Comparing Objective Structured Clinical Examinations and Traditional Clinical Examinations in the Summative Evaluation of Final‑Year Medical Students

Background: Medical schools have traditionally assessed medical students using long and short cases. Objective structured clinical examination (OSCE) has been found to be more reliable. Aim: To compare OSCE and traditional method of assessment in the summative assessment of final-year medical students. Methodology: This was a retrospective cross-sectional study conducted at Enugu State University of Science and Technology College of Medicine. The Department of Internal Medicine organized clinical examinations consisting of long and short cases. The Department of Surgery organized an OSCE consisting of two parts (picture OSCE and clinical OSCE). Students' scores in both internal medicine and surgery were collated and subjected to analysis with SPSS version 23 (IBM; SPSS, Chicago, IL, USA). Pearson's correlation was used to assess the correlations, paired t-test was used to compare the mean scores, and Cronbach's alpha was used to assess the reliability. P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results: Out of the 73 candidates, 41 were female and 32 were male giving a female: male ratio of 1.3:1. Using paired sample t test, there were significant differences between the mean score in long case (mean = 52.86, standard deviation [SD] = 4.315) and mean score in clinical OSCE (mean = 58.356, SD = 7.906), t (72) = −7.181, P = 0.000; mean score in short case (mean = 52.86, SD = 4.097) and mean score in picture OSCE (mean = 48.580, SD = 8.992, t (72) =4.558, P = 0.000; no significant difference between the mean total score in internal medicine clinicals (mean = 105.712, SD = 6.680) and mean total score in surgery clinicals (mean = 106.915, SD = 15.846), t (72) = −0.788, P = 0.433. The Cronbach's alpha for traditional examination and OSCE was 0.437 and 0.863, respectively. Conclusion: OSCE gives a similar mean score to traditional method, but OSCE is more reliable

Open mesh repair of a voluminous recurrent inguinal hernia complicated by strangulation and intestinal obstruction

Introduction. Inguinal hernia is a common surgical pathology in Nigeria but a giant (voluminous) recurrent strangulated inguino-scrotal hernia causing intestinal obstruction is very uncommon. Such a hernia, when it is recurrent and becomes complicated with strangulation and dynamic intestinal obstruction, presents many difficulties in management. Aim. To present the successful management of a case of a strangulated and obstructed giant recurrent inguinal hernia. Description of the case. Here we present the case of 47 year old man who had intestinal resection and anastomosis with prolene mesh repair of the posterior wall for a strangulated recurrent large inguinal hernia using the technique of tension free sutured prolene mesh popularized by Lichtenstein Conclusion. The patient recovered, was satisfied with his care and has been symptom free at 18 months of follow up. Giant recurrent hernias complicated by strangulated and intestinal obstruction are uncommon in Nigeria today, despite our resource-poor status. When they occur, tension free repair with sutured onlay prolene mesh after Lichtenstein, can be a useful and the best option with satisfactory results, as in the case reported

Open mesh repair of a voluminous recurrent inguinal hernia complicated by strangulation and intestinal obstruction

Introduction. Inguinal hernia is a common surgical pathology in Nigeria but a giant (voluminous) recurrent strangulated inguino-scrotal hernia causing intestinal obstruction is very uncommon. Such a hernia, when it is recurrent and becomes complicated with strangulation and dynamic intestinal obstruction, presents many difficulties in management. Aim. To present the successful management of a case of a strangulated and obstructed giant recurrent inguinal hernia. Description of the case. Here we present the case of 47 year old man who had intestinal resection and anastomosis with prolene mesh repair of the posterior wall for a strangulated recurrent large inguinal hernia using the technique of tension free sutured prolene mesh popularized by Lichtenstein Conclusion. The patient recovered, was satisfied with his care and has been symptom free at 18 months of follow up. Giant recurrent hernias complicated by strangulated and intestinal obstruction are uncommon in Nigeria today, despite our resource-poor status. When they occur, tension free repair with sutured onlay prolene mesh after Lichtenstein, can be a useful and the best option with satisfactory results, as in the case reported

Does Varicocele Repair Improve Conventional Semen Parameters? A Meta-Analytic Study of Before-After Data

