RESUMEN
OBJECTIVES: Clinical decision-making revolves around evidence-based medicine. Evidence-based medicine entails research problems, their evaluation against available scientific literature and implementing the results into practice. Medical undergraduates lack experience in the research process. This study aimed to analyze the difference between the precourse expectations and postcourse perception of students after an interventive, mandatory research module. METHODS: This longitudinal cohort survey was conducted at Azad Jammu Kashmir Medical College, Muzaffarabad. Fourth-year medical students were included in this study. After ethical review board approval, online survey questionnaires were circulated at 2 data points: before starting the research module and after it ended. Data were analyzed and nonparametric Mann-Whitney U test and Wilcoxon tests were applied to compare the difference in responses, regarding expectation and perception of the research module. RESULTS: Total participants were 104; the response rate was 100% for the expectation questionnaire, whereas it dropped to 77% for the perception questionnaire. Female students had a higher response rate. In comparison of the 2 questionnaires, a statistically significant difference was observed in the student's ability to conduct literature search and critical literature appraisal (P = .000 and .00, respectively). There was also a perceived improvement in scientific writing, problem-solving abilities, and communication skills. Overall, a significant difference was found between the expectation and perception of students. CONCLUSION: Students had high expectations from the research module. After the course, their perception of their own communication skills, research abilities, scientific writing, and research aptitude has significantly improved.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: The A1chieve, a multicentric (28 countries), 24-week, non-interventional study evaluated the safety and effectiveness of insulin detemir, biphasic insulin aspart and insulin aspart in people with T2DM (n = 66,726) in routine clinical care across four continents. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data was collected at baseline, at 12 weeks and at 24 weeks. This short communication presents the results for patients enrolled from Dubai. RESULTS: A total of 767 patients were enrolled in the study. Four different insulin analogue regimens were used in the study. Study patients had started on or were switched to biphasic insulin aspart (n = 231), insulin detemir (n = 369), insulin aspart (n = 29), basal insulin plus insulin aspart (n = 111) and other insulin combinations (n = 26). At baseline glycaemic control was poor for both insulin naïve (mean HbA1c: 9.2%) and insulin user (mean HbA1c: 9.1%) groups. After 24 weeks of treatment, both the groups showed improvement in HbA1c (insulin naïve: -1.9%, insulin users: -1.8%). SADRs did not occur in any of the study patients. Major hypoglycaemia was nil similar to that of baseline in insulin naïve group whereas major hypoglycaemic events reduced from 0.3 events/patient-year to 0.1 events/patient-year in insulin users. CONCLUSION: Starting or switching to insulin analogues was associated with improvements in glycaemic control with a low rate of hypoglycaemia.