Khalid Juma ALSHIDI

The study aimed to identify the level of availability of action research standards among senior teachers to improve educational practices in Oman's schools. To achieve the objectives of the study, the researchers used the descriptive curriculum, and after verifying the validity and stability of the tool was applied to a sample of (55) teachers and senior teachers, the results of the study revealed that the degree of availability of action research standards among teachers in basic education schools in Oman came with an average percentage (37.33), and that there were no statistically significant differences at the level of significance (α =0.05) between average availability of action research criteria attributable to the sex variable. The researchers recommended that teachers should be trained in how to interpret the results of the study and discuss them, spreading the culture of action research in the field of education.

Methods of objectivization of characteristics of cerebrospinal fluid and examples of their use

BACKGROUND: In modern research standards, a semi-quantitative evaluation scale with crosses is used to characterize turbid cerebrospinal fluid samples, where the absence of turbidity is evaluated as a clear cerebrospinal fluid (a variant of norm), and turbidity is evaluated, depending on the severity, by a different number of crosses. This approach is highly subjective. AIM: Development of a simple objective method for assessment of turbidity of the cerebrospinal fluid. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The optimal wavelength was determined by examination of the optical density of turbid samples of barium sulfate at various wavelengths on Stat Fax photometer (Awarenes, USA). Turbidity was standardized using Shank–Hoagland scale. The reference range was evaluated based on the results of 10 measurements of 10 samples of visually unchanged cerebrospinal fluid. At the same time, the stability and reproducibility of the measured parameters were evaluated. RESULTS: The optimal wavelength diabase is the range emitted by red light filter (λ = 670 nm). Stability of cerebrospinal fluid parameters is preserved for 2 hours after its obtaining. The reference range for normal cerebrospinal fluid samples does not exceed 0.1 units of turbidity on Shank–Hoagland scale. CONCLUSION: The presented methods demonstrate the importance and possibilities of objectivization of characterization of the properties of cerebrospinal fluid with use of the proposed method.

Feasibility Analysis and Advantages of Wedge Resection Plus Transverse Suture Applied to Closure of Loop Ileostomy

Objectives: To evaluate the feasibility and advantages of wedge resection plus transverse suture applied to loop ileostomy closure by analyzing the surgical data and the incidence of postoperative complications of patients undergoing this procedure.Methods: We performed a retrospective analysis of the hospitalization data of patients who underwent ileostomy closure surgery and met the research standards from January 2017 to April 2021 in the Guangxi Medical University Cancer Hospital; all surgeries were performed by the same surgeon. The perioperative data were statistically analyzed by grouping.Results: In total, 65 patients were enrolled in this study, with 12 in the wedge resection group, 35 in the stapler group, and 18 in the hand suture group. There was no significant difference in operation time between the wedge resection group and stapler group (P > 0.05), but both groups had shorter operation time than that in the hand suture group (P< 0.05). The postoperative exhaustion time of wedge resection group was earlier than that of the others, and cost of surgical consumables in the wedge resection group was significantly lower than that in the stapler group, all with statistically significant differences (P< 0.05). By contrast, there was no statistically significant difference in postoperative complication incidences among the three groups.Conclusions: The wedge resection plus transverse suture is safe and easy for closure of loop ileostomy, and the intestinal motility recovers rapidly postoperatively. It has less surgical consumables, and is particularly suitable for the currently implemented Diagnosis-Related Groups payment method.

Cross-cultural validation of the IRB Researcher Assessment Tool: Chinese Version

Background Using an effective method for evaluating Institutional Review Board (IRB) performance is essential for ensuring an IRB’s effectiveness, efficiency, and compliance with applicable human research standards and organizational policies. Currently, no empirical research has yet been published in China evaluating IRB performance measures by the use of a standardized tool. This study was therefore conducted to develop a Chinese version of the IRB Researcher Assessment Tool (IRB-RAT), assess the psychometric properties of the Chinese version (IRB-RAT-CV), and validate the tool for use in China. Methods In this cultural adaptation, cross-sectional validation study, the IRB-RAT-CV was developed through a back-translation process and then distributed to 587 IRB staff members and researchers in medical institutions and schools in Hunan Province that review biomedical and social-behavioral research. Data from the 470 valid questionnaires collected from participants was used to evaluate the reliability, content validity, and construct validity of the IRB-RAT-CV. Results Participants’ ratings of their ideal and actual IRB as measured by the IRB-RAT-CV achieved Cronbach's alpha 0.989 and 0.992, Spearman-Brown coefficient 0.964 and 0.968, and item-total correlation values ranging from 0.631 to 0.886 and 0.743 to 0.910, respectively. Conclusion The IRB-RAT-CV is a linguistically and culturally applicable tool for assessing the quality of IRBs in China.

