Adoption Status of Direct Seeded Rice Technology by the Farmers of Punjab

Direct-seeded rice (DSR) is a possible alternative to conventional puddled transplantedrice, where rice crop is seeded directly in non-puddled fields. The study was conducted toascertain the adoption status of recommended practices of DSR. Personal interviews wereconducted to collect data from randomly selected 210 farmers from three districtsrepresenting different agro-climatic regions of Punjab. Study revealed that selected farmershad adopted DSR on 49.20 per cent of their total area under paddy cultivation. Slightlyhigher number of selected farmers had adopted Tar-Wattar, a new technique of DSR overdry soil method. Only 18.52 per cent respondents had applied first irrigation as perrecommendations of Tar-Wattar method, whereas majority (67.59%) had applied firstirrigation before 21 days. 26.67 per cent farmers had adopted most suitable variety PR-126 and sown it at recommended time. However, in case of other varieties, majority offarmers did not follow recommended time of sowing. A smaller number of farmers haveapplied zinc, iron and sulphur fertilizers to ameliorate micro nutrient deficiencies. Averageyield of others varieties and PR 126 were found to be nearly identical, but due to lessercost of cultivation in DSR as compared to transplanted rice, adopter farmers’ fetched highernet return.

Physical therapists’ knowledge and implementation of best practices in the outpatient physiotherapy department during the COVID-19 pandemic: A cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND: Physiotherapists (PTs) play an important role in the well-being and physical rehabilitation of patients with long term health problems. It is important that PTs follow recommended practices that minimize the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 infection in providing Outpatient Physiotherapy services. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess the knowledge of COVID-19 among the PTs and evaluate the state of implementation of best practices in Outpatient Physiotherapy to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infections during the ongoing pandemic. METHODS: A self-administered online questionnaire consisting of three sections, including section one on demographic information, section two on evaluating knowledge about SARS-CoV-2 and section three on implementing best practices as a survey tool for collecting data from physiotherapist working in Lahore and Faisalabad in Punjab, Pakistan. RESULTS: A total of 216 completed surveys were received. Correct responses to different questions devised to test the participants’ knowledge of SARS-CoV-2 varied from 58.3% to 99% . The implementation of best practices to prevent the infection transmission in the Outpatient Physiotherapy ranged from 22.7% to 92.1% for different domains. The age of the PTs and OPD setting were associated significantly with the PTs’ knowledge of COVID-19 and also with the state of implementation of recommended practices to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infections in the Outpatient Physiotherapy (p < .05). CONCLUSION: The majority of the PTs, particularly those working in the clinic setting, possessed a good knowledge of COVID-19 and implemented best practices in their Outpatient Physiotherapy at a good level. However, efforts should be directed towards further improving the knowledge of PTs and ensuring implementation of best practices in Outpatient Physiotherapy, particularly in government and private hospitals.

The Use and Misuse of Organizational Research Methods ‘Best Practice’ Articles

This study explores how researchers in the organizational sciences use and/or cite methodological ‘best practice’ (BP) articles. Namely, are scholars adhering fully to the prescribed practices they cite, or are they cherry picking from recommended practices without disclosing? Or worse yet, are scholars inaccurately following the methodological best practices they cite? To answer these questions, we selected three seminal and highly cited best practice articles published in Organizational Research Methods (ORM) within the past ten years. These articles offer clear and specific methodological recommendations for researchers as they make decisions regarding the design, measurement, and interpretation of empirical studies. We then gathered all articles that have cited these best practice pieces. Using comprehensive coding forms, we evaluated how authors are using and citing best practice articles (e.g., if they are appropriately following the recommended practices). Our results revealed substantial variation in how authors cited best practice articles, with 17.4% appropriately citing, 47.7% citing with minor inaccuracies, and 34.5% inappropriately citing BP articles. These findings shed light on the use (and misuse) of methodological recommendations, offering insight into how we can better improve our digestion and implementation of best practices as we design and test research and theory. Key implications and recommendations for editors, reviewers, and authors are discussed.

Methodological quality and reporting standards in systematic reviews with meta-analysis of physical activity studies: a report from the Strengthening the Evidence in Exercise Sciences Initiative (SEES Initiative)

Background Several resources have been developed (e.g., reporting guidelines) to promote high-standard practices in health research. However, there was no continuous and systematic assessment of recommended practices in published systematic reviews with meta-analysis (SRMAs), which increases the usability of the available resources. Therefore, we aimed to assess the methodological and reporting standards in SRMAs of physical activity studies. This report presents the main results of the SEES Initiative in 2019. Methods Our approach is based on a prospective systematic review methodology to implement post-publication surveillance of research practices in exercise sciences. Briefly, during the year 2019, pre-specified searches were conducted monthly (PubMed/MEDLINE) in journals from the exercise sciences (n = 9) and medicine (n = 5). The assessments were independently conducted by two authors, based on 36 items/practices derived from established statements/tools (PRISMA, AMSTAR 2, ROBIS). To be eligible, SRMAs should summarize studies that had, at least, one arm consisting of physical activity interventions/exposures and one health or behavioral outcome. Results Out of 1028 studies assessed for eligibility, 103 SRMAs were included. The minimum adherence was 13/36 items, whereas only one SRMA adhered to all items. Some highly contemplated items included identification of title as SRMA (97.1%) and descriptions of the main outcome in the abstract (95.1%) and risk of bias (RoB) assessment (95.1%). Some poorly contemplated items included publicly available protocol (4.9%), discussion of the results in light of RoB in studies included (32.0%), and data sharing statements (35.9%). Conclusion In summary, there is a suboptimal adherence to recommended practices on methodological quality and reporting standards in the SRMAs of physical activity intervention/exposure evaluated from the selected journals in 2019, which likely reduce the reproducibility and usefulness of these studies. This incipient evidence from our first 12 months of post-publication surveillance should serve as a call for attention and action for multiple stakeholders (e.g., authors, reviewers, editors, funders, academic institutions) in this important health research field.

