Background The involvement of the undergraduates in the research field requires a better view of their potential and the anticipated barriers facing them. This study aims to assess the undergraduates' knowledge, attitudes, practices and perceived barriers towards research in six Arab countries. Methods A cross sectional study included medical students from six Arab countries, where a self-administered five-section questionnaire was used to assess the students' demographics, knowledge, attitudes, practices and perceived barriers. The questionnaire was distributed in the online educational platforms of the participating medical schools in the six included countries. Results The total sample of recruited students was 2989, the majority of students (91.6%) showed poor level of knowledge regarding research. Generally high levels of positive attitudes towards research, research relevance and usefulness were found, with moderate levels of perception of research anxiety and difficulty. 33.7% (n = 1006) participated in an actual research project before with a mean of .5 publications per student. Cross-sectional studies were the most common type of studies conducted by students (38.6%), followed by case reports (23.9%). Lack of access to lab equipment for lab research (68.1%), the priority of education over research (66.8%), and lack of time because of educational tasks (66.1%) were generally the top perceived barriers towards research practice. Conclusion In the current study, the participants showed a poor knowledge level with associated positive attitudes towards research. One third of the students participated in research projects that mostly were cross-sectional studies and case reports. Educational tasks and lack of support were the most prevalent barriers. The students' positive attitudes towards research need to be translated into better knowledge and appropriate practice, which can be done by development of better training systems and more structured mentoring.

No abstract

No abstract

Reports of thrombotic response after receiving COVID-19 Adenoviral-Vector Based Vaccines raise concerns about vaccine-induced thrombotic thrombocytopenia (VITT); therefore, we conduct this systematic review to report susceptible demographics outcomes, commonalities, and prognosis of reporting cases. We identified published articles by searching PubMed, SCOPUS, and Web of Science from December 2020 till May 2021, with an updated search in September 2021. All case reports and case series reporting thrombotic response after receiving COVID-19 Adenoviral-Vector Based Vaccines were eligible for including. In addition, two authors independently extracted data and assessed the quality of the included studies. A total of 157 patients with thrombotic events after the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine and 16 patients with thrombotic events after Ad26.COV2. S vaccine was included in our study. 72% of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 cases were females, while in Ad26.COV2.S subgroup, all reported patients were females. The commonest presentations were deep vein thrombosis 20 (12.7%) and cerebral venous sinus thrombosis 18 (11.5%) in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 subgroup while cerebral venous sinus thrombosis 14 (87.5%) and pulmonary embolism 2 (12.5%) in the Ad26.COV2. S subgroup. In this study, we described the certain demographics associated with VITT and the clinical presentations of those cases in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 and Ad26.COV2. S vaccines. Young individuals, particularly females, may be more susceptible to VITT, and future studies should seek to confirm this association. In addition, the clinical presentation of VITT commonly includes cerebral thrombi, pulmonary embolism, and deep venous thrombosis, but other presentations are also possible, highlighting the importance of clinical vigilance in recent vaccine recipients.

Background Surveys are an effective method for collecting a large quantity of data. However, incomplete responses to these surveys can affect the validity of the studies and introduce bias. Recent studies have suggested that monetary incentives may increase survey response rates. We intended to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to evaluate the effect of monetary incentives on survey participation. Methods A systematic search of electronic databases was conducted to collect studies assessing the impact of monetary incentives on survey participation. The primary outcome of interest was the response rates to incentives: money, lottery, and voucher. We used the Cochrane Collaboration tool to assess the risk of bias in randomized trials. We calculated the rate ratio (RR) with its 95% confidence interval (95% CI) using Review Manager Software (version 5.3). We used random-effects analysis and considered the data statistically significant with a P-value <0.05. Results Forty-six RCTs were included. A total of 109,648 participants from 14 countries were involved. The mean age of participants ranged from 15 to more than 60 years, with 27.5% being males, 16.7% being females, and the other 55.8% not reported. Our analysis showed a significant increase in response rate in the incentive group compared to the control group, irrespective of the incentive methods. Money was the most efficient way to increase the response rate (RR: 1.25; 95% CI: 1.16,1.35; P = < 0.00001) compared to voucher (RR: 1.19; 95% CI: 1.08,1.31; P = < 0.0005) and lottery (RR: 1.12; 95% CI: 1.03,1.22; P = < 0.009). Conclusion Monetary incentives encourage the response rate in surveys. Money was more effective than vouchers or lotteries. Therefore, researchers may include money as an incentive to improve the response rate while conducting surveys.