Background: Psychological stress has been increasingly recognized as a potential risk factor for stroke, but the strength and consistency of this association remained uncertain. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to determine the overall association between broad psychological stress and broad stroke risk. Methodology: Systematic searches of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and OVID databases from 1990 to March of 2025. These searches utilized a strategy combining subject headings and keywords related to psychosocial risk factors and stroke. Twenty-eight studies met inclusion criteria (23 prospective cohort and 5 case-control), comprising over 950,000 participants. We excluded studies involving participants with a history of depression. Stroke was broadly defined to include ischemic, hemorrhagic, subarachnoid, TIA, and unspecified subtypes. Results: Our meta-analysis of 23 prospective cohort studies found that individuals exposed to psychological stress had a 46% higher risk of experiencing stroke (HR = 1.46; 95% CI: 1.29–1.66; P < 0.01). Initial analysis revealed substantial heterogeneity ( I ² = 82%), which was significantly reduced to 39% (HR = 1.45; 95% CI: 1.32–1.59; P = 0.02) after a sensitivity analysis. Analysis of five case-control studies yielded a pooled odds ratio (OR) of 1.10 (95% CI: 1.01–1.20; P < 0.01), also indicating a modest but significant elevation in stroke risk; however, heterogeneity remained high ( I ² = 92%). Sex-stratified analysis showed comparable increases in stroke risk for males (HR = 1.33; 95% CI: 1.19–1.49) and females (HR = 1.44; 95% CI: 1.07–1.95), with no statistically significant subgroup difference ( P = 0.61). Conclusion: Psychological stress is significantly associated with an increased risk of fatal stroke, though publication bias and study heterogeneity highlight the need for cautious interpretation. Further research should aim to address methodological variability and selective reporting to refine our understanding of this relationship.

Background: Major depression has been affecting more than 280 million of the general population, and this number continue to rise. Thus, impairing daily life activities. Research on Major depression has been since the 19th century for the sake of elevating symptoms with less side effects. The aim of our study is to assess the impact of a potential game changer in treatment of Major depression, GeprioneMethod: we have conducted a comprehensive search, including key databases such as Cochrane, PubMed, SCOPUS, and ScienceDirect, to ensure thorough coverage of all relevant literature, using appropriate key mesh terms. Search date ranged from 1987 to 2024. Randomized controlled studies published between that studied Patients with Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) diagnosed based on standardized criteria such as DSM‐5 with Geprione only as administration while comparing it to a placebo reflected as reduction in depressive symptoms for outcome were included. Exclusion criteria included populations with induced major depression such as substance abuse and breast‐feeding women, studies assessing other drugs from azapirones family than Geprione, with comparison to any drug other than placebo, and randomized controlled studies with incomplete outcome data. This systematic review was registered with PROSPERO [CRD42024510595] and followed PRISMA guidelines. Risk of bias was assessed using Cochrane library tool RoB 2 (revised tool for Risk of Bias in randomized trials). Data syntheses will be performed through Rev‐Man programResult: Seven Randomized controlled trails (n = 7) were included from 203 identified titles, after excluding duplicates (n = 13) and not fulfilling the inclusion and eligibility criteria (n = 183). A pilot study was conducted on 4 of these papers, revealing that all studies demonstrated that Gepirone is a potential treatment for major depression disorder and Our systematic review is currently in progress and is expected to be completed by the end of 2024Conclusion: The study views Gepirone as a potential treatment for major depression disorder with regard to fewer side effects and higher efficacy compared to standard treatment e.g., atypical antidepressants and tricyclic antidepressants. We encourage further research across variable populations for more robust evidence.

Pediatric patients present to the emergency departments (EDs) with a wide range of clinical manifestations, ranging from mild to severe. A systematic approach is crucial to identify those at high risk of deterioration. However, the predictive value of such predictors remains unclear. Our study aims to evaluate different mortality predictors used in pediatric emergency departments (PEDs) regarding the diagnostic accuracy metrics, including sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic odds ratio. We comprehensively searched multiple databases and included all cohort studies, case-control studies, and randomized controlled trials from January 2000 to December 2024 with pediatric patients (aged 0–18 years) presenting to PEDs, where mortality predictors were used to assess for in-ED and short-term post-ED mortality. We employed a bivariate random-effects model for data synthesis and analysis to calculate pooled sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), and area under the curve (AUC) values. 329 Pediatric Early Warning Score (PEWS) thresholds were analyzed, with the model-derived optimal cutoff 2.189 (AUC) = 0.70; 95% CI: 0.63 to 0.76), high pooled sensitivity (0.95, 95% CI: 0.72 to 0.80) and specificity (0.93, 95% CI: 0.62 to 0.80). In addition, A strong negative predictive value (NPV = 0.0006) and modest positive predictive value (PPV = 0.0003) were noted. Heterogeneity was significant (I²>99%), driven by PEWS versions and clinical settings. PEWS implementation reduced mortality without increasing ICU admissions in resource-limited settings. PEWS is a good exclusion tool for those at low mortality risk. However, a comprehensive approach with clinical judgment is needed for the risk assessment of high-risk pediatrics.

Gut colonization by multidrug-resistant organisms (MDROs) is an important reservoir for subsequent infection and transmission. Fecal microbiota transplanta

Background: Computer vision syndrome (CVS), also known as digital eye strain, refers to a group of eye- and vision-related problems resulting from prolonged use of digital screens. With the increasing dependence on digital devices for learning, especially among university students, CVS has emerged as a growing public health concern. Medical students are particularly at risk due to extended screen time for academic purposes. Objective: This cross-sectional study aimed to assess the prevalence, risk factors, and protective measures associated with CVS among medical students at Kasr Al-Ainy Faculty of Medicine, Cairo University. Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted using a self-administered electronic questionnaire based on the validated Computer Vision Syndrome Questionnaire (CVS-Q). The survey was distributed to 1,986 participants, with 1,882 responses included for analysis after exclusions. Results: The results revealed a high prevalence of CVS (72.4%), with symptoms such as eye strain, dryness, and headaches being most common. Female sex, lower academic levels, pre-existing eye conditions, smoking, and prolonged screen time (especially on tablets or iPads) were identified as significant risk factors. Protective measures, including screen brightness adjustment, frequent breaks, and consulting eye specialists, were associated with reduced CVS symptoms. Conclusion: CVS is highly prevalent among medical students and significantly associated with modifiable risk factors, particularly prolonged screen time and poor screen ergonomics. Targeted interventions, including optimizing screen settings, limiting continuous use, and taking regular breaks, may reduce the symptom burden.