Systematic Reviews

Importance Non-inferiority trials are becoming increasingly popular in abdominal surgery. The non- inferiority margin is critical in the interpretation and conclusion of these trials. Objective This systematic review aims to assess the methodological and reporting quality of non- inferiority randomized controlled trials in abdominal surgery. Evidence Review Non-inferiority trials were systematically identified by searching Ovid Medline, Embase and the CENTRAL databases from 2006 until December 2025. Randomized controlled trials in adult patients with any type of abdominal surgical intervention in at least one trial arm and a sample size greater than or equal to 100 were eligible for inclusion. The primary outcome was the definition of the non- inferiority margin. Secondary outcomes were the reporting of the non-inferiority margin, the robustness of its estimation, the uncertainty of the point estimate and the adequacy of conclusions. Findings A total of 11 045 trials were identified, of which 101 were eligible, enrolling 44 370 patients. Most trials provided a rationale for the non-inferiority design, while six (5.9%) trials did not. Previous literature was commonly used (n=56; 55.4%), but the non-inferiority margin was most often based on a clinical fixed margin or on historical comparison of the treatment and the active comparator. Based on the margin, investigators tolerated substantially worse outcomes of the treatment compared to the comparator. Conclusions were appropriate based on the confidence interval and the predefined non- inferiority margin in 88 (87.1%) of trials. The clinical judgement of the conclusion was overall adequate. Confidence interval estimations were reported in 16 (15.8%) of trials. Simulation studies were limited by the reporting quality. Conclusions and Relevance Clinical fixed margins are commonly used in abdominal surgery non-inferiority randomized controlled trials, however, substantial shortcomings in reporting limit the interpretability and reproduction of study findings. Based on the findings of this study, guidance on surgical- specific non-inferiority margin definitions is needed.

Background: Systematic reviews of clinical prediction models increasingly include studies using artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) methods alongside traditional multivariable regression approaches. A previously published Excel tool enabled standardised data extraction using the CHARMS checklist and risk of bias assessment using PROBAST. The recent publication of the PROBAST+AI framework, which distinguishes the assessment of model development quality from the assessment of model evaluation risk of bias and assesses applicability in both parts, necessitates an updated digital instrument applicable across prediction modelling methods. Methods: We updated an open-access Excel tool to incorporate the full PROBAST+AI framework. The updated template incorporates structural separation between assessment of model development quality and model evaluation risk of bias, with applicability assessed in both parts. It also incorporates updated signalling questions, including those addressing methodological issues particularly relevant to AI/ML, and automates the generation of summary tables and graphical displays. Results: The updated tool (CHARMS & PROBAST+AI Template) contains 11 worksheets and supports data extraction and appraisal for up to 30 prediction models. Dedicated, linked worksheets enable separate assessment of model development and model evaluation, with Domain 4 distinguishing among Apparent, Internal, and External evaluation settings. Key updates include dedicated assessments for predictor pre-processing, class imbalance handling and recalibration, data leakage prevention, and replication of the full model development pipeline within resampling procedures. Automated sheets dynamically format tables and summary charts covering PROBAST+AI parts. Conclusions: The CHARMS & PROBAST+AI Excel template provides a standardised, user-friendly, and rigorous digital framework for systematic reviewers appraising traditional statistical and AI-driven clinical prediction models.

Background: Adverse drug withdrawal events (ADWEs) are a key safety concern during deprescribing but remain poorly explored in pharmacovigilance systems. Objectives: To identify and compare ADWE signals across drug classes, different drugs within drug classes, and across patient characteristics, countries, and over time. Methods: A case/non-case disproportionality analysis was conducted in FDA-FAERS and EMA-EudraVigilance pharmacovigilance databases, with stratification by age (adults: 18-64, older adults: [≥]65), sex (male/female), reporting time (2004-2023 in 5-year intervals), and country (for EMA data). Disproportionality analysis (quantitative signal detection) was used to detect signals between ADWEs and drugs using the proportional reporting rate (PRR[≥]2), reporting odds ratio (ROR>1), and information component (IC>0) with case count [≥]5. Results: Overall, 158,501 reports (FDA-FAERS 145,514; EMA-EudraVigilance 12,987) included drug-event pairs related to ADWEs. In FDA-FAERS, clobetasone (IC=5.58; PRR=79.18; ROR=176.90) showed the strongest ADWE signals, followed by hydromorphone (4.85; 29.94; 37.37), hydrocodone, and paroxetine. In EMA-EudraVigilance, ethyl loflazepate (IC=6.01; PRR=119.80; ROR=197.53), clobetasone (5.39; 102.73; 155.10), veralipride, and levomethadone had the strongest signals. Most drugs maintained positive ADWE signals in analysis stratified into adults and older adults. However, among the top 10 drugs (based on highest IC values), buprenorphine/naloxone, desvenlafaxine, and baclofen in FDA-FAERS (ICs 4.95-6.05) showed stronger signals in older adults. A sex-based difference was observed, with paroxetine, venlafaxine, and buprenorphine/naloxone showing a stronger positive signal in females in both databases, whereas several opioids had stronger signals in males versus females across both databases. Conclusion: This study suggests ADWE signals for some medications differ by age and sex, potentially indicating different risks for withdrawal effects.

