Displaying publications 1 - 20 of 213 in total

  1. Little CJH
    Matched MeSH terms: Laboratories
  2. George E
    Family Practitioner, 1985;8:21-25.
    Matched MeSH terms: Laboratories
  3. Chandrasekharan N
    Malays J Pathol, 1983 Aug;6:9-14.
    PMID: 6599868
    Matched MeSH terms: Laboratories/organization & administration*
  4. Ch'ng SL
    Malays J Pathol, 1983 Aug;6:21-5.
    PMID: 6599865
    Matched MeSH terms: Laboratories/organization & administration*
  5. Looi LM
    Malays J Pathol, 1983 Aug;6:15-9.
    PMID: 6599864
    Matched MeSH terms: Laboratories/organization & administration*
  6. Pillay B
    Malays J Pathol, 1982 Aug;5:7-9.
    PMID: 7187461
    Matched MeSH terms: Laboratories*
  7. Lam SK
    Malays J Pathol, 1982 Aug;5:19-22.
    PMID: 7187455
    Matched MeSH terms: Laboratories*
  8. Lim VK
    Malays J Pathol, 1982 Aug;5:15-8.
    PMID: 7187454
    Matched MeSH terms: Laboratories*
  9. Beh CC
    Family Practitioner, 1987;10:34-35.
    Matched MeSH terms: Laboratories
  10. Yap SF
    Malays J Pathol, 1982 Aug;5:11-3.
    PMID: 7187453
    Matched MeSH terms: Laboratories*
  11. Jegathesan M, De Witt GF
    Med J Malaysia, 1978 Jun;32(4):331-5.
    PMID: 732634
    Matched MeSH terms: Laboratories/standards*
  12. Nagendrababu V, Murray PE, Ordinola-Zapata R, Peters OA, Rôças IN, Siqueira JF, et al.
    Int Endod J, 2021 Sep;54(9):1491-1515.
    PMID: 33982298 DOI: 10.1111/iej.13565
    Guidance to authors is needed to prevent their waste of talent, time and resources in writing manuscripts that will never be published in the highest-quality journals. Laboratory studies are probably the most common type of endodontic research projects because they make up the majority of manuscripts submitted for publication. Unfortunately, most of these manuscripts fail the peer-review process, primarily due to critical flaws in the reporting of the methods and results. Here, in order to guide authors, the Preferred Reporting Items for study Designs in Endodontology (PRIDE) team developed new reporting guidelines for laboratory-based studies: the Preferred Reporting Items for Laboratory studies in Endodontology (PRILE) 2021 guidelines. The PRILE 2021 guidelines were developed exclusively for the area of Endodontology by integrating and adapting the modified CONSORT checklist of items for reporting in vitro studies of dental materials and the Clinical and Laboratory Images in Publications (CLIP) principles. The process of developing the PRILE 2021 guidelines followed the recommendations of the Guidance for Developers of Health Research Reporting Guidelines. The aim of the current document is to provide authors with an explanation for each of the items in the PRILE 2021 checklist and flowchart with examples from the literature, and to provide advice from peer-reviewers and editors about how to solve each problem in manuscripts prior to their peer-review. The Preferred Reporting Items for study Designs in Endodontology (PRIDE) website (http://pride-endodonticguidelines.org/prile/) provides a link to the PRILE 2021 explanation and elaboration document as well as to the checklist and flowchart.
    Matched MeSH terms: Laboratories*
  13. Bidin, N.
    ASM Science Journal, 2008;2(2):179-182.
    The laser technology laboratory (LTL) of the Physics Department, University of Technology Malaysia was established in 1989 to support research and development activities. The laboratory provides activities for short- and long-term projects to serve final year undergraduate and post-graduate students in masters and PhD programmes.
    Matched MeSH terms: Laboratories
  14. Chandrasekharan N
    Med J Malaysia, 1982 Sep;37(3):197-204.
    PMID: 7176996
    Matched MeSH terms: Laboratories/standards*
  15. Singh RB
    Malays J Pathol, 1982 Aug;5:23-32.
    PMID: 7187456
    Matched MeSH terms: Laboratories/history*
  16. Nagendrababu V, Murray PE, Ordinola-Zapata R, Peters OA, Rôças IN, Siqueira JF, et al.
    Int Endod J, 2021 Sep;54(9):1482-1490.
    PMID: 33938010 DOI: 10.1111/iej.13542
