool for Cross-Sectional Studies (AXIS). Random effects meta-analyses were used for data synthesis.
RESULTS: We included 42 studies in the narrative synthesis and 35 studies in the meta-analyses (3,250,905 participants). We found meta-analytic evidence of increased risk of astigmatism (OR = 1.79 [CI: 1.50, 2.14]), hyperopia and hypermetropia (OR = 1.79 [CI: 1.66, 1.94]), strabismus (OR = 1.93 [CI: 1.75, 2.12]), unspecified vision problems (OR = 1.94 [CI: 1.38, 2.73]) and reduced near point of convergence (OR = 5.02 [CI: 1.78, 14.11]); increased lag (Hedge's g = 0.63 [CI: 0.30, 0.96]) and variability (Hedge's g = 0.40 [CI: 0.17, 0.64]) of the accommodative response; and increased self-reported vision problems (Hedge's g = 0.63 [CI: 0.44, 0.82]) in people with ADHD compared to those without ADHD (with no significant heterogeneity). We also found meta-analytic evidence of no differences between people with and without ADHD on retinal nerve fiber layer thickness (Hedge's g = -0.19 [CI: -0.41, 0.02]) and refractive error (Hedge's g = 0.08 [CI: -0.26, 0.42]) (with no significant heterogeneity).
DISCUSSION: ADHD is associated with some self-reported and objectively ascertained functional vision problems, but not with structural alterations of the eye. Further studies should clarify the causal relationship, if any, between ADHD and problems of vision.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO registration: CRD42021256352.
OBJECTIVE: To develop an international consensus definition and diagnostic criteria for GPP using the modified Delphi method.
EVIDENCE REVIEW: The rarity of GPP presents a challenge in acquiring comprehensive published clinical data necessary for developing standardized definition and criteria. Instead of relying on a literature search, 43 statements that comprehensively addressed the fundamental aspects of the definitions and diagnostic criteria for GPP were formulated based on expert reviews of 64 challenging GPP cases. These statements were presented to a panel of 33 global GPP experts for voting, discussion, and refinements in 2 virtual consensus meetings. Consensus during voting was defined as at least 80% agreement; the definition and diagnostic criteria were accepted by all panelists after voting and in-depth discussion.
FINDINGS: In the first and second modified Delphi round, 30 (91%) and 25 (76%) experts participated. In the initial Delphi round, consensus was achieved for 53% of the statements, leading to the approval of 23 statements that were utilized to develop the proposed definitions and diagnostic criteria for GPP. During the second Delphi round, the final definition established was, "Generalized Pustular Psoriasis is a systemic inflammatory disease characterized by cutaneous erythema and macroscopically visible sterile pustules." It can occur with or without systemic symptoms, other psoriasis types, and laboratory abnormalities. GPP may manifest as an acute form with widespread pustules or a subacute variant with an annular phenotype. The identified essential criterion was, "Macroscopically visible sterile pustules on erythematous base and not restricted to the acral region or within psoriatic plaques."
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The achievement of international consensus on the definition and diagnostic criteria for GPP underscores the importance of collaboration, innovative methodology, and expert engagement to address rare diseases. Although further validation is needed, these criteria can serve as a reference point for clinicians, researchers, and patients, which may contribute to more accurate diagnosis and improved management of GPP.