Objective. To determine the publication rate of abstracts presented at the American Diabetes Association Scientific Sessions and to evaluate the association between statistical significance of study results and subsequent publication. Research Design and Methods. We conducted a retrospective cohort study of abstracts presented at the 2018 American Diabetes Association Scientific Sessions. The primary exposure was study result category (statistically significant vs. non-statistically significant findings), and the primary outcome was publication in an indexed journal within 5 years after conference presentation. Publication status was determined through PubMed/MEDLINE and Scopus searches. Adjusted relative risks (RRs) and 95% CIs were estimated using generalized linear models with Poisson distribution and robust variance. Results. Among 541 included abstracts, 321 (59.3%) were subsequently published in indexed journals. Abstracts reporting statistically significant findings had a higher publication rate than those reporting non-statistically significant findings (61.9% vs. 42.3%; p=0.002). In the adjusted analysis, abstracts with non-statistically significant findings had a lower likelihood of publication compared with those reporting statistically significant findings (adjusted RR 0.71 [95% CI 0.55-0.93]; p=0.013). Conclusions. Approximately four in ten abstracts presented at the ADA Scientific Sessions were not published within 5 years. Abstracts reporting non-statistically significant findings had a lower likelihood of subsequent publication, suggesting persistent publication bias in diabetology research. Future initiatives promoting the interpretation of effect estimates, confidence intervals and clinical relevance, rather than statistical significance alone, may help reduce selective dissemination of evidence

Background: The relative merits of infrainguinal bypass and primary major lower limb amputation (MLLA) for chronic limb-threatening ischaemia (CLTI) remain uncertain, and the baseline profiles of patients selected for each strategy are poorly described. Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis were undertaken in accordance with PRISMA 2020 and prospectively registered (PROSPERO: CRD42022356094). MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, and CINAHL were searched from inception to March 2025. Prospective studies of adults with CLTI undergoing primary infrainguinal bypass or primary MLLA were eligible. Mortality, major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and subsequent amputation outcomes were synthesised using random-effects meta-analysis of proportions. Baseline comorbidity profiles were also extracted. Results: Twenty-seven studies involving 6,576 patients were included: 5,779 underwent infrainguinal bypass and 797 underwent MLLA. After bypass, pooled mortality was 3.7% at 30 days (95% CI 2.8%-4.9%, I2 = 49.4%), 18.5% at 1 year (95% CI 15.6%-21.9%, I2 = 62.3%), and 54.3% at 5 years (95% CI 50.5%-58.0%, I2 = 0%). After MLLA, pooled mortality was 9.2% at 30 days (95% CI 4.1%-19.3%, I2 = 73.5%), 28.5% at 1 year (95% CI 13.3%-51.0, I2 = 70.8%), and 39.9% at 2 years (95% CI 0.3%-99.3, I2 = 90.5%), although longer-term estimates were limited by sparse data and marked heterogeneity. Thirty-day MACE was 6.5% (95% CI 4.3%-9.7, I2 = 63.5%) after bypass and 2.8% after MLLA (95% CI 0.1%-37.6%, I2 = 0%). Early subsequent major amputation after bypass occurred in 3.9% of patients (95% CI 2.0%-7.7%, I2 = 91.2%), rising to 16.2% at 1 year (95% CI 12.6%-20.5%, I2 = 82.0%) and 33.3% at 3 years (95% CI 20.1%-49.8%, I2 = 0%). Early re-amputation after MLLA occurred in 10.9% of patients (95% CI 4.5%-24.4%, I2 = 40.3%). Baseline comorbidity burden was high in both groups, with substantial heterogeneity across studies. Conclusions: CLTI carries a poor prognosis regardless of treatment strategy. Infrainguinal bypass is associated with lower early mortality and better early limb preservation than primary MLLA, but long-term survival remains poor and later limb failure is common. Primary MLLA is not a low-risk alternative. Better contemporary comparative evidence utilising modern causal inference approaches is needed to support individualised decision-making.

