Background and Purpose: In these guidelines, we aimed to develop evidence‐based recommendations for the use of screening questionnaires and diagnostic tests in patients with neuropathic pain (NeP).Methods: We systematically reviewed studies providing information on the sensitivity and specificity of screening questionnaires, and quantitative sensory testing, neurophysiology, skin biopsy, and corneal confocal microscopy. We also analysed how functional neuroimaging, peripheral nerve blocks, and genetic testing might provide useful information in diagnosing NeP.Results: Of the screening questionnaires, Douleur Neuropathique en 4 Questions (DN4), I‐DN4 (self‐administered DN4), and Leeds Assessment of Neuropathic Symptoms and Signs (LANSS) received a strong recommendation, and S‐LANSS (self‐administered LANSS) and PainDETECT weak recommendations for their use in the diagnostic pathway for patients with possible NeP. We devised a strong recommendation for the use of skin biopsy and a weak recommendation for quantitative sensory testing and nociceptive evoked potentials in the NeP diagnosis. Trigeminal reflex testing received a strong recommendation in diagnosing secondary trigeminal neuralgia. Although many studies support the usefulness of corneal confocal microscopy in diagnosing peripheral neuropathy, no study specifically investigated the diagnostic accuracy of this technique in patients with NeP. Functional neuroimaging and peripheral nerve blocks are helpful in disclosing pathophysiology and/or predicting outcomes, but current literature does not support their use for diagnosing NeP. Genetic testing may be considered at specialist centres, in selected cases.Conclusions: These recommendations provide evidence‐based clinical practice guidelines for NeP diagnosis. Due to the poor‐to‐moderate quality of evidence identified by this review, future large‐scale, well‐designed, multicentre studies assessing the accuracy of diagnostic tests for NeP are needed.

To assess the impact of clear aligner treatment on oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) compared to fixed appliance treatment. Two-arm parallel group single-centre randomized controlled trial. Forty-four adult patients (8 males, 36 females) were randomly and equally assigned to either the fixed appliances group (FA) or the clear aligners group (CA). Randomization with an allocation ratio of 1:1 was performed by a researcher who is not involved in the study using a random sample table. Non-extraction cases were included in this study. Outcome measures were the OHRQoL of patients and the duration of orthodontic treatment. The OHRQoL of patients was assessed by the short-form Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP-14) at the following assessment times: before the start of treatment (T0), 1 week (T1), 1 month (T2), 3 months (T3), and 6 months (T4) after the start of orthodontic treatment and post-treatment (T5). The assessor was blinded during outcomes assessment and statistical analysis. Two hundred and eighteen patients were evaluated for eligibility, 44 of them fulfilled the inclusion criteria and were randomly allocated to treatment groups. None of the patients was lost to follow-up. Accordingly, the results of 44 patients were statically analysed. The total OHIP-14 score was not statistically different between the FA and the CA groups at T0 (P = 0.91) and T5 (P = 0.16), whereas it was significantly lower in the CA group as compared to the FA group at T1 (mean difference [MD] = 11.04, 95% CI 8.7 to 13.42, P < 0.001), T2 (MD = 6.00, 95% CI: 4.3 to 7.7, P < 0.001), T3 (MD = 3.37, 95% CI: 1.5 to 5, P < 0.01), and T4 (MD = 3.32, 95% CI: 1.7 to 4.9, P < 0.001). Treatment duration in the CA group was significantly shorter than in the FA group (MD = 4.18, 95% CI: 2.8 to 5.5, P < 0.001). No harms were observed. The results were limited to the non-extraction treatment of mild to moderate crowding cases. Patients treated with clear aligners reported higher OHRQoL and shorter treatment duration as compared to those treated with fixed appliances. Retrospectively registered (DRKS-ID: DRKS00023977).

