METHODS: The online survey was conducted in seven Asian countries from April to August 2021. Two sets of online questionnaires were developed, one set for the chairs/secretaries and another set for the REC members.The REC profiles obtained from the REC members are descriptive in nature. Data from the chairs/secretaries were compared between the RECs with external quality assessment (SIDCER-Recognized RECs, SR-RECs) and non-external quality assessment (Non-SIDCER-Recognized RECs, NSR-RECs) and analyzed using a Chi-squared test.

RESULTS: A total of 688 REC members and 197 REC chairs/secretaries participated in the survey. Most RECs have standard operating procedures (SOPs), and have experience in reviewing all types of protocols, but 18.1% had no experience reviewing COVID-19 protocols. Most REC members need specific training on reviewing COVID-19 protocols (93%). In response to the outbreak, RECs used online reviews, increased meeting frequency and single/central REC. All SR-RECs had a member composition as required by the World Health Organisation ethics guidelines, while some NSR-RECs lacked non-affiliated and/or layperson members. SR-RECs reviewed more COVID-related product development protocols and indicated challenges in reviewing risk/benefit and vulnerability (0.010), informed consent form (0.002), and privacy and confidentiality (P = 0.020) than NSR-RECs.

Methods: This study utilized a descriptive and cross-sectional design to evaluate academic dishonesty among nursing students using a purposive sampling method. The participants of this study consisted of 201 students from diploma (Year 2 and 3) and degree (Year 2 to Year 4) nursing programmes. A self-administered, validated questionnaire was used for data collection. Institutional ethics committee clearance was obtained prior to commencement of the study.

METHODS: The local ethics committee approved this retrospective study and for this type of study formal consent is not required. A total of 42 B3 lesions in 40 women aged 41-77 years were included in our study. All patients underwent CESM 2-3 weeks after the biopsy procedure and surgical excision was subsequently performed within 60 days of the CESM procedure. Three radiologists reviewed the images independently. The results were then compared with histologic findings.

RESULTS: The sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values for confirmed demonstration of malignancy at CESM were 33.3%, 87.2%, 16.7%, and 94.4% for reader 1; 66.7%, 76.9%, 18.2%, and 96.7% for reader 2; 66.7%, 74.4%, 16.7%, and 96.7% for reader 3. Overall agreement on detection of malignant lesions using CESM among readers ranged from moderate to substantial (κ = .451-.696), for categorization of BPE from moderate to substantial (κ = .562-.711), and for evaluation of lesion intensity enhancement from fair to moderate (κ = .346-.459).

Methods: A multi-center cross sectional study was conducted for a month in out-patient wards of hospitals in Khobar, Dammam, Makkah, and Madinah, Saudi Arabia. Patients were randomly selected from a registered patient pools at hospitals and the item-subject ratio was kept at 1:20. The tool was assessed for factorial, construct, convergent, known group and predictive validities as well as, reliability and internal consistency of scale were also evaluated. Sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were also evaluated. Data were analyzed using SPSS v24 and MedCalc v19.2. The study was approved by concerned ethics committees (IRB-129-25/6/1439) and (IRB-2019-05-002).

Results: A total of 282 responses were received. The values for normed fit index (NFI), comparative fit index (CFI), Tucker Lewis index (TLI) and incremental fit index (IFI) were 0.960, 0.979, 0.954 and 0.980. All values were >0.95. The value for root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) was 0.059, i.e., <0.06. Hence, factorial validity was established. The average factor loading of the scale was 0.725, i.e., >0.7, that established convergent validity. Known group validity was established by obtaining significant p-value <0.05, for the associations based on hypotheses. Cronbach's α was 0.865, i.e., >0.7. Predictive validity was established by evaluating odds ratios (OR) of demographic factors with adherence score using logistic regression. Sensitivity was 78.16%, specificity was 76.85% and, accuracy of the tool was 77.66%, i.e., >70%.

METHODS: Surgeons in the APFCP completed an Institutional Review Board-approved anonymous e-survey and/or printed letters (for China) containing 19 questions regarding nonsurgical close observation in patients who achieved clinical complete response (cCR) to neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT).

RESULTS: Of the 417 responses, 80.8% (n = 337) supported the W&W approach and 65.5% (n = 273) treated patients who achieved cCR after nCRT. Importantly, 78% of participants (n = 326) preferred a selective W&W approach in patients with old age and medical comorbidities who achieved cCR. In regard to restaging methods after nCRT, the majority of respondents based their decision to use W&W on a combination of magnetic resonance imaging results (94.5%, n = 394) with other test results. For interval between nCRT completion and tumor response assessment, most participants used 8 weeks (n = 154, 36.9%), followed by 6 weeks (n = 127, 30.5%) and 4 weeks (n = 102, 24.5%). In response to the question of how often responders followed-up after W&W, the predominant period was every 3 months (209 participants, 50.1%) followed by every 2 months (75 participants, 18.0%). If local regrowth was found during follow-up, most participants (79.9%, n = 333) recommended radical surgery as an initial management.