Background Agenda-setting is a fundamental patient-centered communication practice in which a clinician works with a patient to elicit, propose, and organize topics for discussion during a clinical encounter. Various agenda-setting interventions have been developed, including patient-facing tools and clinician training, but their effects have not been systematically evaluated. We aimed to determine the effects of these interventions on encounter, patient, care partner, and clinician outcomes. Methods We searched grey literature and seven databases, including PubMed, from inception through July 2025 for randomized and non-randomized comparative studies of interventions designed to promote or improve clinical visit agenda-setting. Two reviewers independently screened articles and extracted data, with a third reviewer resolving conflicts. We assessed risk of bias using RoB 2 for randomized studies and ROBINS-I for non-randomized studies. We conducted random effects meta-analyses when outcomes were sufficiently comparable, assessed heterogeneity using I2, and rated certainty of evidence using GRADE. Post hoc exploratory subgroup analyses examined study design, adjustment status, and intervention structure. Results Twenty-nine articles describing 22 unique studies met the inclusion criteria, including 13 randomized and nine non-randomized studies. Agenda-setting interventions increased the occurrence of agenda-setting (risk ratio 5.43, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.06 to 14.28, I2=34.6%) and favored the intervention for concerns addressed when measured as a continuous outcome (standardized mean difference (SMD) 0.37, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.57, I2=65.3%) and overall clinician satisfaction (SMD 0.50, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.78, I2=0.0%). There were no clear differences in the number of concerns raised (mean difference (MD) 0.21, 95% CI -0.19 to 0.61, I2=59.6%), visit duration (MD 0.64 minutes, 95% CI -0.83 to 2.12, I2=51.4%), or overall patient satisfaction (SMD 0.05, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.15, I2=47.0%). Potentially important heterogeneity was present for four of these six outcomes. Post hoc exploratory subgroup analyses did not provide clear evidence that effects varied by study design, adjustment status, or intervention structure. Risk of bias was often high, serious, or critical, and certainty of evidence was low or very low for all pooled outcomes. Conclusions To our knowledge, this is the first comprehensive synthesis of clinical visit agenda-setting interventions. Such interventions may increase the occurrence of agenda-setting and the extent to which patient concerns are addressed without increasing visit length. However, the certainty of evidence was low or very low, and the available evidence does not establish a superior intervention structure.

Background: Health and administrative professionals in tertiary hospitals face high levels of occupational stress, mental illness, and multimorbidity. The integrated measurement of these multidimensional health aspects is essential for informing effective workplace health promotion strategies. Objective: To describe the general health status of federal public hospital staff and correlate the measured health dimensions to inform institutional health promotion initiatives. Methods: A cross-sectional, online survey study was conducted at Hospital Universitario dos Servidores do Estado (HUSE) between November and December 2025. Data collection was performed via online REDCap questionnaires covering sociodemographic profiles and validated instruments (SRQ-20, MIDAS, AUDIT, WHOQOL-BREF, PHI, WHOQOL-SRPB BREF, CBI, GPAQ, and EPSO). Descriptive statistics, comparisons across employment ties (permanent vs. contracted staff), and Spearman correlation matrices were calculated. Results: Among 197 accesses, 117 completed the informed consent, and 86 finished all questionnaires. Participants were predominantly female, aged 40 to 60 years, and Christian. Screening positivity was 25% for common mental disorders, 21% for headache-related disability, and 10% for harmful drinking. Burnout scores clustered in the second quartile, while quality of life, happiness, and spirituality scores were in the upper third. Median physical activity was 670 min/week. Mental symptoms (SRQ-20), headache (MIDAS), and burnout (CBI) correlated positively with each other and negatively with quality of life, happiness, spirituality, and institutional support (EPSO). Conclusion: The set of instruments proved feasible for situational health diagnosis among hospital staff. Although the sample size was limited in this baseline wave, the initiative fostered workplace health awareness, driving concrete initiatives, including an on-site functional gym and workplace vaccination campaigns.

South Asian communities in the UK experience disproportionate maternal and child health inequalities linked to non-recommended infant feeding practices, limited health literacy, and socioeconomic constraints. Participatory learning and action (PLA) is effective in low- and middle-income countries, but high-income evidence is scarce. This pilot assessed the feasibility of a community facilitator-led PLA intervention to improve infant feeding among South Asian families in East London. A three-arm pilot feasibility cluster randomised controlled trial (ISRCTN10234623) was conducted in Tower Hamlets and Newham, East London (May-September 2022), with 12 wards randomised 1:1:1 to face-to-face PLA, online PLA, or usual care. Multilingual community facilitators delivered eight biweekly sessions over 14 weeks. Feasibility outcomes were assessed against prespecified Go/Stop criteria; exploratory outcomes included child feeding behaviours (Children's Eating Behaviour Questionnaire, CEBQ), parental feeding style (Parental Feeding Style Questionnaire, PFSQ), and child BMI Z-scores. Of 263 enrolled participants, 261 had a recorded trial arm allocation; consent to the pilot feasibility study was 70.7% (186/263; 95% CI 65.0-75.9%) meeting the [≥]50% Go criterion. Attendance was 37% (Tower Hamlets 59%, Newham 29%), below the [≥]80% Go threshold. Six-month retention was 54.8% (Tower Hamlets 78%, Newham 48.5%; 95% CI 41.8-55.3%), triggering the Definite Stop criterion. Significant baseline imbalances included BMI Z-score (p = 0.005), ethnicity, borough, and education; no between-arm BMI differences were observed at follow-up (p = 0.249). CEBQ and PFSQ baseline completion was 24.5% and 23.0%, with no usable follow-up data. PLA Phases 3 and 4 were not completed by any group; all participants providing feedback reported it acceptable. Recruitment was feasible and the intervention acceptable, but a Definite Stop criterion was triggered in Newham, no group completed the full PLA cycle, and outcome data were insufficient for evaluation. A definitive trial requires stratified randomisation, digitised multilingual data collection, participant reimbursement, and explicit PLA phase-completion criteria.

