Background: Diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) is a severe diabetes complication managed with fluids, insulin and electrolyte correction. This review evaluates the debated effectiveness of bicarbonate therapy on DKA outcomes. Methods: Following PRISMA guidelines, we systematically reviewed studies on bicarbonate therapy in DKA. We searched PubMed, Google Scholar, the Cochrane Library and ClinicalTrials.gov (as of August 2024), including studies on patients with DKA. Meta‐analysis was conducted using RevMan. Bias risk was assessed with the Newcastle‐Ottawa Scale (NOS) for cohort studies, Cochrane's ROB‐2 for RCTs and the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Scale for case series. Prospero ID: CRD42024581810. Results: Eight studies, including 646 patients, met the inclusion criteria. Participants' mean ages spanned from approximately 9.7 years to 45.8 years. Bicarbonate therapy did not significantly improve pH levels (mean difference = −0.02, 95% CI [−0.13, 0.09], p = 0.7), time to resolution of acidosis (mean difference = 0.09 h, 95% CI [−2.6, 2.79], p = 0.95) or potassium levels (mean difference = −0.10, 95% CI [−0.49, 0.29], p = 0.61). Bicarbonate therapy was associated with a marginally longer duration of hospital stay (mean difference = 13.63 h, 95% CI [0.23, 27.03], p = 0.05), although the overall effect size was small. No significant difference was observed in the incidence of hypoglycemia (odds ratio = 2.62, 95% CI [0.59, 11.63], p = 0.20). High heterogeneity was observed across most outcomes, mainly due to variability in study protocols and patient populations. Conclusion: Bicarbonate therapy provided no meaningful clinical benefit in the routine management of DKA and was associated with potential harm, including worsened hyperglycemia. Consistent with current guidelines, its use should be restricted to cases of severe acidemia (pH < 6.9). Further high‐quality studies are needed to clarify its role in extreme acidosis and to explore alternative buffering strategies.

Human forensic biobanks preserve biological materials and associated information for forensic investigation, evidence retention, research, quality assurance, method development, and training, yet the terminology, purposes, governance, and operating models of these resources remain heterogeneous across forensic disciplines. This scoping review will map how human forensic biobanks and related forensic imaging or data repositories are defined, established, operated, governed, and used. The review will follow the Arksey and O’Malley framework with refinements by Levac and colleagues and will be reported in accordance with PRISMA-ScR. PubMed, Scopus, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and Embase will be searched without date, geographic, or search-language restrictions, supplemented by reference-list and forward-citation searching. Eligible evidence will describe established human biological collections, retained biological evidence repositories, or qualifying forensic digital repositories with documented forensic purposes. Two reviewers will independently screen records; data will be charted using a piloted form and verified by a second reviewer. Findings will be synthesized descriptively and narratively, with publications distinguished from unique resources and physical, digital, and hybrid models mapped separately. The review is expected to characterize resource purposes, populations, specimens, and data types, governance, access, quality management, sustainability, and reported applications, while identifying implementation challenges and reporting gaps. By organizing a fragmented literature around the underlying resources rather than individual analytical findings, the review will provide a structured evidence base for future forensic biobank development, governance, and research.

Introduction: Molecular tumor boards (MTBs) interpret molecular findings and connect patients with cancer to therapeutic options, including clinical trials. A recent European scoping review examines MTB implementation, while earlier global reviews address treatment attrition and clinical effectiveness. This scoping review will map global evidence on MTB-supported access to therapeutic trials and subsequent participation, including pathways, barriers, facilitators, and gaps across geographical and economic settings. Methods: The review will follow Arksey and O’Malley’s five core stages, incorporating selected refinements from Levac and colleagues and JBI guidance. Review and search reporting will follow PRISMA-ScR and PRISMA-S, respectively. PubMed, Embase, Scopus, CINAHL, and APA PsycINFO will be searched from inception, supplemented by citation and targeted grey literature searches. Searches will combine MTB and oncology terminology without requiring enrollment or outcome terms. No date, geographical, country-income, or language restrictions will apply. Eligible empirical sources will describe an MTB and provide substantive information on at least one therapeutic-trial access or participation stage, barrier, or facilitator. Neither a complete patient pathway nor a measured enrollment outcome will be required. Two reviewers will independently screen titles, abstracts, and full texts. A charting form will be piloted on at least five sources; one reviewer will chart each source, and a second will verify all entries. Results and Analysis: Descriptive and narrative synthesis will map countries, income groups, MTB models, trial identification, matching, referral, screening, enrollment, and subsequent participation. Country income and reported local resources will be recorded separately. Counts, denominators, matching definitions, follow-up periods, and evidence sources will be retained. Treatment initiation, withdrawal, discontinuation, and completion will be mapped when reported; response and survival will provide secondary context. Findings will identify evidence gaps and approaches that may inform future UAE pathways. Ethics and Dissemination: Ethics approval is not anticipated because the review will use publicly available information without collecting identifiable participant data. Findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications, professional meetings, and a practical evidence summary.