Background: Pneumonia is a ubiquitous health condition with severe outcomes. The advancement of ultrasonography techniques allows its application in evaluating pulmonary diseases, providing safer and accessible bedside therapeutic decisions compared to chest X-ray and chest computed tomography (CT) scan. Because of its aforementioned benefits, we aimed to confirm the diagnostic accuracy of lung ultrasound (LUS) for pneumonia in adults. Methods: A systematic literature search was performed of Medline, Cochrane and Crossref, independently by two authors. The selection of studies proceeded based on specific inclusion and exclusion criteria without restrictions to particular study designs, language or publication dates and was followed by data extraction. The gold standard reference in the included studies was chest X-ray/CT scan or both. Results: Twenty-nine (29) studies containing 6702 participants were included in our meta-analysis. Pooled sensitivity, specificity and PPV were 92% (95% CI: 91–93%), 94% (95% CI: 94 to 95%) and 93% (95% CI: 89 to 96%), respectively. Pooled positive and negative likelihood ratios were 16 (95% CI: 14 to 19) and 0.08 (95% CI: 0.07 to 0.09). The area under the ROC curve of LUS was 0. 9712. Conclusions: LUS has high diagnostic accuracy in adult pneumonia. Its contribution could form an optimistic clue in future updates considering this condition.

Calculating the sensitivity and specificity values from True Positive, True Negative, False Positive, and False Negative is easy. But estimating the True and False values back is not possible. All the formulae present do that need the value of the disease’s prevalence in the population and hospital-based studies are usually biased in the prevalence. We have tried to create formulae and have been successful along with its proof on formulae that uses Sensitivity, Specificity, PPV and Total participants of the study to calculate True and False values.

Sciendo provides publishing services and solutions to academic and professional organizations and individual authors. We publish journals, books, conference proceedings and a variety of other publications.

Background Dreaming and synthesizing a dream world is a complex process undertaken by the brain with the impulses it has received. It’s often said that blind people can’t see in their dreams but some papers suggest that they in fact do see in their dreams. This knowledge can be used to understand how actually the dream world works and get more insights about the whole process. Aim To identify if different categories of blind individuals can see or not and to understand if they can dream, what type of dreams they get and whether they have vision in their dreams or not. Methodology A cross sectional survey based study was conducted with interview pattern to identify the patterns of dreaming. Questions about duration since they have visual impairment were also asked and data was digitalized and later analyzed in excel. Results A total of 75 visually impaired individuals were recruited for the study who were willing to give consent for the study. It was seen that individuals who lost their sight totally before attaining a level of mental maturity that they can comprehend the concept of light were unable to see in their dreams. Individuals who lost their sight completely after attaining that level of maturity could see in their dreams but the vision in their dreams was only limited to what they had seen and what they could imagine from that limited experience of light sense. Other individuals who still could percept light could see in their dreams what they could see in the real word. Conclusion Visually impaired individuals can in fact see in their dreams provided they still can percept light and see and if they have lost their sight completely then they lost it after gaining enough mental image maturity to understand the concept of light.

Background Necrotizing soft tissue infection (NSTI) is a potentially fatal skin and soft tissue infection, characterized by fulminant tissue damage, systemic signs of toxicity, and high mortality with case fatality rates ranging from 14% to 41% over the last two decades. It can be challenging to diagnose NF in its initial phases as it frequently presents symptoms that are similar to those of other non-necrotic SSTIs, such as cellulitis. It is unclear how the different diagnostic imaging modalities should be used to evaluate patients who have a suspected NSTI and there are concerns about their accuracy and potential delays in surgical intervention. Therefore, we aimed to gather data on the sensitivity and specificity of physical findings of fever, hypotension as well as imaging techniques such as ultrasound (USG) and computed tomography (CT) scans, and the LRINEC score, in detecting Necrotizing Soft Tissue Infections (NSTI) in patients. Methods Medical literature was comprehensively searched and reviewed without restrictions to particular study designs, or publication dates using PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar databases for all relevant literature. The extraction of necessary data proceeded after specific inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied. In this Meta-Analysis, a total of 49 RCTs with an aggregate of 11,520 cases were handpicked. wherein two writers independently assessed the caliber of each study as well as the use of the Cochrane tool for bias risk apprehension. The statistical software packages RevMan (Review Manager, version 5.3), SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences, version 20), and Excel in Stata 14 were used to perform the statistical analyses. Results We calculated the sensitivity and specificity for each of the parameters. Here, USG has a sensitivity of 0.556 and specificity of 0.879, CT has a sensitivity of 0.932 and specificity of 0.849, and LRINEC Score >= 6 has a sensitivity of 0.59 and specificity of 0.849. we also calculated the same for physical signs like fever and hypotension. Conclusion we conclude that physical signs like fever and hypotension and LRINEC Score >= 6 are not advisable indicators, however, CT shows significant superior modality but it is not a cost-effective solution. USG is relatively reliable and cost-effective for the early diagnosis of NSTI.

Background It has been taught as a fundamental value that for skin sutures and wound closure, non-absorbable sutures should be used without many research papers supporting its higher efficacy with decreased would infection, decreased wound dehiscence and decreased skin scarring. The optimal suture material type still remains a myth. Objective This study aimed to compare the outcomes of absorbable versus non-absorbable sutures for skin closure Methods A Systemic-review was performed with randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and Cohort studies that compared outcomes of absorbable versus non-absorbable sutures for skin closure. Results A total of 5096 patients in 27 RCTs analyzed. There was no significant difference between absorbable sutures and non-absorbable sutures in the incidence of wound infections, scar formation and wound dehiscence. The results of both groups are quite comparable with nil heterogeneity. Conclusions Absorbable sutures for skin closure were not inferior to nonabsorbable sutures. It should be recommended due to its great cost and time savings. Well-designed RCTs with sufficient follow-ups are needed to adequately clarify whether better cosmetic results can be achieved using intradermal absorbable sutures.