Background: Shiftwork disrupts natural sleep-wake cycles, alters light exposure patterns, and contributes to circadian misalignment. Detrimental health consequences associated with shift work include elevated risk for metabolic disorders, cardiovascular disease, cancer and all-cause mortality. Healthcare workers have one of the highest rates of shift work exposure, yet there are relatively few non-pharmacological interventions (with good evidence) developed to improve sleep outcomes in this population. Objective: A pre-post pilot interventional study assessed the acceptability and perceived effectiveness of commercial noise-masking earbuds on improving subjective sleep characteristics among National Health Service (NHS) healthcare staff working fast rotating shifts. Methods: Noise-masking sleep earbuds (Kokoon NightBuds) were worn for a pilot six-week intervention by twenty-seven NHS nurses (aged 26-43 years, 88.9% female) working fast rotating shifts from the EClocker Study. Sensors inside the earbuds were paired with a smartphone app to monitor sleep. An audio library in the smartphone app delivered personalised relaxation exercises and sleep techniques drawn from cognitive behavioural therapy for insomnia (CBT-I). A pre-post two-week monitoring period with daily smartphone-based Experience Sampling Methods (ESM) captured perceived daily sleep patterns. Acceptability and perceived effectiveness of the earbuds in promoting better sleep outcomes was assessed. Results: Use of the noise-masking sleep earbuds over a six-week period was associated with positive sleep improvement trends and elicited promising acceptability. Almost two thirds of NHS fast rotating shift nurses (63%) subjectively reported reductions in general sleep disturbance symptoms (PSQI Global), one in four experienced perceived sleep quality improvements (SQ; 25.9%), one in five reported sleeping longer (TST; 22.2%), and a third perceived falling asleep faster (SOL; 33.3%), had better sleep efficiency (SE; 33.3%) and improved daytime dysfunction (33.3%) (PSQI subcomponent scores). Sleep diaries (CSD) collected daily using smartphone-based ESM also demonstrated small improvements post-sleep earbud use; nurses reported sleeping an average 18 minutes longer (TST) and fell asleep more easily, on average 11 minutes faster (SOL). Sleep earbuds were generally well tolerated; 56% of nurses reported the earbuds as (somewhat to very) helpful, 52% reported (somewhat to strongly) falling asleep more easily (SOL), 44% felt (somewhat to strongly) their sleep quality was improved (SQ) and 30% agreed (somewhat to strongly) they slept longer (TST) and had less disturbed sleep. Conclusions: To our knowledge, this is the first study in Europe to pilot noise-masking earbuds as a potential non-pharmacological aid to improve sleep-wake behaviours or mitigate fatigue for healthcare staff. Preliminary results showed promising acceptability and (small) perceived sleep improvement trends following a targeted six-week earbud intervention in NHS fast rotating shift nurses.

Objective As antimicrobial resistance (AMR) continues to threaten global public health, bacteriophage therapy products (BTPs) offer a promising alternative to conventional antimicrobials. However, translation into routine clinical practice requires best practice standards for manufacturing and quality control to ensure the consistent safety, quality, and reliability of personalised BTPs produced for individual patients or small cohorts. Design A modified Delphi methodology was used to develop consensus statements, engaging experts from Australia's National Bacteriophage Therapy Regulatory Working Group across the fields of clinical microbiology, phage biology, good manufacturing practice (GMP), regulatory science, and government. The process comprised three iterative phases: (1) structured statement development, (2) an anonymous REDCap survey, and (3) a hybrid consensus meeting. The strength of evidence and recommendations was assessed using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) framework. Results Consensus was reached on 35 statements to provide best practice manufacture and quality control guidance for BTPs. These statements address requirements for phage identification and characterisation; define the point at which GMP-aligned processes commence for ubiquitous phages; outline quality control expectations for phage active pharmaceutical ingredient (pAPI) production and maintenance of BTP and host cell repositories. Additional guidance covers quality management systems, including documentation, traceability, and governance. Conclusion These consensus statements provide comprehensive best practice recommendations for the manufacture and quality control of BTPs in Australia. By promoting consistent, safe, and quality-assured approaches to personalised BTPs, they aim to facilitate clinical implementation while remaining aligned with existing international pharmacopoeial standards and regulatory frameworks.

