Displaying all 2 publications

Abstract:
Sort:
  1. Menezes RG, Kharoshah MA, Madadin M, Marakala V, Lasrado S, Al Tamimi DM
    Sci Eng Ethics, 2016 12;22(6):1843-1847.
    PMID: 26670920 DOI: 10.1007/s11948-015-9742-1
    This article seeks to address and dispel some of the popular myths and misconceptions surrounding authorship of a scientific publication as this is often misconstrued by beginners in academia especially those in the developing world. While ethical issues in publishing related to authorship have been increasingly discussed, not much has been written about the myths and misconceptions of who might be an author. Dispelling these myths and misconceptions would go a long way in shaping the thoughts and plans of students, junior faculty and researchers in academia especially in the developing world.
  2. Ng ML, Majid AMSA, Yee SM, Natesan V, Basheer MKA, Gnanasekaran A, et al.
    Support Care Cancer, 2024 May 06;32(6):331.
    PMID: 38710920 DOI: 10.1007/s00520-024-08536-w
    AIM: We evaluated the efficacy and safety of Nuvastatic™ (C5OSEW5050ESA) in improving cancer-related fatigue (CRF) among cancer patients.

    METHODS: This multicenter randomized double-blind placebo-controlled phase 2 trial included 110 solid malignant tumor patients (stage II-IV) undergoing chemotherapy. They were randomly selected and provided oral Nuvastatic™ 1000 mg (N = 56) or placebo (N = 54) thrice daily for 9 weeks. The primary outcomes were fatigue (Brief Fatigue Inventory (BFI)) and Visual Analog Scale for Fatigue (VAS-F)) scores measured before and after intervention at baseline and weeks 3, 6, and 9. The secondary outcomes were mean group difference in the vitality subscale of the Medical Outcome Scale Short Form-36 (SF-36) and urinary F2-isoprostane concentration (an oxidative stress biomarker), Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group scores, adverse events, and biochemical and hematologic parameters. Analysis was performed by intention-to-treat (ITT). Primary and secondary outcomes were assessed by two-way repeated-measures analysis of variance (mixed ANOVA).

    RESULTS: The Nuvastatic™ group exhibited an overall decreased fatigue score compared with the placebo group. Compared with the placebo group, the Nuvastatic™ group significantly reduced BFI-fatigue (BFI fatigue score, F (1.4, 147) = 16.554, p 

Related Terms
Filters
Contact Us

Please provide feedback to Administrator (afdal@afpm.org.my)

External Links