Background Liver abscesses differ in their aetiology, location, and number. Image‐guided percutaneous drainage techniques are the currently used management for liver abscesses. We conducted our study to compare the clinical safety and efficacy of percutaneous needle aspiration (PNA) to percutaneous catheter drainage (PCD). Methods A systematic review of major reference databases was undertaken in February 2022 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compare PNA to PCD in treating liver abscess patients. The quality of the included trials was assessed using the Cochrane tool. Statistical meta‐analysis was conducted using RevMan and open meta‐analyst software. Results Fifteen RCTs were included in this review, with 1676 patients enrolled. The overall quality of the included trials was moderate, with most domains of unclear risk. PCD was superior to PNA in the success rate (RR = 1.23; 95% CI [1.12, 1.36], P < 0.00001), time for achieving 50% reduction of cavity size (MD = −2.32; 95% CI [−3.07, −1.57], P < 0.00001), and time for clinical improvement (MD = −1.92; 95% CI [−2.55, −1.28], P < 0.00001). The two modalities did not differ in the days of hospital stay, duration of IV antibiotics, and time needed for total or subtotal reduction of cavity size (P = 0.36, P = 0.06 and P = 0.40, respectively). High heterogeneity levels were detected. Regarding major complications, the two modalities were equally safe (P = 0.39). Conclusion PCD has a higher success rate and results in a faster 50% reduction in the abscess cavity size and clinical improvement. The two modalities are equally safe.

To summarize the findings from literature regarding the prevalence of plagiarism and its various types, knowledge, and attitudes of students toward plagiarism, factors associated with plagiarism, and the applied interventions to decrease the incidence of plagiarism. Background: Plagiarism is a major form of academic dishonesty practiced by students at all educational levels. Introduction: Academic dishonesty was defined as any unauthorized help that adds to students' formal academic performance. These dishonest behaviors can be categorized as falsifying information, hiding errors, collaborating with colleagues when not allowed, and plagiarism. Methods: Systematic search of databases was conducted in September 2021 to identify studies that discussed plagiarism in nursing studies. We included 31 studies in this systematic review and meta-analysis, with a total of 9,175 nursing students. The analysis was conducted using RevMan software. Results: Plagiarism was the most frequent academic misconduct among nursing students (practiced by 55.3%). Paraphrasing without referencing was the most practiced form (39.53%), while submitting others' work without acknowledgment was the least one (9.61%). Most students were aware of the concept of plagiarism (80.8%) and had positive ethical attitudes toward it (88.26%). Plagiarism was negatively associated with age, parenting, and completing semester credits. However, it was positively correlated with average grades and liberal educators. Plagiarism was a significant predictor of clinical misconduct. Discussion: A gap in the students' knowledge and skills were noticed. These gaps may be contributing to the high occurrence of plagiaristic acts, besides the unethical attitudes. Conclusion: Plagiarism is a serious academic misconduct practice that can be associated with subsequent clinical misconduct. There is a need to fill the knowledge and skills gap, and to set effective policies. Implication for nursing and health policy: In their attempts to eliminate plagiarism, nurse educators are encouraged to provide effective educational training and practical tasks, in order to fill the gaps in knowledge and skills. Additionally, implementing clear and effective punishment policies would prevent intentional plagiaristic acts. This would aid in introducing qualified nurses accountable for the health of patients.