How to conduct a high-quality original study on a prognostic research topic

Periodontal Health and Its Relationship with Psychological Stress: A Cross-Sectional Study

Background: Studies suggest that chronic psychological stress can lead to oral health deterioration, alter the immune response, and possibly contribute to increased inflammation, which can impact the physiological healing of periodontal tissues. This cross-sectional study seeks to assess and improve clinical understanding regarding the relationship between perceived stress, mindfulness, and periodontal health. Methods: A total of 203 people were analyzed from December 2022 to June 2023. The Periodontal Screening and Recording (PSR) score and Gingival Bleeding Index (GBI), and Plaque Control Record (PCR) of every patient were registered. Subsequently, participants completed the Sheldon Cohen Perceived Stress Scale (PSS) and the Mindfulness Awareness Attention Scale (MAAS) questionnaires. The collected data underwent statistical analysis, encompassing the evaluation of correlations and dependencies. Applying Welch's t-test to assess the relationship between MAAS and the variable indicating the presence or absence of periodontitis, a noteworthy p-value of 0.004265 was obtained. Results: This underscores a significant distinction in MAAS scores between patients affected by periodontitis and those unaffected by the condition. Additionally, Pearson correlations were computed for GBI and perceived stress, PCR and perceived stress, PCR and MAAS. The resulting p-values of 2.2-16, 3.925-8, and 2.468-8, respectively, indicate a statistically significant correlation in each instance. Conclusions: These findings contribute valuable insights into the interconnectedness of these variables, emphasizing the significance of their associations in the study context. Despite the limitations, the findings of this study suggest a significant relationship between psychological stress, mindfulness, and periodontal tissue health. Clinical trials are necessary to incorporate the assessment of a patient's psychological status as a new valuable tool in the management of periodontal health.

Prediction models for post-thrombectomy brain edema in patients with acute ischemic stroke: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Objective

The objective of this study is to systematically evaluate prediction models for post-thrombectomy brain edema in acute ischemic stroke (AIS) patients. This analysis aims to equip clinicians with evidence-based guidance for the selection of appropriate prediction models, thereby facilitating the early identification of patients at risk of developing brain edema post-surgery.

Methods

A comprehensive literature search was conducted across multiple databases, including PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, The Cochrane Library, CNKI, Wanfang, and Vip, aiming to identify studies on prediction models for post-thrombectomy brain edema in AIS patients up to January 2023. Reference lists of relevant articles were also inspected. Two reviewers independently screened the literature and extracted data. The Prediction Model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST) and the Transparent Reporting of a Multivariable Prediction Model for Individual Prognosis or Diagnosis (TRIPOD) guidelines were employed to assess study bias and literature quality, respectively. We then used random-effects bivariate meta-analysis models to summarize the studies.

Results

The review included five articles, yielding 10 models. These models exhibited a relatively high risk of bias. Random effects model demonstrated that the AUC was 0.858 (95% CI 0.817-0.899).

Conclusion

Despite the promising discriminative ability shown by studies on prediction models for post-thrombectomy brain edema in AIS patients, concerns related to a high risk of bias and limited external validation remain. Future research should prioritize the external validation and optimization of these models. There is an urgent need for large-scale, multicenter studies to develop robust, user-friendly models for real-world clinical application.

Systematic review registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk, unique Identifier: CRD42022382790.

Prognostic factors for post-operative outcomes in chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps: a systematic review

INTRODUCTION

Chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP) has a high recurrence rate after surgery despite the availability of medical treatments. Multiple clinical and biological factors have been associated with poor post-operative outcomes in patients with CRSwNP. However, these factors and their prognostic values have not yet been extensively summarized.

AREAS COVERED

This systematic review included 49 cohort studies exploring the prognostic factors for post-operative outcomes in CRSwNP. A total of 7802 subjects and 174 factors were included. All investigated factors were classified into three categories according to their predictive value and evidence quality, of which 26 factors were considered plausible for post-operative outcome prediction. Previous nasal surgery, ethmoid-to-maxillary (E/M) ratio, fractional exhaled nitric oxide, tissue eosinophil count or percentage, tissue neutrophil count, tissue IL-5, tissue eosinophil cationic protein, and CLC or IgE in nasal secretion provided more reliable information for prognosis in at least two studies.

EXPERT OPINION

Exploring predictors through noninvasive or minimally invasive methods for specimen collection is recommended for future work. Models combining multiple factors must be established, as no single factor is effective for the whole population.

Clinical research methods for treatment, diagnosis, prognosis, etiology, screening, and prevention: A narrative review

This narrative review is an introduction for health professionals on how to conduct and report clinical research on six categories: treatment, diagnosis/differential diagnosis, prognosis, etiology, screening, and prevention. The importance of beginning with an appropriate clinical question and the exploration of how appropriate it is through a literature search are explained. There are three methodological directives that can assist clinicians in conducting their studies from a methodological perspective: (1) how to conduct an original study or a systematic review, (2) how to report an original study or a systematic review, and (3) how to assess the quality or risk of bias for a previous relevant original study or systematic review. This methodological overview article would provide readers with the key points and resources regarding how to perform high-quality research on the six main clinical categories.