Randomized double blind trial of ciprofloxacin prophylaxis during induction treatment in childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia in the WK-ALL protocol in Indonesia

Pudjo H Widjajanto,1 Sumadiono Sumadiono,1 Jacqueline Cloos,2,3 Ignatius Purwanto,1 Sutaryo Sutaryo,1 Anjo JP Veerman1,21Pediatric Hematology and Oncology Division, Department of Pediatrics, Dr Sardjito Hospital, Medical Faculty, Universitas Gadjah Mada, Yogyakarta, Indonesia; 2Pediatric Oncology/Hematology Division, Department of Pediatrics, 3Department of Hematology, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The NetherlandsObjectives: Toxic death is a big problem in the treatment of childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL), especially in low-income countries. Studies of ciprofloxacin as single agent prophylaxis vary widely in success rate. We conducted a double-blind, randomized study to test the effects of ciprofloxacin monotherapy as prophylaxis for sepsis and death in induction treatment of the Indonesian childhood ALL protocol.Methods: Patients were randomized to the ciprofloxacin arm (n = 58) and to the placebo arm (n = 52). Oral ciprofloxacin monotherapy or oral placebo was administered twice a day. All events during induction were recorded: toxic death, abandonment, resistant disease, and complete remission rate.Results: Of 110 patients enrolled in this study, 79 (71.8%) achieved CR. In comparison to the placebo arm, the ciprofloxacin arm had lower nadir of absolute neutrophil count during induction with median of 62 (range: 5–884) versus 270 (range: 14–25,480) × 109 cells/L (P > 0.01), greater risks for experiencing fever (50.0% versus 32.7%, P = 0.07), clinical sepsis (50.0% versus 38.5%, P = 0.22), and death (18.9% versus 5.8%, P = 0.05).Conclusion: In our setting, a reduced intensity protocol in a low-income situation, the data warn against using ciprofloxacin prophylaxis during induction treatment. A lower nadir of neutrophil count and higher mortality were found in the ciprofloxacin group.Keywords: ciprofloxacin, prophylaxis, childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia, randomized trial, low-income countr

Neprilysin inhibition for pulmonary arterial hypertension: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, proof-of-concept trial

This is the peer reviewed version of the following article: Hobbs AJ, Moyes AJ, Baliga RS, et al. Neprilysin inhibition for pulmonary arterial hypertension: a randomized, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled, proof‐of‐concept trial. Br J Pharmacol. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1111/bph.14621, which has been published in final form at https://doi.org/10.1111/bph.14621. This article may be used for non-commercial purposes in accordance with Wiley Terms and Conditions for Use of Self-Archived VersionsThis work was supported by a British Heart Foundation Project Grant (PG/11/88/28992) and the National Institutes for Health Research, Comprehensive Biomedical Research Centre award to UC

Online Shopping: Antecedents of Attitude, Intention and Use

Consumer behavior in electronic commerce has been the theme of hundreds of studies conducted by researchers of many nationalities in the past twenty years. The purpose of this study was to review and classify the concepts used in papers published between 2003 and 2014 to explain the consumer behavior in electronic commerce. A systematic search of the literature in nine databases was performed and 136 papers published in double-blind peer reviewed journals were selected. Reference models were prepared based on a classification of the concepts found. This article reports only the concepts that displayed statistical significance in the studies analyzed. Finally, we suggest new studies that can be conducted

How and Why to Write for the Journal of Case Learning and Exceptional Learners

The Journal of Case Learning and Exceptional Learners (JCLEL) is an open-access, double-blind, peer-reviewed online journal that publishes case studies, case study learning research, and resources. JCLEL focuses on students with intellectual and developmental disabilities and extensive support needs. In this article, we discuss how these unique case studies can be used in special education teacher preparation and why authors should consider publishing with JCLEL. Information about how to write case studies that can be used for educational purposes and that adhere to the case study frameworks will be provided. The authors also present a general overview of the journal, its purpose, and a checklist that can be used for submission

Does Lavender Oil Improve Sleep Quality in Adults Ages 18 to 65 Years Old?

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this selective EBM review is to determine whether or not lavender oil is an effective therapy in improving the overall sleep quality in patients ages 18 to 65 years old. STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review of one double-blind two-stage randomized control trial (RCT), one double-blind RCT, and one single-blind RCT. DATA SOURCES: All articles were published in English and were taken from peer reviewed sources using CINAHL Plus and Alt HealthWatch. All articles used were published between 2010-2015. OUTCOMES MEASURED: Two of the article’s outcomes were based on the patient selfreporting improved sleep quality using the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI). The third article outcome was measured by the patient self-reporting improved sleep quality, but this study used the Oguri-Shirakawa-Azumi Sleep Inventory MA version (OSA-MA). The results of all articles were compared to the patient’s baseline responses prior to the beginning of the study. RESULTS: All articles demonstrated that lavender oil, whether inhaled or ingested, did statistically improve overall sleep quality. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the results of these three studies, it appears that there is acute improvement in sleep quality for patients who used lavender oil therapy. Further research is warranted to determine if long-term use of lavender oil has serious side-effects and whether it is as satisfactory in improving sleep quality as compared to prescribed and over-the-counter medications

Peer Review system: A Golden standard for publications process

Peer review process helps in evaluating and validating of research that is published in the journals. U.S. Office of Research Integrity reported that data fraudulence was found to be involved in 94% cases of misconduct from 228 identified articles between 1994–2012. If fraud in published article are significantly as high as reported, the question arise in mind, were these articles peer reviewed? Another report said that the reviewers failed to detect 16 cases of fabricated article of Jan Hendrick Schon. Superficial peer reviewing process does not reveals suspicion of misconduct. Lack of knowledge of systemic review process not only demolish the academic integrity in publication but also loss the trust of the people of the institution, the nation, and the world. The aim of this review article is to aware stakeholders specially novice reviewers about the peer review system. Beginners will understand how to review an article and they can justify better action choices in dealing with reviewing an article

Open Access Journals in Agriculture and Allied Sciences: A Study based on Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ)

This paper attempts to do a quantitative analysis of open access journals in the field of agriculture and allied sciences indexed by the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) which indexes over 17,200 peer-reviewed open access journals covering all branches of knowledge published by 130 countries in 80 languages. The study revealed that out of 17,282 open access journals indexed by the DOAJ (as on 31.12.2021), 458 journals (2.65%) are publishing articles related to agriculture and allied sciences. Brazil and Indonesia are the top countries publishing higher number of OA journals in agriculture and allied sciences with 74 titles each (16.16%) followed United Kingdom with 26 titles (5.68%), Out of 458 journals, 179 journals (39.08%) are published in English language. About 62.28% (285 journals) are published in monolingual followed by bilingual (124 journals; 7.07%), trilingual (44 journals; 9.61%), quadrilingual (3 journals; 0.65%) and each journal in pentalingual and multilingual. Creative Common licensing is followed by 447 (97.60%) journals. While 230 journals (50.22%) permit the authors to hold complete copyright 228 journals (49.78%) restrict the same. Double blind peer review is followed by 243 journals (53.06%) and ‘Blind peer review’ by 115 journals (25.11%). While 272 journals (59.39%) don’t collect article processing charges (APC) from the authors, 186 journals (40.61%) collect APC. Most of the journal publishers i.e. 119 (25.98%) take 9-12 weeks for publication and 3 journals take more than 52 weeks for the same. The study revealed that 164 OA journals (35.81%) provide access to below 100 articles and only one journal provide access to more than 5000 articles