This study aimed to quantify the longitudinal tracking and cross-sectional construct validity of a single-item questionnaire measuring recreational physical activity frequency (RPAF) in the Womens Healthy Ageing Project. At baseline, 474 participants aged 45-55 reported RPAF from 1993 to 2014. Longitudinal tracking of the RPAF item was assessed as a consecutive-wave and baseline-referenced measure using linear weighted kappa (LWK), Spearman correlations, exact agreement and within-one-category agreement. Construct validity in the form of convergent and known-group validity was assessed using the International Physical Activity Questionnaire (IPAQ) leisure activity domains, Short Form 36 physical function (SF-36-PF) subscale, Timed Up and Go (TUG), hand grip strength (HGS) and waist-to-height ratio (WHtR). 474 participants provided baseline RPAF data. Pairwise longitudinal samples ranged from 176 to 459 across the study. Consecutive-wave LWK ranged from 0.38 to 0.49, and Spearman correlations ranged from 0.44 to 0.57. Exact and within-category agreement ranged from 41.4%-50.8% and 72.0%-79.0%. Baseline-referenced LWK ranged from 0.22 to 0.47, with Spearman correlations of 0.29 to 0.56. RPAF correlated with total IPAQ leisure score (rs = 0.60), IPAQ walking score (rs = 0.58), SF-36-PF (rs = 0.33) and TUG score (rs = -0.25). No significant correlation was identified between RPAF, HGS or WhTR. RPAF discriminated known groups for WHO guideline-sufficient activity, SF-36-PF, and TUG fall risk. The RPAF item demonstrated fair-to-moderate agreement in consecutive waves, with weaker baseline-referenced tracking. Cross-sectional validity was highest with total IPAQ leisure activity. The item may provide a pragmatic measure for RPAF in womens cohort studies.

Background Sleep, mood, and affective states are mutually connected. There is a paucity of studies, however, that have considered bidirectional relationships between daily sleep-affective dyads in naturalistic settings, particularly for shift workers. Objective To evaluate the dynamic and temporal interplay of daily smartphone-based self-reported sleep measurements, dimensions of affective experience and cognitive processing in UK shift working nurses. Methods The EClocker Study prospectively monitored 102 National Health Service (NHS) nurses (aged 25-61 years, 83.3% female) working standard (day shift) and non-standard (fast rotating shifts) schedules over a two-week period. Smartphone-based Experience Sampling Methodology (ESM) recorded daily sleep, mood, momentary affect and cognitive attentional functioning. Self-reported burnout, emotional dysregulation, emotion reactivity and affective dimensions (positive and negative) were also collected. Findings Overall, NHS nurses reported a high prevalence of depressive symptoms, stress, burnout and sleep-circadian rhythm disturbances. Generalised Additive Modelling (GAMs) revealed that NHS nurses higher perceived sleep quality predicted better next-day mood state, while better daytime mood was associated with reduced sleep onset latency, such that participants reported falling asleep faster. In contrast, daytime mood or affect (positive and negative) had no substantial, direct impact on nurses subjective sleep parameters (sleep quality, sleep duration, sleep efficiency). Exposure to fast rotating night shifts across the two-week study was associated with more frequent response errors on a Choice Reaction Time (CRT) cognitive task, while daytime somnolence did not adversely influence nurses momentary reaction time speeds or attentional function. Conclusions Clinically relevant sleep impairments, insomnia-related symptoms, elevated stress, and poor mood were pervasive in a sample of UK NHS nurses, regardless of shift type. Sleep quality impacted next-day mood and daytime mood impacted sleep latency, while rotating shifts led to an increase in cognitive errors. Recognising the impact of shiftwork and designing interventions to promote better sleep quality offer potential to enhance mood and performance in healthcare professionals. Clinical implications We need to implement and evaluate interventions that regularise sleep patterns and promote sleep quality to alleviate mood symptoms among frontline NHS shift workers.