Open Science, Data Analysis, and Data Sharing

Collecting and analyzing data can be arduous, time-consuming labor. Our first instincts might not be to give the data away and reveal the steps behind the ‘magic’ of analyses. Nonetheless, sharing data and analysis steps increases the credibility and utility of our work, and ultimately contributes to a more efficient, cumulative science. Of course, recognizing the value of data and analysis sharing is one thing – actually doing the sharing is another. Sharing data and analyses is fraught with uncertainties (e.g., What should I share? What can I share? Will my data spreadsheet and analysis script even make sense to someone else?) and, at the end of the day, amounts to additional tasks to be completed. This chapter goes beyond persuading readers to share and presents answers to common questions, advice for best practices, and practical steps for sharing that can be integrated into your research workflow. Easy-to-use, free resources like R, RStudio, and the Open Science Framework are introduced for implementing recommended practices.

Automated Approaches Determine Solids Content in Drilling and Completions Fluids

This article, written by JPT Technology Editor Chris Carpenter, contains highlights of paper SPE 201368, “Automated Solids-Content Determination in Drilling and Completions Fluids,” by Sercan Gul, SPE, Ali Karimi Vajargah, and Eric van Oort, SPE, The University of Texas at Austin, et al., prepared for the 2020 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, originally scheduled to be held in Denver, 5–7 October. The paper has not been peer reviewed. Monitoring of low- and high-gravity-solids (LGS and HGS) content and maintaining these at ideal levels is essential for optimal drilling fluid performance, efficient hole cleaning and equivalent-circulating-density management, and prevention of failures of surface and downhole equipment during drilling. LGS and HGS monitoring in the field is currently accomplished using the API retort-kit measurement, which has certain drawbacks and is difficult to automate. In the complete paper, two new approaches are investigated to automate the LGS and HGS content measurements of drilling fluids, which potentially can replace the retort test. Introduction The conventional way to characterize LGS and HGS in the field is by using a retort-kit measurement specified in API Recommended Practices 13B-1 and 13B-2. The longevity of these tests is testament to the effectiveness of the API standards and the tests themselves in providing useful and practical field guidance. Despite their evident success, however, various downsides exist in current solids-content-testing methods. Retort-kit measurements present the following issues: - Difficulty in obtaining accurate and repeatable test results - Safety issues associated with laboratory testing at elevated temperatures (over 930°F) - Interpretive bias issues associated with test results, including the potential for deliberate manipulation of these results - Difficulty in automating the retort test for improved efficiency and safety The authors’ opinion is that automating antiquated API test protocols is not a useful practice. They write that a clean-slate approach would be better, in which a determination is made whether solids-content information can be provided in a novel and meaningful way using methods that deviate from standard API recommended practices. In the complete paper, the authors investigate a machine-learning (ML) and data-analytics method for this purpose in combination with a novel inline X-ray fluorescence (XRF) measurement method.

Guideline adherence and reasons for recommending dose reduction in a primary care-based opioid management clinic

Background: To provide Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guideline-recommended practices for patients on long-term opioid therapy (LTOT) including individualized decisions about opioid dose reduction, we developed the Power Over Pain (POP) Clinic.Objective: To describe frequency and reasons for opioid dose reduction and pre–post adherence to CDC guideline-recommended practices.Design: Retrospective chart review with qualitative and pre–post analysis.Patients and setting: Patients at an urban internal medicine teaching practice-prescribed LTOT were seen at POP Clinic at least once.Methods: Opioid dose reduction was defined by reduction in morphine-equivalent daily dose (MEDD) at 6 and 12 months after the first POP Clinic visit compared to baseline using paired t-tests. Among patients with a dose reduction, reasons documented in POP Clinic notes were qualitatively examined. Dichotomous measures of receiving four CDC guideline-recommended practices (controlled substance agreement [CSA], urine drug testing [UDT], prescription monitoring program review, and naloxone dispensing) at baseline versus 6 and 12 months were compared using McNemar's tests.Results: Of the 70 patients, most were female (66 percent) and Hispanic (54 percent). Forty-three patients (61 percent) had an opioid dose reduction in 12 months after the first POP Clinic visit. The most frequent reason was low or unclear benefit of continuing the current dose (49 percent). Mean MEDD was reduced from 69 mg to 57 mg at 6 months (p 0.01) and to 56 mg at 12 months (p 0.01). Completing a CSA, UDT, and naloxone distribution increased at 6 and 12 months (p 0.01). Conclusions: Individualized risk assessment in a primary care-based opioid management clinic is feasible and can result in opioid dose reduction and guideline adherence.