International audiencePurpose: The purpose of this meta-analysis is to study the impact of varicocele repair in the largest cohort of infertile males with clinical varicocele by including all available studies, with no language restrictions, comparing intra-person conventional semen parameters before and after the repair of varicoceles.Materials and methods: The meta-analysis was performed according to PRISMA-P and MOOSE guidelines. A systematic search was performed in Scopus, PubMed, Cochrane, and Embase databases. Eligible studies were selected according to the PICOS model (Population: infertile male patients with clinical varicocele; Intervention: varicocele repair; Comparison: intra-person before-after varicocele repair; Outcome: conventional semen parameters; Study type: randomized controlled trials [RCTs], observational and case-control studies).Results: Out of 1,632 screened abstracts, 351 articles (23 RCTs, 292 observational, and 36 case-control studies) were included in the quantitative analysis. The before-and-after analysis showed significant improvements in all semen parameters after varicocele repair (except sperm vitality); semen volume: standardized mean difference (SMD) 0.203, 95% CI: 0.129-0.278; p<0.001; I²=83.62%, Egger's p=0.3329; sperm concentration: SMD 1.590, 95% CI: 1.474-1.706; p<0.001; I²=97.86%, Egger's p<0.0001; total sperm count: SMD 1.824, 95% CI: 1.526-2.121; p<0.001; I²=97.88%, Egger's p=0.0063; total motile sperm count: SMD 1.643, 95% CI: 1.318-1.968; p<0.001; I²=98.65%, Egger's p=0.0003; progressive sperm motility: SMD 1.845, 95% CI: 1.537%-2.153%; p<0.001; I²=98.97%, Egger's p<0.0001; total sperm motility: SMD 1.613, 95% CI 1.467%-1.759%; p<0.001; l2=97.98%, Egger's p<0.001; sperm morphology: SMD 1.066, 95% CI 0.992%-1.211%; p<0.001; I²=97.87%, Egger's p=0.1864.Conclusions: The current meta-analysis is the largest to date using paired analysis on varicocele patients. In the current meta-analysis, almost all conventional semen parameters improved significantly following varicocele repair in infertile patients with clinical varicocele

Does Varicocele Repair Improve Conventional Semen Parameters? A Meta-Analytic Study of Before-After Data

Purpose: The purpose of this meta-analysis is to study the impact of varicocele repair in the largest cohort of infertile males with clinical varicocele by including all available studies, with no language restrictions, comparing intra-person conventional semen parameters before and after the repair of varicoceles. Materials and Methods: The meta-analysis was performed according to PRISMA-P and MOOSE guidelines. A systematic search was performed in Scopus, PubMed, Cochrane, and Embase databases. Eligible studies were selected according to the PICOS model (Population: infertile male patients with clinical varicocele; Intervention: varicocele repair; Comparison: intra-person before-after varicocele repair; Outcome: conventional semen parameters; Study type: randomized controlled trials [RCTs], observational and case-control studies). Results: Out of 1,632 screened abstracts, 351 articles (23 RCTs, 292 observational, and 36 case-control studies) were includ-ed in the quantitative analysis. The before-and-after analysis showed significant improvements in all semen parameters after varicocele repair (except sperm vitality); semen volume: standardized mean difference (SMD) 0.203, 95% CI: 0.129-0.278; p<0.001; I2=83.62%, Egger's p=0.3329; sperm concentration: SMD 1.590, 95% CI: 1.474-1.706; p<0.001; I2=97.86%, Egger's p<0.0001; total sperm count: SMD 1.824, 95% CI: 1.526-2.121; p<0.001; I2=97.88%, Egger's p=0.0063; total motile sperm count: SMD 1.643, 95% CI: 1.318-1.968; p<0.001; I2=98.65%, Egger's p=0.0003; progressive sperm motil-ity: SMD 1.845, 95% CI: 1.537%-2.153%; p<0.001; I2=98.97%, Egger's p<0.0001; total sperm motility: SMD 1.613, 95% CI 1.467%-1.759%; p<0.001; l2=97.98%, Egger's p<0.001; sperm morphology: SMD 1.066, 95% CI 0.992%-1.211%; p<0.001; I2=97.87%, Egger's p=0.1864. Conclusions: The current meta-analysis is the largest to date using paired analysis on varicocele patients. In the current meta-analysis, almost all conventional semen parameters improved significantly following varicocele repair in infertile patients with clinical varicocele