Background: Sleeve gastrectomy is the most frequently performed bariatric procedure worldwide but is associated with the development of de novo gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). Hiatal hernia has been identified as a relevant anatomical factor in postoperative reflux, although most studies evaluate it dichotomously without analyzing whether its size influences GERD risk. The aim was to evaluate the association between preoperative hiatal hernia size and de novo GERD after sleeve gastrectomy. Methods: Retrospective, single - center, observational study of patients undergoing sleeve gastrectomy at Hospital Central Norte de Petroleos Mexicanos (2018 - 2025). Demographic and clinical characteristics, endoscopic classification of hiatal hernia size (small <2 cm, medium 2.1 - 4 cm, large >4 cm), and evidence of de novo GERD were analyzed using descriptive statistics, Fisher's exact test, odds ratio (=R) estimation with 95% confidence intervals (CI), and binary logistic regression. Statistical significance was set at p<0.05. Results: Fiftysix patients were included (mean age 48.3 {+/-} 8.1 years; 67.9% male). Hiatal hernia classification was conclusive in 46 patients (82.1%): 63.0% no hernia, 4.3% small, 30.4% medium, and 2.2% large. De novo GERD occurred in 14.0% of patients without preexisting GERD (6/43). No significant association was found between hiatal hernia size and de novo GERD (Fisher p=0.515). In the reduced logistic model, neither hiatal hernia (medium/large vs. absent/small; OR 3.47; 95% CI 0.50 - 29.43; p=0.207) nor age (OR 1.02; 95% CI 0.90 - 1.13; p=0.754) was significantly associated. No evaluated factor (sex, smoking, alcohol, age) reached significance. Conclusions: In this cohort, no statistically significant association was demonstrated between preoperative hiatal hernia size and de novo GERD after sleeve gastrectomy; however, the low number of events limits the ability to exclude a clinically relevant association. These findings are compatible with a multifactorial mechanism rather than with the isolated presence of this finding. Prospective studies with larger sample sizes and standardized reflux assessment instruments are required to confirm these results.

Objectives: Dentists prescribe approximately one in ten antibiotics worldwide, yet antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) remains underemphasized in dental education. Large language models (LLMs) may support AMS training, but their proficiency and clinical reasoning in this context remain unclear. We evaluated GPT-4o's accuracy and clinical reasoning on dental antibiotic prescribing questions, stratified by question difficulty. Methods: We assembled 125 multiple-choice questions on dental antibiotic prescribing from eight peer-reviewed studies (2017-2023). GPT-4o answered each question and generated a clinical justification. Accuracy was assessed against source-study answer keys and examined across difficulty quartiles. Justifications were evaluated using an adapted 12-axis human-evaluation framework assessing scientific consensus, extent and likelihood of harm, inappropriate and missing content, bias, and both correct and incorrect comprehension, retrieval, and reasoning. Prophylaxis-specific questions were analysed separately. Results: GPT-4o correctly answered 72% of questions. Accuracy remained relatively stable across difficulty quartiles (78%, 78%, 65%, 70%). Experts rated 95.4% of justifications positively across the 12 axes. Comprehension, retrieval, and reasoning each exceeded 96.2% positive ratings. Missing content was the main weakness (7.8%), and 7.1% of justifications showed a moderate-to-severe potential for harm. Performance on prophylaxis-specific questions (98.1%) exceeded non-prophylaxis questions (93.0%). Conclusions: GPT-4o demonstrated moderate-to-high proficiency and clinically defensible reasoning in dental antibiotic prescribing questions. However, residual risks indicate that it is not suitable for unsupervised clinical use but shows potential as a supervised AMS educational tool.

Introduction: Risk of recurrent opioid use during buprenorphine-naloxone (bup-nx) treatment is dynamic and remains elevated after initiation, with vulnerability shaped in part by treatment intensity and gaps between visits, yet routine outpatient care relies on episodic encounters and retrospective data. This mismatch can delay recognition of emerging instability and limit timely treatment adjustments. This paper reports the development and specification of an intervention strategy to address this mismatch. Methods: We used a structured, multi-phase design process to specify and configure a measurement-based care (MBC) strategy for bup-nx treatment (Bup-MBC) in outpatient addiction clinics through three phases: (1) a systematic review of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) for substance use treatment; (2) a qualitative needs assessment using the Theoretical Domains Framework and COM-B (Capability, Opportunity, Motivation-Behavior) model to identify gaps in risk monitoring, agency, and trust; and (3) iterative co-design with multidisciplinary clinicians to refine workflow fit and trust-preserving use of data. Patients informed item and feedback content during the needs assessment but did not participate in the co-design cycles. Results: Bup-MBC integrates (1) brief between-visit PROMs (e.g., withdrawal, craving, adherence); (2) immediate non-punitive patient feedback; (3) clinician-facing summaries and non-directive prompts in the electronic health record (EHR); and (4) an opt-in between-visit outreach pathway with predefined safety triggers, all configured within existing EHR and patient portal infrastructure. It targets patient and clinician capability to recognize changes in risk, opportunity for action through structured monitoring and visit preparation, and trust and agency through non-punitive communication, without adding substantial burden. The full measure set, severity bands, and question-to-action map are provided as supplementary material. Key trade-offs included prioritizing single-item measures for feasibility, balancing opt-in outreach with safety overrides, and assuming routine clinician use of summaries. Conclusion: This development study specifies an EHR-integrated MBC strategy for outpatient bup-nx treatment. As single-center design work with co-design limited to clinicians and delivery contingent on portal or text-message access, its outputs are hypotheses about mechanism and fit rather than demonstrated effects. Feasibility studies are needed to evaluate uptake, acceptability, workflow fit, and effects on treatment.

