Background: Research activity represents an important process conducted to address an issue in a precise and systematic manner. Data of this kind regarding the methodological difficulties encountered by healthcare practitioners in conducting clinical research in Saudi Arabia are scarce. This study aims to assess the methodological difficulties encountered by healthcare practitioners in conducting clinical research in Saudi Arabia. Materials and Methods: This cross-sectional survey was conducted among healthcare practitioners who conducted or who were involved in research in Saudi Arabia from June 2018 through August 2018. Data were collected through SurveyMonkey, using a modified version of a questionnaire from a previous similar study. Results: Overall, 236 respondents participated in the study, more than half, that is, 131 (55.50%) had conducted research as principal investigators, 41 (17.40%) had never attended a research workshop, and 57 (24.20%) were members of research committees. Respondents identified “formulating the research title” and “cooperation between research partners” as the easiest research steps by 58 (24.58%) for each. “Receiving funds and financial resources to complete the research project” ranked the highest difficult step by 124 (52.54%) of the respondents. Attending >2 clinical research workshops was significantly associated with lower methodological difficulty scores. Specifically, those who attended scored 35.28 ± 12.86, while those who did not scored 42.34 ± 12.64, with a highly statistically significant difference ( P = 0.001). Conclusion: These findings show that securing funding and finding an available biostatistician contributed greatly to the methodological difficulties of conducting clinical research. The difficulty score decreased significantly with increasing the number of clinical research workshops attended by the researchers.
Background: We performed a meta-analysis to determine whether a consistent relationship exists between the use of angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) and the risk of lung cancer. Accordingly, we summarized and reviewed previously published quantitative studies. Methods: Eligible studies with reference lists published before June 1st, 2019 were obtained from searching several databases. Random effects’ models were used to summarize the overall estimate of the multivariate adjusted odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) Results: Thirteen observational studies involving 458,686 ACEI users were included in the analysis, Overall, pooled risk ratios indicate that ACEIs use was not a risk factor for lung cancer (RR 0.982, 95% C.I. 0.873 – 1.104; P = .76). There was significant heterogeneity between the studies (Q = 52.54; P < .001; I2 = 86.07). There was no significant association between ACEIs use and lung cancer in studies with over five years of ACEIs exposure (RR 0.95, 95% C.I. 0.75 – 1.20; P = .70); and ≤ 5years of exposure to ACEIs (RR 0.98, 95% C.I. 0.83 – 1.15; P = .77). There were no statistically significant differences in the pooled risk ratio obtained according to the study design (Q = 0.65; P = .723) and the comparator regimen (Q = 3.37; P = .19). Conclusions: The use of ACEIs was not associated with an increased risk of lung cancer. Nevertheless, well-designed observational studies with different ethnic populations are still needed to evaluate the long-term (over 10 years) association between ACEIs use and lung cancer.
<b><i>Introduction:</i></b> In Saudi Arabia (SA), the most important issue for senior students during their modules and hospital training is choosing a medical specialty. Because many factors influence this process, the primary goal of this study was to determine participants’ preferred specialty, location, and other influencing factors. <b><i>Materials and Methods:</i></b> This cross-sectional study involved 6th-year students from the medical schools in Taif city, SA, conducted from November 2020 to June 2021. Baseline characteristics, specialties of interest, place, and psychological aspects of their interests were all evaluated via a self-reported questionnaire. <b><i>Results:</i></b> One hundred forty of 200 surveyed students responded (70% response rate). About 44.3% were females, and 55.7% were male, with a mean grade point average of 3.5/4.0 and were all from Taif University. Nearly 86.4% were interested in SA’s local training programs, and the most preferred hospital for residency program was the Ministry of Health (37.1%), while the most preferred region inside SA was the western region (61.4%). The preferred medical specialties were family medicine followed by ENT, yet 2% were undecided about their future specialty. The most common factor that influenced the students to choose the location for training was quality of training (41.4%), followed by the cooperation of the hospital staff with new trainees (30%). <b><i>Conclusion:</i></b> The majority of medical interns preferred to complete their residency or postgraduate studies in SA, according to the findings of the study. Family medicine and ENT were the most common specialties, regardless of gender. Students’ career decisions are influenced by several factors. Future research that can help create a more accurate career-counseling model and improve successful career-counseling strategies will need to address these factors.
Background and aimGlobally, there is a discrepancy in whether terminal cancer patients are early referred to palliative care service (PCS) or not. A late referral can lead to a delay in treating and palliating those patients in need. The aim of this study is to investigate the referral time patterns of advanced cancer patients to PCS in Princess
Background: Critically ill adults with acute kidney injury (AKI) experience considerable morbidity and mortality. This systematic review aimed to compare the effectiveness of continuous renal replacement therapy (CCRT) versus sustained low efficiency dialysis (SLED) for individuals with AKI. Methods: We carried out a systematic search of existing databases according to standard methods and random effects models were used to generate the overall estimate. Heterogeneity coefficient was also calculated for each outcome measure. Results: Eleven studies having 1160 patients with AKI were included in the analyses. Meta-analysis results indicated that there was no statistically significant difference between SLED versus continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT) in our primary outcomes, like mortality rate (rate ratio [RR] 0.67, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.44–1.00; P = .05), renal recovery (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.83–1.42; P = .56), and dialysis dependence (RR = 1.03, 95% CI 0.69–1.53; P = .89). Also, no statistically significant difference was observed for between SLED versus CRRT in the secondary outcomes: that is, length of intensive care unit stay (mean difference –0.16, 95% CI –0.56–0.22; P = .41) and fluid removal rate (mean difference –0.24, 95% CI –0.72–0.24; P = .32). The summary mean difference indicated that there was a significant difference in the serum phosphate clearance among patients treated with SLED and CRRT (mean difference –1.17, 95% CI –1.90 to –0.44, P = .002). Conclusions: The analysis indicate that there was no major advantage of using continuous renal replacement compared with sustained low efficiency dialysis in hemodynamically unstable AKI patients. Both modalities are equally safe and effective in treating AKI among critically ill patients.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.