Background: The objective of this systematic review and network meta-analysis was to compare the effects of single-shot ultrasound-guided regional anesthesia techniques on postoperative opioid consumption in patients undergoing open cardiac surgery. Methods: This systematic review and network meta-analysis involved cardiac surgical patients (age > 18 y) requiring median sternotomy. We searched PubMed, EMBASE, The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Scopus, and Web of Science. The effects of the single-shot ultrasound-guided regional anesthesia technique were compared with those of placebo and no intervention. We conducted a risk assessment of bias for eligible studies and assessed the overall quality of evidence for each outcome. Results: The primary outcome was opioid consumption during the first 24 h after surgery. The secondary outcomes were pain after extubation at 12 and 24 h, postoperative nausea and vomiting, extubation time, intensive care unit discharge time, and length of hospital stay. Fifteen studies with 849 patients were included. The regional anesthesia techniques included pecto-intercostal fascial block, transversus thoracis muscle plane block, erector spinae plane (ESP) block, and pectoralis nerve block I. All the regional anesthesia techniques included significantly reduced postoperative opioid consumption at 24 h, expressed as morphine milligram equivalents (MME). The ESP block was the most effective treatment (-22.93 MME [-34.29;-11.56]). Conclusions: In this meta-analysis, we concluded that fascial plane blocks were better than placebo when evaluating 24 h MMEs. However, it is still challenging to determine which is better, given the paucity of studies available in the literature. More randomized controlled trials are required to determine which regional anesthesia technique is better. Trial registration: PROSPERO; CRD42022315497.

The Coronavirus Disease - 19 (COVID-19) pandemic has put additional strain on Africa's fragile healthcare systems and has impacted the rise of emerging and re-emerging infectious diseases. Currently, there is a rise in cases of Monkeypox Disease, a zoonotic viral disease caused by the Monkeypox virus, which was first documented in 1970 in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Most of the clinical symptoms of Monkeypox resemble that of smallpox, whose virus also belongs to the same genus. Initial symptoms include headache, fever, and fatigue, followed by lymphadenopathy and a rash. This study aims to provide more insight into Monkeypox by exposing its current burden and efforts to combat it amidst COVID-19 in Africa. Since Monkeypox disease is re-emerging and is less contagious than COVID-19, prevention and treatment are much more manageable. Still, African countries face several crucial challenges in responding to the Monkeypox in times of the covid-19 pandemic. These include lack of a well-functioning surveillance system for early detection of the disease, lack of awareness and knowledge of the monkeypox disease across the general population, lack of healthcare facilities already burdened by COVID-19 cases, and shortage of trained healthcare professionals.

Systematic reviews are a cornerstone of evidence-based research, providing comprehensive summaries of existing studies to answer specific research questions. This article offers a detailed guide to conducting high-quality systematic reviews in biology, health and social sciences. It outlines key steps, including developing and registering a protocol, designing comprehensive search strategies, and selecting studies through a screening process. The article emphasizes the importance of accurate data extraction and the use of validated tools to assess the risk of bias across different study designs. Both meta-analysis (quantitative approach) and narrative synthesis (qualitative approach) are discussed in detail. The guide also highlights the use of frameworks, such as GRADE, to assess the certainty of evidence and provides recommendations for clear and transparent reporting in line with the PRISMA 2020 guidelines. This paper aims to adapt and translate evidence-based review principles, commonly applied in clinical research, into the context of biological sciences. By highlighting domain-specific methodologies, challenges, and resources, we provide tailored guidance for researchers in ecology, molecular biology, evolutionary biology, and related fields in order to conduct transparent and reproducible evidence syntheses.

Background: The novel coronavirus (COVID-19) emerged in Wuhan, China, in December 2019. This study aims to evaluate the knowledge of anesthesiology specialists and residents in Turkey about COVID-19 and their attitudes toward the strategies and application methods to be used for a suspected/confirmed COVID-19 case that needs to be operated on or followed up in an intensive care unit, as well as to raise awareness about this issue. Methods: This descriptive study comprised anesthesiology specialists and residents working in various health institutions in Turkey. The data used in this study were obtained online between March 13, 2020 and March 25, 2020 through the website SurveyMonkey (SurveyMonkey, San Mateo, CA) by using a survey form. We contacted members of the Turkish Anaesthesiology and Reanimation Society through the social media platforms Twitter, LinkedIn, and WhatsApp, as well as through their e-mail addresses and invited them to participate in the study. Those who agreed to participate responded to the aforementioned survey. We used SPSS 22.0 (IBM, Armonk, NY) to analyze the survey data statistically. Results: A total of 346 anesthesiology specialists and residents participated in the study. Although the majority of the participants exhibited the correct attitudes toward airway management, research assistants with little professional experience were observed to be undecided or had the tendency to make incorrect decisions. Conclusions: The COVID-19 pandemic is spreading rapidly worldwide. The incidence of COVID-19 cases is increasing daily, and this disease can cause patient death. Anesthesiology specialists and residents who perform emergency operations on these patients in settings other than intensive care units should follow simple and easy-to-understand algorithms to ensure safety. The provision of theoretical and practical training to healthcare providers before they meet patients will help ensure patient–healthcare provider safety and prevent panic, which can cause distress among healthcare providers.