Health facilities (HFs) routinely administer medicines and are expected to ensure patient safety by detecting, reporting, investigating, and analysing adverse events following exposure to drugs (AEFED). This study aimed to assess the implementation of pharmacovigilance activities in referral and regional health facilities in Cameroon and to identify pharmacovigilance training needs among healthcare personnel (HP). This was a cross-sectional descriptive study targeting referral and regional health facilities and healthcare personnel involved in patient care and pharmacovigilance activities in Cameroon. Health facilities were selected using stratified purposive sampling, while healthcare personnel were selected through exhaustive sampling. Data were collected using semi-structured electronic questionnaires administered face-to-face by trained enumerators. The questionnaires assessed the organization, resources, and implementation of pharmacovigilance activities at health facilities, as well as healthcare personnel knowledge of pharmacovigilance concepts, previous training, and perceived training needs. Of the 14 eligible health facilities, 10 (71.4%) consented to participate in the study. Of the 10 health facilities, 4 (40.0%) had an established pharmacovigilance unit, while 3 (30.0%) reported conducting neither detection nor notification activities. Among the 261 healthcare personnel approached, 214 (81.9%) participated. Only 41.6% had needed knowledge to detect an adverse event, while 72.9% were aware of adverse event notification procedures. Previous exposure to pharmacovigilance training was reported by 37.9% of healthcare personnel, and all participants expressed a need for additional training, particularly on national pharmacovigilance regulations (69.2%), organization of the pharmacovigilance system (67.3%), and adverse event detection (67.3%). The main reported challenges by healthcare personnel in the implementation of pharmacovigilance activities included insufficient budget allocation, limited access to pharmacovigilance training, lack of pharmacovigilance guidelines and insufficient qualified human resources. Pharmacovigilance implementation in referral and regional health facilities in Cameroon remains limited, with gaps in organizational structures, resources, healthcare personnel knowledge, and training. Strengthening pharmacovigilance systems through improved facility capacity, availability of essential tools, and targeted healthcare personnel training is needed to enhance drug safety surveillance.

Bayesian borrowing of external information can improve trial efficiency, particularly in pediatric and rare disease settings where patient populations are limited, but may introduce bias and inflate the Type~I error rate when the trial differs from external studies. Recent U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) draft Bayesian guidance emphasizes careful evaluation of external information, prior specification, and assessment of operating characteristics. This paper compares three meta-analytic-predictive (MAP)-based methods for Bayesian borrowing: the MAP prior, robust MAP (RMAP) prior, and self-adapting mixture (SAM) prior. An adaptive platform trial design in Rett syndrome is used as a case study. Simulation studies evaluate frequentist operating characteristics under varying prior--data conflict, between-study heterogeneity, treatment effects, and clinically significant differences (CSDs) for the SAM prior. The MAP prior achieved the greatest efficiency when external and current data were compatible but exhibited the largest bias under substantial prior--data conflict. The RMAP priors improved robustness through fixed robust-component weights, whereas the SAM prior adaptively adjusted borrowing and was less sensitive to prior--data conflict while retaining efficiency gains when the data were compatible. Although the CSD influenced the degree of adaptive borrowing, as reflected by effective sample size, it had only a modest impact on frequentist operating characteristics. Sensitivity analyses using a skeptical robust component yielded similar qualitative conclusions, while accentuating the differences between the MAP and RMAP priors. These findings provide guidance for evaluating and selecting MAP-based borrowing strategies before trial implementation, particularly in rare disease settings, consistent with current FDA recommendations.