    Reproducible, skilfully conducted and unbiased laboratory studies provide new knowledge, which can inform clinical research and eventually translate into better patient care. To help researchers improve the quality and reproducibility of their research prior to a publication peer-review, this paper describes the process that was followed during the development of the Preferred Reporting Items for Laboratory studies in Endodontology (PRILE) 2021 guidelines and which used a well-documented consensus-based methodology. A steering committee was created with eight individuals (PM, RO, OP, IR, JS, EP, JJ and SP), plus the project leaders (PD, VN). The steering committee prepared an initial checklist by combining and adapting items from the modified Consolidated Statement of Reporting Trials checklist for reporting in vitro studies of dental materials and the Clinical and Laboratory Images in Publications principles as well as adding several new items. The steering committee then formed a PRILE Delphi Group (PDG) and PRILE Online Meeting Group (POMG) to provide expert advice and feedback on the initial draft checklist and flowchart. The members of the PDG participated in an online Delphi process to achieve consensus on the items within the PRILE 2021 checklist and the accompanying flowchart for clarity and suitability. The PRILE checklist and flowchart developed by the online Delphi process were discussed further by the POMG. This online meeting was conducted on 12 February 2021 via the Zoom platform. Following this meeting, the steering committee developed a final version of the PRILE 2021 guidelines and flowchart, which was piloted by several authors when writing up a laboratory study for publication. Authors are encouraged to use the PRILE 2021 guidelines and flowchart to improve the clarity, completeness and quality of reports describing laboratory studies in Endodontology. The PRILE 2021 checklist and flowchart are freely available and downloadable from the Preferred Reporting Items for study Designs in Endodontology website (http://pride-endodonticguidelines.org/prile/).
    Matched MeSH terms: Laboratories*
  17. Ajura AJ, Sumairi I, Lau SH
    Malays J Pathol, 2007 Dec;29(2):101-5.
    PMID: 19108402 MyJurnal
    Immunohistochemistry has become part of normal routine diagnostic work in the Stomatology Unit, Institute for Medical Research, Kuala Lumpur. Of 9523 cases received from the year 2000 to 2005, 197 cases (2.1%) required immunohistochemical staining. These cases ranged from benign to malignant lesions. They include lymphomas (n=41), epithelial tumours (n=29), neural lesions (n=21), fibroblastic/myofibroblastic tumours (n=16), small round cell tumour (n=11), vascular tumours (n=4), smooth muscle tumours (n=4), myxomatous tumours (n=4) and skeletal muscle tumours (n=1). In most of the cases (69.5%), immunohistochemical staining was mandatory to reach a definite diagnosis, while 60 cases (30.5%) required immunohistochemistry in confirming the diagnosis. In 32 cases (16.2%), definitive diagnosis could not be made due to the small size of the specimens received or the results of immunohistochemistry were inconclusive. Standardization of techniques, competent medical laboratory technologists and sufficient budget allocation are important in producing a high quality immunohistochemistry service.
    Matched MeSH terms: Laboratories/economics; Laboratories/standards*
  18. Hussain H, Khalid NM, Selamat R, Wan Nazaimoon WM
    Ann Lab Med, 2013 Sep;33(5):319-25.
    PMID: 24003421 DOI: 10.3343/alm.2013.33.5.319
    BACKGROUND: The urinary iodine micromethod (UIMM) is a modification of the conventional method and its performance needs evaluation.
    METHODS: UIMM performance was evaluated using the method validation and 2008 Iodine Deficiency Disorders survey data obtained from four urinary iodine (UI) laboratories. Method acceptability tests and Sigma quality metrics were determined using total allowable errors (TEas) set by two external quality assurance (EQA) providers.
    RESULTS: UIMM obeyed various method acceptability test criteria with some discrepancies at low concentrations. Method validation data calculated against the UI Quality Program (TUIQP) TEas showed that the Sigma metrics were at 2.75, 1.80, and 3.80 for 51±15.50 µg/L, 108±32.40 µg/L, and 149±38.60 µg/L UI, respectively. External quality control (EQC) data showed that the performance of the laboratories was within Sigma metrics of 0.85-1.12, 1.57-4.36, and 1.46-4.98 at 46.91±7.05 µg/L, 135.14±13.53 µg/L, and 238.58±17.90 µg/L, respectively. No laboratory showed a calculated total error (TEcalc)
    Matched MeSH terms: Laboratories/standards
Contact Us

Please provide feedback to Administrator (tengcl@gmail.com)

External Links