Several studies have reported the characteristics of Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), yet there is a gap in our understanding of the ocular manifestations of COVID-19. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we investigated the prevalence of ocular manifestations in COVID-19 patients. We searched Pubmed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and medRxiv from December 1, 2019 to August 11, 2020. Two independent reviewers screened the articles, abstracted the data, and assessed the quality of included studies in duplicate. Thirty-eight studies were eligible after screening of 895 unique articles, with a total of 8,219 COVID-19 patients (55.3% female; n = 3,486 out of 6,308 patients). Using data extracted from cross-sectional studies, we performed randomeffects meta-analyses to estimate the pooled prevalence of ocular symptoms along with 95% confidence interval (CI). The prevalence of ocular manifestations was estimated to be 11.03% (95% CI: 5.71–17.72). In the studies that reported the details of observed ocular symptoms, the most common ocular manifestations were dry eye or foreign body sensation (n = 138, 16%), redness (n = 114, 13.3%), tearing (n = 111, 12.8%), itching (n = 109, 12.6%), eye pain (n = 83, 9.6%) and discharge (n = 76, 8.8%). Moreover, conjunctivitis had the highest rate among reported ocular diseases in COVID-19 patients (79 out of 89, 88.8%). The results suggest that approximately one out of ten COVID-19 patients show at least one ocular symptom. Attention to ocular manifestations, especially conjunctivitis, can increase the sensitivity of COVID-19 detection among patients.

Probiotics are considered as -immunomodulatory agents; their efficacy as an adjunct therapy option for rheumatoid arthritis (RA), however, remains controversial. The main aim of the present meta-analysis, therefore, was to compare available data from the published randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) recruiting adults with RA which compared probiotics with placebo. The English literature search was performed using Ovid version of Medline, EmBase, Web of Science, and the Central Cochrane library through October 2016 and supplemented by hand searching reference lists. Among 240 citations identified, 4 RCTs (153 participants; 89% female) were included. All data were pooled using a standardized mean difference (SMD) with a 95% CI. Compared to the placebo, probiotics did not change the inflammatory parameters (erythrocyte sedimentation rate, tumor necrosis factor [TNF]-α, interleukin [IL]-1β, IL-6, IL-10, and IL-12) and oxidative stress indices (total antioxidant capacity and malondialdehyde) significantly. The borderline significant reduction as a result of probiotic administration was only determined in C-reactive protein [SDM - 0.32 (95% CI - 0.65 to 0.00)]. Among disease activity indices (disease activity score [DAS], tender joint count, and swollen joint count), DAS showed a significant improvement following probiotic treatment with a SMD (95% CI) of - 0.58 (- 0.97 to - 0.19). The number of trials was too small to determine if a strain-, dose-, or duration-response effect was present. Probiotics seem to be less effective in RA; however, to reach a firm conclusion, we need further evidence.

ObjectivesTo determine which professional and humanistic attributes demonstrated by teachers in the health disciplines caused them to be perceived by students as positive or negative role models. MethodsQuantitative empirical data were gathered using a self-administered questionnaire by graduating students in medical, dentistry, and pharmacy schools at Kerman University of Medical Sciences. A total of 3 graduating cohorts, comprising about 220 students, were selected for this study. Surveys were distributed during January-March 2013. ResultsIn total, 183 students participated in the study. Altogether, students considered 504 and 473 academic staff as positive and negative role models (PRMs and NRMs), respectively. Women were considered more negatively than men (mean scores: -12.13 vs. -11.6, p=0.04). While clinicians were considered more positively than basic scientists (mean scores: 12.65 vs. 10.67, p=0.001), dentists received higher positive scores than physicians or pharmacists (average scores: 13.27 vs. 12.99 and 9.82). There was a significant relationship between the personality of the students and the overall characteristics of their perceived role models (β for PRMs=0.35, p<0.0001; and β for NRMs= 0.20, p= 0.039). ConclusionsHumanistic and professional attributes were proposed as major components of personal traits in perceived role models. Demonstration of humanistic attributes by teachers was strongly correlated with the students’ perception of the role models. It is suggested that the role of humanistic and professional attributes should be highlighted across medical disciplines in an effort to develop or improve role modelling by academic staff.

No abstract

BackgroundIn recent years, Iran has made significant developments in the field of health sciences. However, the question is whether this considerable increase has affected public health. The research budget has always been negligible and unsustainable in developing countries. Hence, using the Payback Framework, we conducted this study to evaluate the impact of health research in Iran.MethodsBy using a cross-sectional method and two-stage stratified cluster sampling, the projects were randomly selected from six medical universities. A questionnaire was designed according to the Payback Framework and completed by the principle investigators of the randomly selected projects.ResultsThe response rate was 70.4%. Ten point twenty-four percent (10.24%) of the studies had been ordered by a knowledge user organization. The average number of articles published in journals per project was 0.96, and half of the studies had no articles published in Scopus. The results of 12% of the studies had been used in systematic review articles and the same proportion had been utilized in clinical or public health guidelines. The results of 5.3% of the studies had been implemented in the Health Ministry’s policymaking. 62% of the studies were expected to affect health directly, 38% of them had been implemented, and among the latter 60% had achieved the expected results. Concerning the economic impacts, the most common expected impact was the reduction of ‘days of work missed because of illness or disability’ and impact on personal and health system costs. About 36% of these studies had been implemented, and 61% had achieved the expected impact.ConclusionIn most aspects, the status of research impact needs improvement. A comparison of Iran’s ranking of knowledge creation and knowledge impact in the Global Innovation Index confirms these findings. The most important problems identified were, not conducting research based on national needs, and the lack of implementation of research results.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12961-016-0129-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.