Background: In Denmark, perioperative high-dose glucocorticoid treatment were step-wisely implemented for total hip arthroplasty (THA), total knee arthroplasty (TKA), and unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA). We aimed to estimate the effect of a single high dose of glucocorticoids on opioid consumption following primary THA, TKA, and UKA. Methods: This was a prespecified analysis of a multicenter natural experiment using electronic health record data. We included elective THA, TKA, or UKA surgeries performed in Eastern Denmark from 2017-2025. At each center, surgeries before implementation of high-dose glucocorticoids served as controls, whereas surgeries after implementation comprised the intervention group. The primary outcome was the between-group difference in cumulative 0-24h opioid consumption, which included preemptive end-of-surgery doses. The predefined minimal important difference was set at 5 mg IV morphine equivalents. Secondary outcomes were maximum 0-10 numerical rating scale (NRS) pain score and incidence of opioid-related adverse events within 24 hours, hospital length of stay, and days alive and out of hospital at 30 days. Results: A total of 47,317 surgeries performed at nine centers were analyzed: 13,010 controls and 34,307 in the intervention group. During the study period, five centers implemented high-dose glucocorticoids for THA patients, two for TKA/UKA patients. High-dose glucocorticoids were administered to 6% of patients before implementation versus 92% after. High-dose glucocorticoids resulted in a mean reduction of 3.8 mg intravenous (IV) morphine equivalents (95% CI 3.3;4.3). The intervention also reduced the maximum 0-24h NRS pain score by 0.8 points (99% CI 0.7;0.9), but there was no difference in adverse events, length of stay, or days alive and out of hospital. Conclusions: Implementation of high-dose glucocorticoids reduced 0-24-hour opioid consumption by 3.8 mg IV morphine equivalents after elective hip and knee arthroplasty. This difference was below the prespecified minimal important difference threshold. Online registration: https://doi.org/10.1101/2025.11.11.25339982

Background: Stress research in nursing education has largely focused on distress, stressors, and negative outcomes, although challenging experiences may also support motivation, confidence, learning, and growth when appraised positively. Objective: To develop and evaluate the psychometric properties of the Nursing Student Positive Stress Scale (NSPSS). Design: A methodological instrument development and psychometric evaluation study. Methods: The NSPSS was developed using a deductive, theory-driven approach informed by the transactional theory of stress and coping and positive psychology perspectives. Content validity was assessed by an international nursing expert panel. Psychometric evaluation used national survey data from nursing students in New Zealand. Of 539 responses, 507 were analysed. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) were conducted using separate subsamples. Internal consistency was assessed using Cronbach's alpha and McDonald's omega, and convergent validity through correlation with Perceived Stress Scale-10 scores. Results: Content validity was strong (I-CVI = .88-1.00; S-CVI/Ave = .975; S-CVI/UA = .800). EFA identified a dominant factor explaining 41.38% of variance (loadings = .528-.735). CFA supported a two-context Academic and Clinical Positive Stress model with correlated residuals between five parallel item pairs, chi-square(29) = 60.49, CFI = .970, TLI = .954, RMSEA = .063, SRMR = .065. Internal consistency was good (alpha = .839; omega = .843). NSPSS scores correlated negatively with PSS-10 scores (r = -.298, p < .001). Conclusion: The NSPSS demonstrated strong content validity, preliminary evidence of structural and convergent validity, and good internal consistency reliability for assessing positive stress appraisal among nursing students. Further validation in independent samples is warranted.

Occupational ocular injuries are a preventable yet neglected public health problem, particularly in low- and middle-income countries. Maintenance workers are exposed to diverse ocular hazards daily, yet compliance with protective measures is consistently poor. A descriptive cross-sectional study was conducted among 85 maintenance workers at the Maintenance and Essential Services Organization (MESO) of Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology (KNUST), Ghana, recruited through stratified convenience sampling across seven occupational sections. A structured questionnaire assessed knowledge of ocular hazards and protective equipment, attitudes toward ocular safety, and safety practices. Data were analyzed using IBM SPSS version 26 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA); chi-square and Fishers exact tests assessed associations (p < 0.05). Participants were predominantly male (84/85, 98.8%), with a mean age of 44.5 {+/-} 10.4 years. Overall knowledge was good (mean 9.40 {+/-} 1.59 out of 11), but attitude and practice scores were average (2.78 {+/-} 0.92 and 3.27 {+/-} 0.93, respectively). Most workers correctly identified goggles and face shields as protective, but only about half recognized that ordinary sunglasses and spectacles offer inadequate protection. Although 97.6% (83/85) recognized the need for ocular protection, only 7.1% (6/85) reported consistent protective eyewear use, and fewer than half (45.9%, 39/85) had received formal ocular safety training. Routine general protective equipment use was significantly associated with ocular protection use (Fishers exact test, p = 0.011). Sand and dust particles were the leading causes of injury and only 25% (5/20) of injured workers sought formal care. Workers demonstrated good knowledge but poor attitudes and practices toward ocular safety, suggesting that knowledge alone does not translate into protective behaviour even within a relatively well-resourced institutional setting. Findings suggest that limited access to task-appropriate protective eyewear may represent an important institutional barrier. Institutional PPE supply and section-specific safety training are essential to bridge this knowledge-practice gap.