Background: Electronic (E)-learning is defined as the use of electronic tools for education, training, and communication.(ERT) is defined as use of alternative methods of teaching such as remote learning during a crisis circumstances Education, among many other sectors, has been profoundly affected by the spread of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). More than 90% of the world’s students are unable to attend teaching sessions due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: This study was conducted in accordance with the published guidelines for meta-analysis and reviews (PRISMA) reporting guidelines. A database and electronic search was performed on September 21st, 2021 using PubMed, Medline and Embase through the OVID platform, and ScienceDirect. We removed duplicates, and screened the title, abstract, and full texts of included papers. We included studies published only in English and excluded studies without sufficient data, case reports, editorials, and protocols. The quality of included articles was examined using the AXIS tool for cross-sectional studies, and the Newcastle–Ottawa scale for observational case-control studies. From the included studies, demographic and satisfaction with online education (OE) prevalence data were extracted and analyzed. We calculated the pooled prevalence of medical students’ satisfaction. Results: Eighteen studies with a total sample of 7,907 students were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled prevalence of medical students’ satisfaction with online education was 57% (95% CI: 47 - 67%). Publication bias was assessed and reported. Conclusions: The pooled prevalence of medical students’ satisfaction with online education was 57 %. Online learning satisfaction was associated with students’ prior experience with OE. The greatest benefit of OE is overcoming obstacles faced with learning Major challenges for implementing OE were technical and infrastructural resources.

Background: Electronic (E)-learning is defined as the use of electronic tools for education, training, and communication. Education, among many other sectors, has been profoundly affected by the spread of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). More than 90% of the world’s students are unable to attend teaching sessions due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: This study was conducted in accordance with the published guidelines for meta-analysis and reviews (PRISMA) reporting guidelines. A database and electronic search was performed on September 21st, 2021 using PubMed, Medline and Embase through the OVID platform, and ScienceDirect. We removed duplicates, and screened the title, abstract, and full texts of included papers. We included studies published only in English and excluded studies without sufficient data, case reports, editorials, and protocols. The quality of included articles was examined using the AXIS tool for cross-sectional studies, and the Newcastle–Ottawa scale for observational case-control studies. From the included studies, demographic and satisfaction with online education (OE) prevalence data were extracted and analyzed. We calculated the pooled prevalence of medical students’ satisfaction. Results: Eighteen studies with a total sample of 7,907 students were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled prevalence of medical students’ satisfaction with online education was 0.57 (95% CI: 47 - 67%). Publication bias was assessed and reported. Conclusions: The pooled prevalence of medical students’ satisfaction with online education was 53 %. Online learning satisfaction was associated with students’ prior experience with OE. The greatest benefit of OE is overcoming obstacles faced with learning Major challenges for implementing OE were technical and infrastructural resources.

Background: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a global pandemic, which is associated with venous thromboembolism and pulmonary embolism (PE). This study aimed to estimate the pooled incidence of PE among patients hospitalized with COVID-19 within the published literature. Methods: This systematic review and meta-analysis was performed according to PRISMA guidelines. An electronic search using MEDLINE /PubMed, ScienceDirect, Cochrane, and OpenGray databases was conducted May 19th, 2020. Search terms included "COVID 19", "SARS-CoV-2”, "coronavirus disease 2019", "2019-nCoV", "Wuhan coronavirus", “Pulmonary embolism”, "pulmonary thromboembolism", “Pulmonary embol*”, “pulmonary thrombo*” and “PE”. Eligible studies included sufficient data to calculate the incidence of PE diagnosed during hospitalization in patients with COVID-19. Case reports were excluded. Quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale (observational cohort and case-control), AXIS tool (cross-sectional), and quality assessment tool (case series). Demographics and PE incidence data were extracted from the included studies and analyzed with R language. The pooled incidence of PE in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 was calculated. Results: The database search identified 128 records. Ten observational studies were eligible and were included in the meta-analysis with a total of 1722 patients (mean age= 63.36). The pooled PE incidence in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 was 17% (95% CI: 0.1-0.26). There was a high degree of study heterogeneity (I2 = 94%, p<0.01). Conclusion: The pooled PE incidence in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 is 17%. This increased incidence is greater than that previously reported in the general population of non-COVID-19. Attention and further investigation of this risk is warranted.

Background: Recent guidelines report that the administration of tissue plasminogen activator (tPA) within 4.5 hours enhances the clinical outcome of ischemic stroke. We assessed the knowledge and attitude of Sudanese emergency medicine registrars towards the use of tissue plasminogen activators in the management of acute ischemic stroke (AIS).Methods: This is a descriptive, cross-sectional, hospital-based study. The study was conducted in emergency departments at Khartoum State Hospitals in Sudan during the period from May to July 2021. The study sample was 150 emergency medicine registrars who fulfilled the inclusion criteria of the study. Data was collected by using a self-administered questionnaire as a Google form that was sent to the study participants by email.Results: Knowledge about tPA in the management of AIS at the emergency department was poor, average, and good in 54 (36%), 55 (36.7%), and 41 (27.3%) individuals, respectively. However, there was no significant difference in overall knowledge based on age; nevertheless, good and average knowledge levels were considerably higher among females, level 3 and level 4 of training, and years of experience 5-10 years (p-value = 0.05). The overall attitude of the participants was positive 62 (41.3%), neutral 45 (30%), and negative 43 (28.7%). The positive attitude regarding tPAs for patients with AIS was significantly associated with age 30-40 years, females, levels 3 and 4 of training, and experience 5-10 years (p-value < 0.05). Conclusion:The overall knowledge and attitude of emergency medicine registrars were average to good, with a significant proportion of participants reporting low knowledge. The issues encountered by participants in the use of tPAs were the absence of a stroke team in hospitals, the absence of a protocol for the care pathway of AIS management in hospitals, and the absence of tPAs.

Background: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a global pandemic, which is associated with venous thromboembolism and pulmonary embolism (PE). This study aimed to estimate the pooled incidence of PE among patients hospitalized with COVID-19 within the published literature. Methods: This systematic review and meta-analysis was performed according to PRISMA guidelines. An electronic search using MEDLINE /PubMed, ScienceDirect, Cochrane, and OpenGray databases was conducted May 19th, 2020. Eligible studies included sufficient data to calculate the incidence of PE diagnosed during hospitalization in patients with COVID-19. Case reports were excluded. Quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale (observational cohort and case-control), AXIS tool (cross-sectional), and quality assessment tool (case series). Demographics and PE incidence data were extracted from the included studies and analyzed with R language. The pooled incidence of PE in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 was calculated. Results: The database search identified 128 records. Ten observational studies were eligible and were included in the meta-analysis with a total of 1722 patients (mean age= 63.36). .The incidence of PE was noted to be higher in males. The D-dimer levels were specified between PE group and non-PE group in only three studies, while the remaining either reported it improperly or had missing data.The pooled PE incidence in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 was 17% (95% CI: 0.1-0.26). There was a high degree of study heterogeneity (I2 = 94%, p<0.01). Conclusion: The pooled PE incidence in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 is 17%. This increased incidence is greater than that previously reported in the general population of non-COVID-19. Attention and further investigation of this risk is warranted.