Does Varicocele Repair Improve Conventional Semen Parameters? A Meta-Analytic Study of Before-After Data

PURPOSE: The purpose of this meta-analysis is to study the impact of varicocele repair in the largest cohort of infertile males with clinical varicocele by including all available studies, with no language restrictions, comparing intra-person conventional semen parameters before and after the repair of varicoceles. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The meta-analysis was performed according to PRISMA-P and MOOSE guidelines. A systematic search was performed in Scopus, PubMed, Cochrane, and Embase databases. Eligible studies were selected according to the PICOS model (Population: infertile male patients with clinical varicocele; Intervention: varicocele repair; Comparison: intra-person before-after varicocele repair; Outcome: conventional semen parameters; Study type: randomized controlled trials [RCTs], observational and case-control studies). RESULTS: Out of 1,632 screened abstracts, 351 articles (23 RCTs, 292 observational, and 36 case-control studies) were included in the quantitative analysis. The before-and-after analysis showed significant improvements in all semen parameters after varicocele repair (except sperm vitality); semen volume: standardized mean difference (SMD) 0.203, 95% CI: 0.129-0.278; p\u3c0.001; I²=83.62%, Egger\u27s p=0.3329; sperm concentration: SMD 1.590, 95% CI: 1.474-1.706; p\u3c0.001; I²=97.86%, Egger\u27s p\u3c0.0001; total sperm count: SMD 1.824, 95% CI: 1.526-2.121; p\u3c0.001; I²=97.88%, Egger\u27s p=0.0063; total motile sperm count: SMD 1.643, 95% CI: 1.318-1.968; p\u3c0.001; I²=98.65%, Egger\u27s p=0.0003; progressive sperm motility: SMD 1.845, 95% CI: 1.537%-2.153%; p\u3c0.001; I²=98.97%, Egger\u27s p\u3c0.0001; total sperm motility: SMD 1.613, 95% CI 1.467%-1.759%; p\u3c0.001; l2=97.98%, Egger\u27s p\u3c0.001; sperm morphology: SMD 1.066, 95% CI 0.992%-1.211%; p\u3c0.001; I²=97.87%, Egger\u27s p=0.1864. CONCLUSIONS: The current meta-analysis is the largest to date using paired analysis on varicocele patients. In the current meta-analysis, almost all conventional semen parameters improved significantly following varicocele repair in infertile patients with clinical varicocele

Consensus and diversity in the management of varicocele for male infertility: Results of a global practice survey and comparison with guidelines and recommendations

Purpose: Varicocele is a common problem among infertile men. Varicocele repair (VR) is frequently performed to improve semen parameters and the chances of pregnancy. However, there is a lack of consensus about the diagnosis, indications for VR and its outcomes. The aim of this study was to explore global practice patterns on the management of varicocele in the context of male infertility. Materials and Methods: Sixty practicing urologists/andrologists from 23 countries contributed 382 multiple-choice-questions pertaining to varicocele management. These were condensed into an online questionnaire that was forwarded to clinicians involved in male infertility management through direct invitation. The results were analyzed for disagreement and agreement in practice patterns and, compared with the latest guidelines of international professional societies (American Urological Association [AUA], American Society for Reproductive Medicine [ASRM], and European Association of Urology [EAU]), and with evidence emerging from recent systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Additionally, an expert opinion on each topic was provided based on the consensus of 16 experts in the field. Results: The questionnaire was answered by 574 clinicians from 59 countries. The majority of respondents were urologists/uro-andrologists. A wide diversity of opinion was seen in every aspect of varicocele diagnosis, indications for repair, choice of technique, management of sub-clinical varicocele and the role of VR in azoospermia. A significant proportion of the responses were at odds with the recommendations of AUA, ASRM, and EAU. A large number of clinical situations were identified where no guidelines are available. Conclusions: This study is the largest global survey performed to date on the clinical management of varicocele for male infertility. It demonstrates: 1) a wide disagreement in the approach to varicocele management, 2) large gaps in the clinical practice guidelines from professional societies, and 3) the need for further studies on several aspects of varicocele management in infertile men