How to do Better N400 Studies: Reproducibility, Consistency and Adherence to Research Standards in the Existing Literature

Given the complexity of ERP recording and processing pipeline, the resulting variability of methodological options, and the potential for these decisions to influence study outcomes, it is important to understand how ERP studies are conducted in practice and to what extent researchers are transparent about their data collection and analysis procedures. The review gives an overview of methodology reporting in a sample of 132 ERP papers, published between January 1980 – June 2018 in journals included in two large databases: Web of Science and PubMed. Because ERP methodology partly depends on the study design, we focused on a well-established component (the N400) in the most commonly assessed population (healthy neurotypical adults), in one of its most common modalities (visual images). The review provides insights into 73 properties of study design, data pre-processing, measurement, statistics, visualization of results, and references to supplemental information across studies within the same subfield. For each of the examined methodological decisions, the degree of consistency, clarity of reporting and deviations from the guidelines for best practice were examined. Overall, the results show that each study had a unique approach to ERP data recording, processing and analysis, and that at least some details were missing from all papers. In the review, we highlight the most common reporting omissions and deviations from established recommendations, as well as areas in which there was the least consistency. Additionally, we provide guidance for a priori selection of the N400 measurement window and electrode locations based on the results of previous studies.

PEERS - an open science "Platform for the Exchange of Experimental Research Standards" in biomedicine

Laboratory workflows and preclinical models have become increasingly diverse and complex. Confronted with the dilemma of assessing a multitude of information with ambiguous relevance for their specific experiments, scientists run the risk of overlooking critical factors that can influence the planning, conduct and results of studies and that should have been considered a priori. Negligence of such crucial information may result in sub-optimal study design and study execution, bringing into question the validity of generated outcomes. As a corollary, a lot of resources are wasted on biomedical research that turns out to be irreproducible and not sufficiently robust for further project development. To address this problem, we present PEERS (Platform for the Exchange of Experimental Research Standards), an open-access online platform that is built to aid scientists in determining which experimental factors and variables are most likely to affect the outcome of a specific test, model or assay and therefore ought to be considered during the design, execution and reporting stages. The PEERS database is categorized into in vivo and in vitro experiments and provides lists of factors derived from scientific literature that have been deemed critical for experimentation. Most importantly, the platform is based on a structured and transparent system for rating the strength of evidence related to each identified factor and its relevance for a specific method/model. In this context, the rating procedure will not solely be limited to the PEERS working group but will also allow for a community-based grading of evidence. To generate a proof-of-concept that the PEERS approach is feasible, we focused on a set of in vitro and in vivo methods from the neuroscience field, which are presented in this article. On the basis of the Open Field paradigm in rodents, we describe the selection of factors specific to each experimental setup and the rating system, but also discuss the identification of additional general items that transcend categories and individual tests. Moreover, we present a working format of the PEERS prototype with its structured information framework for embedding data and critical back end/front end user functionalities. Here, PEERS not only offers users the possibility to search for information to facilitate experimental rigor, but also draws on the engagement of the scientific community to actively expand the information contained within the platform through a standardized approach to data curation and knowledge engineering. As the database grows and benefits become more apparent, we will expand the scope of PEERS to any area of applied biomedical research. Collectively, by helping scientists to search for specific factors relevant to their experiments, and to share experimental knowledge in a standardized manner, PEERS will serve as the ultimate exchange and analysis tool to enhance data validity and robustness as well as the reproducibility of preclinical research. PEERS offers a vetted, independent tool by which to judge the quality of information available on a certain test or model, identifies knowledge gaps and provides guidance on the key methodological considerations that should be prioritized to ensure that preclinical research is conducted to the highest standards and best practice.

Goldilocks and the Three Bears: A Just-Right Hybrid Model to Synthesize the Growing Landscape of Publicly Available Health-Related Mobile Apps

Mobile health (mHealth) technologies have provided an innovative platform for the deployment of health care diagnostics, symptom monitoring, and prevention and intervention programs. Such health-related smartphone apps are universally accepted by patients and providers with over 50 million users worldwide. Despite the rise in popularity and accessibility among consumers, the evidence base in support of health-related apps has fallen well behind the rapid pace of industry development. To bridge this evidence gap, researchers are beginning to consider how to best apply evidence-based research standards to the systematic synthesis of the mHealth consumer market. In this viewpoint, we argue for the adoption of a “hybrid model” that combines a traditional systematic review with a systematic search of mobile app download platforms for health sciences researchers interested in synthesizing the state of the science of consumer apps. This approach, which we have successfully executed in a recent review, maximizes the benefits of traditional and novel approaches to address the essential question of whether popular consumer mHealth apps work.

Standards for Evaluating Impact in Entrepreneurship Education Research: Using a Descriptive Validity Framework to Enhance Methodological Rigor and Transparency

Given calls for more rigorous research able to measure the impact of entrepreneurship education, this study proposes guidelines for enhancing methodological and reporting practices. First, drawing on prior research syntheses, we developed a descriptive validity framework that outlines key elements for rigorous evaluation research. Second, we use this framework to examine 61 quantitative, university-based entrepreneurship education impact studies to identify and describe methodological and reporting practices that are most prevalent. The result is a set of Impact Evaluation Research Standards for entrepreneurship educators and scholars wishing to improve education evaluation research.