Factors Affecting the Takers of the Qualifying Examinations as Part of the Accountancy Program Retention Policy: The Case of a University in Central Luzon Philippines

This research was carried out to assess the qualifying examinations being administered by a school’s department for a of university in Central Luzon, Philippines for the Incoming Second Year, Third Year and Fifth Year BS Accountancy Students. Using the physical and administrative factors are from Aiken et al. (2008), and the Psychological Testing and Assessment, and University of Waterloo’s Center for Excellence (2016), when Preparing Tests and Exams are the guidelines for qualitative factors of exams revealed that the quality of exams had the lowest mean rating compared to physical environment and administrative responsibilities as the factors when assessing the qualifying examinations. The participants were two hundred ninety four (294) students who took the qualifying examinations. The analysis of variance findings confirmed that there is a significant difference on the assessment of the qualifying exams if grouped according to incoming year level and status. The return of the two strike policy to replace the one strike policy, is the most preferred recommendation by the examinees followed by the special remediation program for deserving ‘late bloomer’ students and the special review classes in preparation of the examination

Rivaroxaban with or without aspirin in stable cardiovascular disease

BACKGROUND: We evaluated whether rivaroxaban alone or in combination with aspirin would be more effective than aspirin alone for secondary cardiovascular prevention. METHODS: In this double-blind trial, we randomly assigned 27,395 participants with stable atherosclerotic vascular disease to receive rivaroxaban (2.5 mg twice daily) plus aspirin (100 mg once daily), rivaroxaban (5 mg twice daily), or aspirin (100 mg once daily). The primary outcome was a composite of cardiovascular death, stroke, or myocardial infarction. The study was stopped for superiority of the rivaroxaban-plus-aspirin group after a mean follow-up of 23 months. RESULTS: The primary outcome occurred in fewer patients in the rivaroxaban-plus-aspirin group than in the aspirin-alone group (379 patients [4.1%] vs. 496 patients [5.4%]; hazard ratio, 0.76; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.66 to 0.86; P<0.001; z=−4.126), but major bleeding events occurred in more patients in the rivaroxaban-plus-aspirin group (288 patients [3.1%] vs. 170 patients [1.9%]; hazard ratio, 1.70; 95% CI, 1.40 to 2.05; P<0.001). There was no significant difference in intracranial or fatal bleeding between these two groups. There were 313 deaths (3.4%) in the rivaroxaban-plus-aspirin group as compared with 378 (4.1%) in the aspirin-alone group (hazard ratio, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.71 to 0.96; P=0.01; threshold P value for significance, 0.0025). The primary outcome did not occur in significantly fewer patients in the rivaroxaban-alone group than in the aspirin-alone group, but major bleeding events occurred in more patients in the rivaroxaban-alone group. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with stable atherosclerotic vascular disease, those assigned to rivaroxaban (2.5 mg twice daily) plus aspirin had better cardiovascular outcomes and more major bleeding events than those assigned to aspirin alone. Rivaroxaban (5 mg twice daily) alone did not result in better cardiovascular outcomes than aspirin alone and resulted in more major bleeding events