METHODS: In this cross-over study, study participants were randomized to perform the initial peak expiratory flow (PEF) measurement in either standing or sitting position. The highest of three readings in each position were compared using paired t-test. A mean difference of
METHODS: This was a randomized crossover trial in a simulated clinical setting to compare the SÜPEVAC unit with standard hospital wall suction. Twenty-two fellows of the Australasian College for Emergency Medicine, the Australian and New Zealand College of Anaesthetists, or the College of Intensive Care Medicine were recruited. Outcomes were assessed via a structured survey and measuring the time to view the glottis.
RESULTS: This study found there was no significant difference between the SÜPEVAC unit and wall suction with regard to suction time (P = .762; 95% confidence interval, -0.683 to 0.338) or qualitative assessment via the survey.
CONCLUSIONS: The SÜPEVAC unit is comparable with wall suction in a clinical setting. Further research is warranted.
SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Twenty-six second-year undergraduate audiology students participated. A cross-over study design was used. All students initially attended two hours of seminar and role-play sessions. They were then divided into three types of training, 1) SP training (Group A), 2) SP with feedback (Group B), and 3) a non-additional training group (Group C). After two training sessions, the students changed their types of training to, 1) Group A and C: SP training with feedback, and 2) Group B: non-additional training. All the groups were assessed at three points: 1) pre-test, 2) intermediate, and 3) post-test. The normalized median score differences between and within the respective groups were analysed using non-parametric tests at 95% confidence intervals.
RESULTS: Groups with additional SP trainings (with and without feedback) showed a significantly higher normalized gain score than no training group (p<0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: The SP training (with/ without feedback) is a beneficial learning tool for history taking to students in audiology major.
RESULTS: The GI of the calamansi drink tested was calculated as 37, a value within the range of low GI foods. Trial registration Clinical Trials identifier NCT04462016; Retrospectively registered on July 1, 2020.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this trial, a total of 56 eligible subjects were randomly assigned to the fasting group and the postprandial group. The two groups were given 250 mg of the test and reference preparation, respectively. Liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (HPLC-MS/MS) was applied to determine the plasma concentration of cefalexin. PhoenixWinNonlin software (V7.0) was used to calculate the pharmacokinetic parameters of cefalexin using the non-compartmental model (NCA), and the bioequivalence and safety results were calculated by SAS (V9.4) software.
RESULTS: The main pharmacokinetic parameters of the test and reference preparations were as follows, the fasting group: Cmax 12.59 ± 2.65 μg/mL, 12.72 ± 2.28 μg/mL; AUC0-8h 20.43 ± 3.47 h×μg/mL, 20.66 ± 3.38 h×μg/mL; AUC0-∞ 20.77 ± 3.53 h×μg/mL, 21.02 ± 3.45 h×μg/mL; the postprandial group: Cmax 5.25 ± 0.94 μg/mL, 5.23 ± 0.80 μg/mL; AUC0-10h 16.92 ± 2.03 h×μg/mL, 17.09 ± 2.31 h×μg/mL; AUC0-∞ 17.33 ± 2.09 h×μg/mL, 17.67 ± 2.45 h×μg/mL.
CONCLUSION: The 90% confidence intervals of geometric mean ratios of test preparation and reference preparation were calculated, and the 90% confidence intervals of geometric mean ratios of Cmax, AUC0-10h, and AUC0-∞ were within the 80.00% ~ 125.00% range in both groups. Both Cmax and AUC met the pre-determined criteria for assuming bioequivalence. The test and reference products were bioequivalent after administration under fasting as well as under fed conditions in healthy Chinese subjects. This study may suggest that successful generic versions of cefalexin not only guarantee the market supply of such drugs but can also improve the safety and effectiveness and quality controllability of cefalexin through a new process and a new drug composition ratio.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A randomized, 2-treatment, 2-period, 2-sequence, single dose, crossover with a washout period of 2 weeks, was conducted in 24 healthy Thai male volunteers. Blood samples were collected at 0, 0.25, 0.5, 0.75, 1, 1.25, 1.5, 1.75, 2, 2.5, 3, 3.5, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, 12, 24, 36, 48, 72 and 96 h following drug administration. Plasma concentrations of risperidone and 9-hydroxyrisperidone were determined using a validated LC-MS-MS method. The pharmacokinetic parameters of risperidone and 9-hydroxyrisperidone were determined using a non-compartmental model.
RESULTS: The geometric means ratios (%) and 90% confidence interval (CI) of the test and reference products for the log-transformed pharmacokinetic parameters, Cmax, AUC0-t and AUC0-inf of risperidone were 104.49 % (92.79% - 117.66%), 100.96 % (92.15% - 110.61 %) and 97.99 % (90.72% - 105.85%). The 90% CI of geometric means ratios of the test and reference products for the log-transformed pharmacokinetic parameters, Cmax, AUC0-t and AUC0-inf of 9-hydroxyrisperidone were 97.00%, 96.97% and 97.49%.
CONCLUSIONS: The 90% CI for the geometric means ratios (test/reference) of the log-trasformed Cmax, AUC0-t and AUC0-inf of risperidone and its major active metabolite were within the bioequivalence acceptance criteria of 80% - 125% of the US-FDA.
METHODS: A crossover study was conducted among Year 1 and Year 2 pharmacy students. Students were invited to participate voluntarily for one OB and one CB online formative test in a chemistry module in each year. Evaluation of their learning approach and perception of the OB and CB systems of examination was conducted using Deep Information Processing (DIP) questionnaire and Student Perception questionnaire respectively. The mean performance scores of OB and CB examinations were compared.
RESULTS: Analysis of DIP scores showed that there was no significant difference (p > 0.05) in the learning approach adopted for the two different examination systems. However, the mean score obtained in the OB examination was significantly higher (p < 0.01) than those obtained in the CB examination. Preference was given by a majority of students for the OB examination, possibly because it was associated with lower anxiety levels, less requirement of memorization, and more problem solving.
CONCLUSION: There is no difference in deep learning approach of students, whether the format is of the OB or CB type examinations. However, the performance of students was significantly better in OB examination than CB. Hence, using OB examination along with CB examination will be useful for student learning and help them adapt to growing and changing knowledge in pharmacy education and practice.