Hallux valgus surgery affects kinematic parameters during gait

Background The aim of our study was to compare spatiotemporal parameters and lower limb and pelvis kinematics during the walking in patients with hallux valgus before and after surgery and in relation to a control group. Methods Seventeen females with hallux valgus, who underwent first metatarsal osteotomy, constituted our experimental group. The control group consisted of thirteen females. Kinematic data during walking were obtained using the Vicon MX system. Findings Our results showed that hallux valgus before surgery affects spatiotemporal parameters and lower limb and pelvis kinematics during walking. Hallux valgus surgery further increased the differences that were present before surgery. Specifically after hallux valgus surgery, the walking speed decreased even more (p = 0.09, η2 = 0.19) while step time increased (p = 0.002, η2 = 0.44) on both legs. The maximum ankle plantar flexion of the operated leg during toe-off decreased to a greater extend (p = 0.03, η2 = 0.26). The asymmetry in the hip and the pelvis movements in the frontal plane (present preoperatively) persisted after surgery. Interpretation Hallux valgus is not an isolated problem of the first ray, which could be just surgically addressed by correcting the foot\u27s alignment. It is a long-term progressive malfunction of the foot affecting the entire kinematic chain of the lower extremity

Side Effects of mRNA-Based and Viral Vector-Based COVID-19 Vaccines among German Healthcare Workers

Background the increasing number of COVID-19 vaccines available to the public may trigger hesitancy or selectivity towards vaccination. This study aimed to evaluate the post-vaccination side effects of the different vaccines approved in Germany; Methods: a cross-sectional survey-based study was carried out using an online questionnaire validated and tested for a priori reliability. The questionnaire inquired about demographic data, medical and COVID-19-related anamneses, and local, systemic, oral, and skin-related side effects following COVID-19 vaccination; Results: out of the 599 participating healthcare workers, 72.3% were females, and 79.1% received mRNA-based vaccines, while 20.9% received a viral vector-based vaccine. 88.1% of the participants reported at least one side effect. Injection site pain (75.6%) was the most common local side effect, and headache/fatigue (53.6%), muscle pain (33.2%), malaise (25%), chills (23%), and joint pain (21.2%) were the most common systemic side effects. The vast majority (84.9%) of side effects resolved within 1-3 days post-vaccination; Conclusions: the mRNA-based vaccines were associated with a higher prevalence of local side effects (78.3% vs. 70.4%; Sig. = 0.064), while the viral vector-based vaccine was associated with a higher prevalence of systemic side effects (87.2% vs. 61%; Sig. < 0.001). Females and the younger age group were associated with an increased risk of side effects either after mRNA-based or viral vector-based vaccines. The gender- and age-based differences warrant further rigorous investigation and standardized methodology

Enhancing the clinical supervision experience of staff members working within primary and community care: a best practice implementation project

Objectives: The project aimed to assess compliance with evidence-based criteria regarding the use of clinical supervision amongst district nurses and to improve knowledge and engagement in clinical supervision activities within the workplace. Introduction: It is important to provide clinical support to all healthcare workers that provide opportunities to develop and be listened to in a supervised environment. Clinical supervision is seen as a key element to provide this support. It provides a professional working relationship between two or more members of staff where the reflection of practice and personal emotion can be discussed, which is outlined in many policies and guidelines. Methods: A baseline audit was carried out using the JBI Practical Application of Clinical Evidence System program involving 16 participants in one district nursing team in South Wales. The first step involved the development of the project and generating the evidence. Following this, a baseline audit was conducted, and educational training on clinical supervision was undertaken followed by clinical supervision sessions. A postimplementation re-audit was conducted following implementation. Results: A total of 16 participants enrolled on the project. Receiving basic training and participating in clinical supervision was much higher than the baseline audit with both increasing to 100% compliance. Furthermore, 94% of participants were aware of clinical supervision activities and 88% knew of existing records on clinical supervision. The project results show a large increase in compliance with all of the criteria. Conclusion: Overall the implementation project achieved an improvement in evidence-based practice regarding clinical supervision in primary care

Assessing the risk of bias of quantitative analytical studies: introducing the vision for critical appraisal within JBI systematic reviews

