RESUMO
Cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) are serious life-threatening illnesses and significant problematic issues for public health having a heavy economic burden on all society worldwide. The high incidence of these diseases as well as high mortality rates make them the leading causes of death and disability. Therefore, finding novel and more effective therapeutic methods is urgently required. Gallic acid, an herbal medicine with numerous biological properties, has been utilized in the treatment of various diseases for thousands of years. It has been demonstrated that gallic acid possesses pharmacological potential in regulating several molecular and cellular processes such as apoptosis and autophagy. Moreover, gallic acid has been investigated in the treatment of CVDs both in vivo and in vitro. Herein, we aimed to review the available evidence on the therapeutic application of gallic acid for CVDs including myocardial ischemia-reperfusion injury and infarction, drug-induced cardiotoxicity, hypertension, cardiac fibrosis, and heart failure, with a focus on underlying mechanisms.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Electrocardiogram (ECG) remains an important medical diagnostic and screening tool. This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of online classes instead of traditional face-to-face or blended methods in medical students' ECG learning. METHODS: Two hundred and fifteen medical students (including 105 (48.8%) males and 110 (51.2%) females) were studied from February 2021 to February 2022. Regardless of their grade, participants were divided into three groups: online, face-to-face, and blended. Then all participants sat for an ECG interpretation exam, and their results were compared. RESULTS: Twenty-six (12.1%) participants were residents, and 189 (87.9%) were interns. Thirty-five (16.3%), 85 (39.5%), and 95 (44.2%) participants were taught ECG through face-to-face, online, and blended methods, respectively. Regarding participants' preferences on teaching methods, 118 (54.9%) preferred face-to-face learning, and the remaining 97 (45.1%) chose online learning (p < 0.001). The blended method seemed more promising in almost half of the exam questions regarding teaching method effectiveness. The mean total exam score was also significantly higher in participants who were taught blended than in the others (7.20 ± 1.89, p = 0.017). Face-to-face (5.97 ± 2.33) and online teaching methods (6.07 ± 2.07) had similar efficacy according to the mean total score (p = 0.819). CONCLUSION: While most students preferred face-to-face learning to online learning, a blended method seemed more promising regarding students' skill enhancement to interpret ECG.