Introduction: Research is crucial for health-care delivery. However, medical students may not participate in research during their training, which might negatively affect their understanding of the importance of research and their future ability to conduct research projects. This is more prominent in developing countries. We aim to assess the attitudes of a sample of Syrian medical students toward research and suggest plausible solutions to reduce their self-reported barriers. Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted using a self-administered, pretested questionnaire. Results: Three hundred and twenty-three responses were included. Most students demonstrated positive attitudes toward research. However, most of the responses indicated that they did not receive any training in academic writing or research and therefore did not have the opportunity to participate in formal research projects or scholarly writing. Students reported various types of barriers that challenged their progress in the field of research. Students who reported being encouraged by their professors to participate in research and writing/publishing scientific papers or reported receiving training about these activities were more likely to participate in research projects or writing scientific articles. Conclusion: Students have positive attitudes toward research and publication while they reported poor education, limited participation, and presence of many barriers that impede their participation in such activities.

Background: The decade-long Syrian armed conflict killed or injured more than 11% of the Syrian population. Head and neck injuries are the most frequent cause of war-related trauma, about half of which are brain injuries. Reports about Syrian brain trauma victims were published from neighboring countries; However, none are available from Syrian hospitals. This study aims to report war-related traumatic brain injuries from the Syrian capital. Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study between 2014 and 2017 at Damascus Hospital, the largest public hospital in Damascus, Syria. Target patients were the victims of combat-related traumatic brain injuries who arrived alive and were admitted to the neurosurgery department or to another department but followed by the neurosurgery team. The collected data included the mechanism, type, and site of injury based on imaging findings; types of invasive interventions; intensive-care unit (ICU) admissions; as well as neurological status at admission and discharge including several severity scales. Results: Our sample consisted of 195 patients; Ninety-six of them were male young adults, in addition to 40 females and 61 children. Injuries were caused by shrapnel in 127 (65%) cases, and by gunshots in the rest, and most of them (91%) were penetrating. Sixty-eight patients (35%) were admitted to the ICU, and 56 (29%) underwent surgery. Neurological impairment was reported in 49 patients (25%) at discharge, and the mortality rate during hospitalization was 33%. Mortality and neurological impairment associated significantly with higher values on clinical and imaging severity scores. Conclusions: This study captured the full spectrum of war-related brain injuries of civilians and armed personnel in Syria without the delay required to transport patients to neighboring countries. Although the clinical presentation of injuries at admission was not as severe as that in previous reports, the inadequate resources (i.e., ventilators and operation rooms) and the lack of previous experience with similar injuries might have resulted in the higher mortality rate. Clinical and imaging severity scales can provide a handy tool in identifying cases with low probability of survival especially with the shortage of personal and physical resources.

Peer training has been identified as a useful tool for delivering undergraduate training in basic life support (BLS) which is fundamental as an initial response in cases of emergency. This study aimed to (1) Evaluate the efficacy of peer-led model in basic life support training among medical students in their first three years of study, compared to professional-led training and (2) To assess the efficacy of the course program and students’ satisfaction of peer-led training. A randomized controlled trial with blinded assessors was conducted on 72 medical students from the pre-clinical years (1st to 3rd years in Syria) at Syrian Private University. Students were randomly assigned to peer-led or to professional-led training group for one-day-course of basic life support skills. Sixty-four students who underwent checklist based assessment using objective structured clinical examination design (OSCE) (practical assessment of BLS skills) and answered BLS knowledge checkpoint-questionnaire were included in the analysis. There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups in delivering BLS skills to medical students in practical (P = 0.850) and BLS knowledge questionnaire outcomes (P = 0.900). Both groups showed statistically significant improvement from pre- to post-course assessment with significant statistical difference in both practical skills and theoretical knowledge (P-Value < 0.001). Students were satisfied with the peer model of training. Peer-led training of basic life support for medical students was beneficial and it provided a quality of education which was as effective as training conducted by professionals. This method is applicable and desirable especially in poor-resource countries and in crisis situation.