A key step in the systematic review process is the assessment of the methodological quality (or risk of bias) of the included studies. At JBI, we have developed several tools to assist with this evaluation. As evidence synthesis methods continue to evolve, it has been necessary to revise and reflect on JBI’s current approach to critical appraisal and to plan a strategy for the future. In this first paper of a series focusing on risk of bias assessment, we introduce our vision for risk of bias assessment for JBI. In future papers in this series, the methodological approach taken for this revision process will be discussed, along with the revised tools and guidance for using these tools

Global Prevalence and Drivers of Dental Students’ COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy

Background: Acceleration of mass vaccination strategies is the only pathway to overcome the COVID-19 pandemic. Healthcare professionals and students have a key role in shaping public opinion about vaccines. This study aimed to evaluate the attitudes of dental students globally to-wards COVID-19 vaccines and explore the potential drivers for students’ acceptance levels. Meth-ods: A global cross-sectional study was carried out in February 2021 using an online questionnaire. The study was liaised by the scientific committee of the International Association of Dental Students (IADS), and data were collected through the national and local coordinators of IADS member or-ganizations. The dependent variable was the willingness to take the COVID-19 vaccine, and the independent variables included demographic characteristics, COVID-19-related experience, and the drivers of COVID-19 vaccine-related attitude suggested by the WHO SAGE. Results: A total of 6639 students from 22 countries, representing all world regions, responded to the questionnaire properly. Their mean age was 22.1 ± 2.8 (17–40) years, and the majority were females (70.5%), in clinical years (66.8%), and from upper-middle-income economies (45.7%). In general, 22.5% of den-tal students worldwide were hesitant, and 13.9% rejected COVID-19 vaccines. The students in low- and lower-middle-income (LLMI) economies had significantly higher levels of vaccine hesitancy compared to their peers in upper-middle- and high-income (UMHI) economies (30.4% vs. 19.8%; p< 0.01). Conclusions: The global acceptance level of dental students for COVID-19 vaccines was suboptimal, and their worrisome level of vaccine hesitancy was influenced by the socioeconomic context where the dental students live and study. The media and social media, public figures, in-sufficient knowledge about vaccines, and mistrust of governments and the pharmaceutical industry were barriers to vaccination. The findings of this study call for further implementation of epidemi-ology (infectious diseases) education within undergraduate dental curricula

Predatory journals and their practices present a conundrum for systematic reviewers and evidence synthesisers of health research: A qualitative descriptive study

Predatory journals are a blemish on scholarly publishing and academia and the studies published within them are more likely to contain data that is false. The inclusion of studies from predatory journals in evidence syntheses is potentially problematic due to this propensity for false data to be included. To date, there has been little exploration of the opinions and experiences of evidence synthesisers when dealing with predatory journals in the conduct of their evidence synthesis. In this paper, the thoughts, opinions, and attitudes of evidence synthesisers towards predatory journals and the inclusion of studies published within these journals in evidence syntheses were sought. Focus groups were held with participants who were experienced evidence synthesisers from JBI (previously the Joanna Briggs Institute) collaboration. Utilising qualitative content analysis, two generic categories were identified: predatory journals within evidence synthesis, and predatory journals within academia. Our findings suggest that evidence synthesisers believe predatory journals are hard to identify and that there is no current consensus on the management of these studies if they have been included in an evidence synthesis. There is a critical need for further research, education, guidance, and development of clear processes to assist evidence synthesisers in the management of studies from predatory journals.</p

What are the effects of teaching Evidence-Based Health Care (EBHC) at different levels of health professions education? An updated overview of systematic reviews

