Background: A crucial element in the systematic review (SR) methodology is the appraisal of included primary studies, using tools for assessment of methodological quality or risk of bias (RoB). SR authors can conduct sensitivity analyses to explore whether their results are sensitive to exclusion of low quality studies or a high RoB. However, it is unknown which tools do SR authors use for assessing quality/RoB, and how they set threshold for quality/RoB in sensitivity analyses. The aim of this study was to assess quality/RoB assessment tools, the types of sensitivity analyses and quality/RoB thresholds for sensitivity analyses used within SRs published in high-impact pain/anesthesiology journals.Methods: This was a methodological study. We analyzed SRs published from January 2005 to June 2018 in the 25% highest-ranking journals within the Journal Citation Reports (JCR) “Anesthesiology” category. We retrieved the SRs from PubMed. Two authors independently screened records, full texts, and extracted data on quality/RoB tools and sensitivity analyses. We extracted data about quality/RoB tools, types of sensitivity analyses and the thresholds for quality/RoB used in them.Results: Out of 678 analyzed SRs, 513 (76%) reported the use of quality/RoB assessments. The most commonly reported tools for assessing quality/RoB in the studies were the Cochrane tool for risk of bias assessment (N = 251; 37%) and Jadad scale (N = 99; 15%). Meta-analysis was conducted in 451 (66%) of SRs and sensitivity analysis in 219/451 (49%). Most commonly, sensitivity analysis was conducted to explore the influence of study quality/RoB (90/219; 41%) on the results. Quality/RoB thresholds used for sensitivity analysis for those studies were clearly reported in 47 (52%) articles that used them. The quality/RoB thresholds used for sensitivity analyses were highly heterogeneous and inconsistent, even when the same tool was used.Conclusions: A quarter of SRs reported using quality/RoB assessments, and some of them cited tools that are not meant for assessing quality/RoB. Authors who use quality/RoB to explore the robustness of their results in meta-analyses use highly heterogeneous quality/RoB thresholds in sensitivity analyses. Better methodological consistency for quality/RoB sensitivity analyses is needed.

Background: Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) vaccine-related side effects have a determinant role in the public decision regarding vaccination. Therefore, this study has been designed to actively monitor the safety and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines globally. Methods: A multi-country, three-phase study including a cross-sectional survey to test for the short-term side effects of COVID-19 vaccines among target population groups. In the second phase, we will monitor the booster doses’ side effects, while in the third phase, the long-term safety and effectiveness will be investigated. A validated, self-administered questionnaire will be used to collect data from the target population; Results: The study protocol has been registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, with the identifier NCT04834869. Conclusions: CoVaST is the first independent study aiming to monitor the side effects of COVID-19 vaccines following booster doses, and the long-term safety and effectiveness of said vaccines.

Although there is research interest to assess attitudes on psychedelics, no validated instrument exists for this purpose. We aimed to develop and examine the psychometric properties of the Attitudes on Psychedelics Questionnaire (APQ) in a sample of the Croatian general population. A cross-sectional, web-based survey among the general population was conducted on 1153 participants (62.1% female, 77.7% with a graduate or high school degree, 15.1% health care workers). We assessed participants’ ability to recognize psychedelic substances using a short knowledge test. The APQ consists of 20 items with four sub-scales: Legal Use of Psychedelics, Effects of Psychedelics, Risk Assessment of Psychedelics, and Openness to Psychedelics. This model demonstrated best fit in a confirmatory factor analysis. Total scale reliability was excellent (McDonald’s ω = 0.949, 95% CI = 0.944–0.953). A strong correlation with a similar unvalidated measure (r = 0.885, P < 0.001) demonstrated convergent validity. We observed an association between attitudes and knowledge on psychedelics (r = 0.494, P < 0.001). Younger age, male gender, and lower educational status were associated with higher APQ scores. The APQ is valid, reliable, and could be applied in assessing educational interventions, patients’ treatment outcomes, and the attitudes of different groups of experts. We encourage further validation of the APQ in English.

Objectives: To evaluate the impact of the first COVID-19 lockdown in 2020 on the burnout and study satisfaction of medical students. Design: A cross-sectional study with a presurvey and postsurvey. Setting: University of Split School of Medicine (USSM), Split, Croatia. The lockdown in the COVID-19 pandemic lasted from late March to mid-May 2020. There was a full switch to e-learning at the USSM during this period, and all clinical teaching was stopped. Participants: Students enrolled in the 2019/2020 academic year. Data were collected before lockdown in December 2019 and January 2020 and again after the end of lockdown in June 2020. Primary and secondary outcome measures: Study satisfaction was assessed using the study satisfaction survey. Burnout was assessed using two instruments: Oldenburg Burnout Inventory and Copenhagen Burnout Inventory. We used Bayesian statistics to compare before-and-after differences. Results: 437 independent responses (77.2% response rate) were collected before and 235 after lockdown (41.5% response rate). 160 participant responses were eligible for pairing. There was no significant difference for both paired and unpaired participants in study satisfaction before (3.38 on a 1–5 scale; 95% credible interval (95% CrI) 3.32 to 3.44) and after (3.49, 95% CrI 3.41 to 3.57) lockdown. We found no evidence (Bayes factor (BF ₁₀ ) >3.00 as a cut-off value) for an increase in the level of burnout before and after lockdown, both in independent and paired samples. Conclusions: It seems that the first pandemic-related lockdown and a switch to e-learning did not affect burnout levels among medical students or their perception of their study programme. More insight is needed on the short-term and long-term effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on medical students and their education. Well-structured longitudinal studies on medical student burnout during the COVID-19 pandemic are needed.

Background: Medical schools should also evaluate applicants’ non-academic characteristics in the search for successful students and future physicians, but ideal non-academic criteria have not yet been found. We followed two successive generations of medical students at the University of Split School of Medicine (USSM) to assess both academic and non-academic constructs as predictors of academic performance, defined as medical school grade point average (GPA). We also interviewed some of the participants to gain additional insight for future studies. Methods: We measured study GPA in first and last year, as well as attitudes towards science, motivation, emotional intelligence, self-esteem, and perceived personal incompetence in first year. We also obtained their scores on existing medical school enrollment criteria, the State Graduation Exam (SGE) and high-school GPA. Regression models were constructed for predictors of GPA in the last year of medical school. Four structured pilot interviews were conducted to explore participants’ perceptions of necessary traits for medical school and later practice. Results: Regression analysis showed that only SGE predicted final academic performance in medical school (β=0.35, 95% confidence interval (CI)=0.06-0.64), while none of the non-academic constructs we assessed predicted this outcome of education. The two generations did not significantly differ in any variable except that intrinsic motivation was higher in the generation that enrolled in 2011 (OR=1.47, 95%CI=1.12-1.93, P=0.005). Discussion: None of the non-academic constructs predicted academic performance in medical school. Their use as selection criteria may not be warranted as they could impact the academic quality of enrolling medical students.