Recent studies have shown that quantification of myocardial perfusion (MP) at stress and myocardial perfusion reserve (MPR) offer additional diagnostic and prognostic information compared to qualitative and semi-quantitative assessment of myocardial perfusion distribution in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD). Technical advancements have enabled fully automatic quantification of MP using cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) to be performed in-line in a clinical workflow. The aim of this study was to validate the use of the automated CMR perfusion mapping technique for quantification of MP using 13N–NH3 cardiac positron emission tomography (PET) as the reference method. Twenty-one patients with stable CAD were included in the study. All patients underwent adenosine stress and rest perfusion imaging with 13N–NH3 PET and a dual sequence, single contrast bolus CMR on the same day. Global and regional MP were quantified both at stress and rest using PET and CMR. There was good agreement between global MP quantified by PET and CMR both at stress (−0.1 ± 0.5 ml/min/g) and at rest (0 ± 0.2 ml/min/g) with a strong correlation (r = 0.92, p < 0.001; y = 0.94× + 0.14). Furthermore, there was strong correlation between CMR and PET with regards to regional MP (r = 0.83, p < 0.001; y = 0.87× + 0.26) with a good agreement (−0.1 ± 0.6 ml/min/g). There was also a significant correlation between CMR and PET with regard to global and regional MPR (r = 0.69, p = 0.001 and r = 0.57, p < 0.001, respectively). There is good agreement between MP quantified by 13N–NH3 PET and dual sequence, single contrast bolus CMR in patients with stable CAD. Thus, CMR is viable in clinical practice for quantification of MP.

Substantial changes in life dynamics resulting from the outbreak of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) could have an impact on the quality of life (QoL) of mothers of children with and without disabilities. This study compared the quality of life (QoL) of mothers of children with disabilities (MCD) to the QoL of mothers of children without disabilities (CON) in Saudi Arabia during COVID-19 lockdown. It explored mothers’ concerns and the type of support they need during the quarantine. A comparative cross-sectional study was conducted during the lockdown. An online questionnaire was distributed to mothers raising children with and without disabilities in Saudi Arabia. A total of 340 mothers participated in the study by completing the survey: 93 MCD and 247 CON. The QoL of MCD and CON was assessed using the WHOQOL-BREF questionnaire. Furthermore, detailed information was provided by the mothers regarding their needs and concerns during the lockdown. The results of the study revealed that the overall QoL was significantly higher in the CON group, compared to the MCD group, during the COVID-19 lockdown. The social well-being and environmental well-being reported by MCD were significantly lower on the total scale of the WHOQOL-BREF than those reported by the CON group. The comparison between the two groups revealed significant differences in the support required by mothers during the COVID-19 pandemic: a higher percentage of MCD needed emotional and psychological support, especially from family members. The major concerns reported by MCD were the deterioration of their children’s medical conditions and the lack of medical supplies during the lockdown.

The unprecedented outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has caused a huge global health and economic crisis. The aim of the study was to examine the extent to which the resilience of a person is associated with the quality of life (QoL) of adults amongst Saudi Arabia. A cross-sectional study was conducted among a sample of adults in Saudi Arabia. A total of 385 adults voluntarily participated in and completed the survey. The quality of life was measured using the “World Health Organization QoL”. The “Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale” instrument was also used to assess resilience during the COVID-19 pandemic. Amongst the 385 participants, 179 (46%) showed a good QoL, and 205 (54%) reported a relatively poor QoL. The resilience was found to be significantly associated with QoL. The study further revealed that gender-based differences were dominant in the QoL; the men respondents reported a significantly higher QoL in all the domains in comparison to the women respondents. The gender, income, and psychological health and interaction effect of resilience and age explained 40% of the variance in the total score of QoL. In reference to the predictors of the physical health domain of QoL, resilience, gender, and psychological health were significantly associated with the physical health domain of the QoL (R² = 0.26, p = 0.001). It was also noted that gender was not associated with the social relationships and environmental domains of QoL (p > 0.05). Findings showed a statistically significant association between the score of QoL and resilience, age, gender, income, and psychological health. These findings highlight the significant contribution of gender-based differences, psychological health, and resilience on the domains of QoL.

Unprecedented quarantine due to COVID-19 exposes individuals to withdraw from face-to-face interactions, which may influence communication and self-esteem (SE). Therefore, the overarching aims of this study are to examine the communication apprehension levels among female college students, and thus to investigate the moderating role of self-esteem on the relationship between communication apprehension and academic achievement. In this cross-sectional study, 287 female college students completed the survey, which was circulated through email. The survey included the following questionnaires: General Health Characteristics, Rosenberg Self-esteem Scale, and Personal Report of Communication Apprehension Scale. The results showed that 28.2% of participants were categorized as having a high level of communication apprehension, and only 9.8% had a low level of communication apprehension. The SE reported an overall score of 24.3 ± 2.14, indicating a high self-esteem level among students. The students’ grade point average (GPA) was positively correlated with SE. However, self-esteem as a moderator variable had no significant effect on the relationships between all predictors and GPA. The finding of the study highlights the need to implement different strategies to enhance students’ group discussions, meetings, and interpersonal communication to ensure the best learning outcomes. Future studies are required to investigate gender-based disparities in the relationship between communication apprehension and SE.

Background: In clinical routine, health care professionals with various levels of experience assess left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) by echocardiography. The aim was to investigate to what extent visual and Simpson's biplane assessment of LVEF, using two‐dimensional (2D) transthoracic echocardiography (TTE), is affected by the evaluator's experience.Methods: Ultrasound images of 140 patients were assessed, visually and with Simpson's biplane method, by six evaluators divided into three groups based on echocardiographic experience level (beginner, intermediate and expert). The evaluators were blinded to each other's LVEF assessments. Bland‐Altman analyses (bias±SD) were performed to assess agreement. P‐values < 0.05 with the performed paired t‐test were considered statistically significant.Results: Level of agreement in LVEF was good between evaluators within the expert group: visual = LVEF_{expert 1} vs LVEF_{expert 2}: −0.4 ± 6.4 (p = 0.46); Simpson's biplane = LVEF_{expert 1} vs LVEF_{expert 2}: 0.96 ± 7.0 (p = 0.11), somewhat lower within the intermediate group: visual = LVEF_{intermediate 1} vs LVEF_{intermediate 2}: −1.2 ± 4.4 (p = 0.004); Simpson's biplane = LVEF_{intermediate 1} vs LVEF _{intermediate 2}: −3.3 ± 5.0 (p < 0.001) and lowest for beginners: visual = LVEF_{beginner 1} vs LVEF_{beginner 2}: 2.3 ± 9.8 (p = 0.007), Simpson's biplane = LVEF_{beginner 1} vs LVEF beginner 2: −1.8 ± 8.7 (p = 0.02). The agreement between LVEF_expert and LVEFs by the two other groups was: visual = LVEF_expert vs LVEF_beginner: 1.5 ± 6.0 (p = 0.005); LVEF_intermediate: −3.0 ± 4.4 (p < 0.001) and Simpson's biplane = LVEF_expert vs LVEF_beginner: 3.2 ± 6.3 (p < 0.001); LVEF_intermediate: −2.2 ± 4.7 (p < 0.001).Conclusions: The evaluator's level of experience affects visual and Simpson's biplane assessment of LVEF by 2D‐TTE, with highest variability being among beginners. Furthermore, a second opinion is recommended when assessing reduced LVEF even for evaluators with intermediate and expert experience.