BackgroundEvidence-based healthcare (EBHC) knowledge and skills are recognised as core competencies of healthcare professionals worldwide, and teaching EBHC has been widely recommended as an integral part of their training. The objective of this overview of systematic reviews (SR) was to update evidence and assess the effects of various approaches for teaching evidence-based health care (EBHC) at undergraduate (UG) and postgraduate (PG) medical education (ME) level on changes in knowledge, skills, attitudes and behaviour.Methods and findingsThis is an update of an overview that was published in 2014. The process followed standard procedures specified for the previous version of the overview, with a modified search. Searches were conducted in Epistemonikos for SRs published from 1 January 2013 to 27 October 2020 with no language restrictions. We checked additional sources for ongoing and unpublished SRs. Eligibility criteria included: SRs which evaluated educational interventions for teaching EBHC compared to no intervention or a different strategy were eligible. Two reviewers independently selected SRs, extracted data and evaluated quality using standardised instrument (AMSTAR2). The effects of strategies to teach EBHC were synthesized using a narrative approach. Previously published version of this overview included 16 SR, while the updated search identified six additional SRs. We therefore included a total of 22 SRs (with a total of 141 primary studies) in this updated overview. The SRs evaluated different educational interventions of varying duration, frequency, and format to teach various components of EBHC at different levels of ME (UG, PG, mixed). Most SRs assessed a range of EBHC related outcomes using a variety of assessment tools. Two SRs included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) only, while 20 reviews included RCTs and various types of non-RCTs. Diversity of study designs and teaching activities as well as aggregated findings at the SR level prevented comparisons of the effects of different techniques. In general, knowledge was improved across all ME levels for interventions compared to no intervention or pre-test scores. Skills improved in UGs, but less so in PGs and were less consistent in mixed populations. There were positive changes in behaviour among UGs and PGs, but not in mixed populations, with no consistent improvement in attitudes in any of the studied groups. One SR showed improved patient outcomes (based on non-randomised studies). Main limitations included: poor quality and reporting of SRs, heterogeneity of interventions and outcome measures, and short-term follow up.ConclusionsTeaching EBHC consistently improved EBHC knowledge and skills at all levels of ME and behaviour in UGs and PGs, but with no consistent improvement in attitudes towards EBHC, and little evidence of the long term influence on processes of care and patient outcomes. EBHC teaching and learning should be interactive, multifaceted, integrated into clinical practice, and should include assessments.Study registrationThe protocol for the original overview was developed and approved by Stellenbosch University Research Ethics Committee S12/10/262.Update of the overviewYoung T, Rohwer A, Volmink J, Clarke M. What are the effects of teaching evidence-based health care (EBHC)? Overview of systematic reviews. PLoS One. 2014;9(1):e86706. doi: .10.1371/journal.pone.0086706.</p

The role of scoping reviews in guideline development.

Systematic reviews have long been seen as critical in the development of trustworthy guidelines. However, as newer synthesis methodologies such as scoping reviews become more common, there is a need to discuss the potential role of these methodologies within guideline development. This article aims to summarize and provide examples of the role of scoping reviews in guideline development. Drawing on the expertise of the JBI scoping review group and guideline developers, this discussion article summarizes five key roles of scoping reviews in guideline development. Guideline developers can consider using scoping reviews when they need to: 1) know what existing guidelines could be adopted, adapted or adoloped; 2) understand the breadth of evidence that exists on a particular issue and help with the development and prioritization of questions, or identify previous systematic reviews; 3) identify contextual factors and information relevant for a clinical practice recommendation; 4) identify potential strategies for implementation and monitoring and; 5) conduct evidence surveillance and living mapping approaches. Scoping reviews conducted and reported according to best-practice guidelines and standards can be used in conjunction with systematic reviews to support the work of guideline developers usefully

COVID-19 Vaccines Safety Tracking (CoVaST): Protocol of a Multi-Center Prospective Cohort Study for Active Surveillance of COVID-19 Vaccines' Side Effects.

Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) vaccine-related side effects have a determinant role in the public decision regarding vaccination. Therefore, this study has been designed to actively monitor the safety and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines globally. A multi-country, three-phase study including a cross-sectional survey to test for the short-term side effects of COVID-19 vaccines among target population groups. In the second phase, we will monitor the booster doses' side effects, while in the third phase, the long-term safety and effectiveness will be investigated. A validated, self-administered questionnaire will be used to collect data from the target population; Results: The study protocol has been registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, with the identifier NCT04834869. CoVaST is the first independent study aiming to monitor the side effects of COVID-19 vaccines following booster doses, and the long-term safety and effectiveness of said vaccines.This study protocol preparation was funded by Masaryk University, grant numbers MUNI/IGA/1543/2020 and MUNI/A/1608/2020.S