An Introduction to Graphene Materials

Graphene, an allotrope of carbon, is the thinnest compound known to human which is a single layer (monolayer) of carbon atoms, tightly bound in a hexagonal honeycomb lattice. Nanosize graphene is known to possess large surface area and shows promising properties in terms of mechanical, electrical, chemical, and magnetism. Graphene and its derivatives are an exciting replacement for the existing nanomaterials, and so, graphene is discovered to be useful in the application of energy conversion and storage, sensing, electronics, photonics, and biomedicine. In this introductory chapter, the potential implementation of graphene and its nanocomposites, along with the characterization techniques employed for graphene, is briefly discussed. We hope this review can inspire more innovative insights into this emerging topic in energy materials

(Work in Progress) An Insight into the Authentication Performance and Security Perception of Older Users

Older users (aged 55 and over) are generally thought to have limited knowledge in online security; additionally, their declining cognitive and perceptive abilities can further expose them to digital attacks. Despite these risks and the growing older population, little has been studied about older users’ security performance, perception, and behavior. We begin to address this gap with this preliminary study. First, we studied older users’ ability to memorize passwords through a multisession user study with seven participants at a local retirement community. For this study, we leveraged a recently-proposed graphical authentication scheme that offers multiple cues (visual, verbal, spatial) to memorize system-assigned random passwords. To tailor this password scheme to an older population, we build on prior work in cognitive psychology that has been done to understand older users’ needs. Second, we conducted a survey to further learn about their security perceptions and practices. Based on what we have learned and the challenges that we have faced during our study, we offer guidelines for other researchers interested in designing new systems and conducting usability study with older population, and we also outline the future work for our ongoing research

PHYSICAL THERAPISTS AND NURSES’ KNOWLEDGE OF GLASGOW COMA SCALE WORKING IN HOSPITAL AND CLINICAL SETTINGS

Introduction: The Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) is a reproducible tool used to measure the depth and duration of the consciousness level of comatose patients, especially in emergency departments by healthcare professionals for neurological assessment. It is important for members of rehabilitation teams, specifically physical therapists (PTs) and nurses, to have knowledge of the GCS and the necessary skills to apply the scale and interpret the results. The present study is aimed to investigate and compare physiotherapist and nurses’ knowledge in using the GCS in hospital and clinical settings. Material & Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted in which a convenience sample of 1,300 participants was chosen, considering nurses from government and private hospitals and PTs from hospitals and clinics in Faisalabad. SPSS Version 20 was used to enter and analyse the data. Pearson chi-square was used to find out association and Independent Samples t-test was used to compare the knowledge of PT and Nurses. Results: The findings of study revealed that majority of the PTs (84.1%) had good knowledge of the GCS, yet only 2.9% of nurses had good knowledge. Most participants with good basic knowledge of the GCS lacked knowledge in the application and interpretation of GCS. Age, gender, educational level, and type of health facility were strongly associated with level of knowledge with significant p value<.001. The mean knowledge of nurses and physiotherapists was 59.84±14.65 and 89.81±8.45 respectively. Conclusion: The physical therapists' knowledge of the GCS was good compared to the knowledge of the nurse

Convalescent plasma in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 (RECOVERY): a randomised controlled, open-label, platform trial

SummaryBackground Azithromycin has been proposed as a treatment for COVID-19 on the basis of its immunomodulatoryactions. We aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of azithromycin in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19.Methods In this randomised, controlled, open-label, adaptive platform trial (Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19Therapy [RECOVERY]), several possible treatments were compared with usual care in patients admitted to hospitalwith COVID-19 in the UK. The trial is underway at 176 hospitals in the UK. Eligible and consenting patients wererandomly allocated to either usual standard of care alone or usual standard of care plus azithromycin 500 mg once perday by mouth or intravenously for 10 days or until discharge (or allocation to one of the other RECOVERY treatmentgroups). Patients were assigned via web-based simple (unstratified) randomisation with allocation concealment andwere twice as likely to be randomly assigned to usual care than to any of the active treatment groups. Participants andlocal study staff were not masked to the allocated treatment, but all others involved in the trial were masked to theoutcome data during the trial. The primary outcome was 28-day all-cause mortality, assessed in the intention-to-treatpopulation. The trial is registered with ISRCTN, 50189673, and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04381936.Findings Between April 7 and Nov 27, 2020, of 16 442 patients enrolled in the RECOVERY trial, 9433 (57%) wereeligible and 7763 were included in the assessment of azithromycin. The mean age of these study participants was65·3 years (SD 15·7) and approximately a third were women (2944 [38%] of 7763). 2582 patients were randomlyallocated to receive azithromycin and 5181 patients were randomly allocated to usual care alone. Overall,561 (22%) patients allocated to azithromycin and 1162 (22%) patients allocated to usual care died within 28 days(rate ratio 0·97, 95% CI 0·87–1·07; p=0·50). No significant difference was seen in duration of hospital stay (median10 days [IQR 5 to >28] vs 11 days [5 to >28]) or the proportion of patients discharged from hospital alive within 28 days(rate ratio 1·04, 95% CI 0·98–1·10; p=0·19). Among those not on invasive mechanical ventilation at baseline, nosignificant difference was seen in the proportion meeting the composite endpoint of invasive mechanical ventilationor death (risk ratio 0·95, 95% CI 0·87–1·03; p=0·24).Interpretation In patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19, azithromycin did not improve survival or otherprespecified clinical outcomes. Azithromycin use in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 should be restrictedto patients in whom there is a clear antimicrobial indication