Explore the vast range of titles available.

يعتبر كتاب (موجز تاريخ العالم) موسوعة موجزة لنظرة الكاتب على تاريخ العالم من خلال عرض تاريخ مصر وتاريخ الأمة العربية والعالم الإسلامي بالسنوات والأحداث، كما يتناول الكتاب أيضا عرض موجز لمختصر تاريخ أوروبا والعالم وحكام دول العالم. الكتاب يعد مرجع هام للإعلاميين والدبلوماسيين ورجال السياسة وأيضا هواة التاريخ والمهتمين بدراسته.

Systematic reviews (SRs) of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are unique knowledge syntheses that require tailored approaches to, and greater subjectivity in, design and execution compared with other SRs in clinical epidemiology. We provide review authors structured direction on how to design and conduct methodologically rigorous SRs of CPGs. A guidance paper outlining suggested methodology for conducting all stages of an SR of CPGs. We present concrete examples of approaches used by published reviews, including a case exemplar demonstrating how this methodology was applied to our own SR of CPGs. Review context and the unique characteristics of CPGs as research syntheses or clinical guidance statements must be considered in all aspects of review design and conduct. Researchers should develop a “PICAR” statement to help form and focus on the research question(s) and eligibility criteria, assess CPG quality using a validated appraisal tool, and extract, analyze, and summarize data in a way that is cogent and transparent. SRs of CPGs can be used to systematically identify, assess, and summarize the current state of guidance on a clinical topic. These types of reviews often require methodological tailoring to ensure that their objectives and timelines are effectively and efficiently addressed; however, they should all meet the criteria for an SR, follow a rigorous methodological approach, and adhere to transparent reporting practices.

تدور أحداث قصة (آلة السفر عبر الزمن) والذي قام بتأليفها \"هربت جورج ويلز\" في صفحات من القطع المتوسط، حول آلة الزمن التي تحكي عن مخترع قرر أن ينتقل في العصور ومن خلال رحلته يكتشف شعبا مسلما ومتعاونا لكنه يخاف من الظلام ويحاول الشعب النجاة من \"المورلوكس\" الذين يخرجون كل ليلة ويطاردونهم بشراسة، فهل سينجون وكيف ؟.

The Cochrane risk of bias (CROB) tool and Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) scale are used to evaluate risk of bias of randomized controlled trials. We assessed the level of agreement between the instruments. We searched the Cochrane Library to identify trials included in systematic reviews evaluating physical therapy interventions. For trials that met our inclusion criteria (primary reference in Cochrane review, review used CROB (2008 version), indexed in PEDro), CROB items were extracted from the reviews and PEDro items and total score were downloaded from PEDro. Kappa statistics were used to determine the agreement between CROB and PEDro scale items that evaluate similar constructs (e.g., randomization). The total PEDro score was compared to the CROB summary score (% of items met) using an Intraclass Correlation Coefficient. Sensitivity analyses explored the impact of the CROB \"unclear\" category and variants of CROB blinding items. Kappa statistics were used to determine agreement between different thresholds for \"acceptable\" risk of bias between CROB and PEDro scale summary scores. We included 1442 trials from 108 Cochrane reviews. Agreement was \"moderate\" for three of the six CROB and PEDro scale items that evaluate similar constructs (allocation concealment, participant blinding, assessor blinding; Kappa = 0.479-0.582). Agreement between the summary scores was \"poor\" (Intraclass Correlation Coefficient = 0.285). Agreement was highest when the CROB \"unclear\" category was collapsed with \"high\" and when participant, personnel and assessor blinding were evaluated separately in CROB. Agreement for different thresholds for \"acceptable\" risk of bias between CROB and PEDro summary scores was, at best, \"fair\". There was moderate agreement for half of the PEDro and CROB items that evaluate similar constructs. Interpretation of the CROB \"unclear\" category and variants of the CROB blinding items substantially influenced agreement. Either instrument can be used to quantify risk of bias, but they can't be used interchangeably.

يعتبر كتاب (موجز تاريخ العالم) موسوعة موجزة لنظرة الكاتب على تاريخ العالم من خلال عرض تاريخ مصر وتاريخ الأمة العربية والعالم الإسلامي بالسنوات والأحداث، كما يتناول الكتاب أيضا عرض موجز لمختصر تاريخ أوروبا والعالم وحكام دول العالم، الكتاب يعد مرجع هام للإعلاميين والدبلوماسيين ورجال السياسة وأيضا هواة التاريخ والمهتمين بدراسته.

Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) affects approximately 3% of adults globally. Many pharmacologic treatments options exist, yet the comparative benefits and harms of individual treatments are largely unknown. We performed a systematic review and network meta-analysis to assess the relative effects of individual pharmacologic treatments for adults with ADHD. We searched English-language published and grey literature sources for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) involving pharmacologic treatment of ADHD in adults (December 2018). The primary outcome was clinical response; secondary outcomes were quality of life, executive function, driving behaviour, withdrawals due to adverse events, treatment discontinuation, serious adverse events, hospitalization, cardiovascular adverse events, and emergency department visits. Data were pooled via pair-wise meta-analyses and Bayesian network meta-analyses. Risk of bias was assessed by use of Cochrane's Risk of Bias tool, and the certainty of the evidence was assessed by use of the GRADE framework. Eighty-one unique trials that reported at least one outcome of interest were included, most of which were at high or unclear risk of at least one important source of bias. Notably, only 5 RCTs were deemed at overall low risk of bias. Included pharmacotherapies were methylphenidate, atomoxetine, dexamfetamine, lisdexamfetamine, guanfacine, bupropion, mixed amphetamine salts, and modafinil. As a class, ADHD pharmacotherapy improved patient- and clinician-reported clinical response compared with placebo (range: 4 to 15 RCTs per outcome); however, these findings were not conserved when the analyses were restricted to studies at low risk of bias, and the certainty of the finding is very low. There were few differences among individual medications, although atomoxetine was associated with improved patient-reported clinical response and quality of life compared with placebo. There was no significant difference in the risk of serious adverse events or treatment discontinuation between ADHD pharmacotherapies and placebo; however, the proportion of participants who withdrew due to adverse events was significantly higher among participants who received any ADHD pharmacotherapy. Few RCTs reported on the occurrence of adverse events over a long treatment duration. Overall, despite a class effect of improving clinical response relative to placebo, there were few differences among the individual ADHD pharmacotherapies, and most studies were at risk of at least one important source of bias. Furthermore, the certainty of the evidence was very low to low for all outcomes, and there was limited reporting of long-term adverse events. As such, the choice between ADHD pharmacotherapies may depend on individual patient considerations, and future studies should assess the long-term effects of individual pharmacotherapies on patient-important outcomes, including quality of life, in robust blinded RCTs. PROSPERO no. CRD 42015026049.

Patients with symptomatic, paroxysmal, untreated atrial fibrillation were randomly assigned to antiarrhythmic drug therapy or cryoablation. At 1 year, there was a significantly lower rate of recurrence of atrial fibrillation with cryoablation than with drug therapy.

Initial treatment of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation with cryoballoon ablation was associated with a lower incidence of persistent atrial fibrillation and other atrial tachyarrhythmias over 3 years than rhythm-control medications.

Serious infections are a major concern for patients considering treatments for rheumatoid arthritis. Evidence is inconsistent as to whether biological drugs are associated with an increased risk of serious infection compared with traditional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs). We did a systematic review and meta-analysis of serious infections in patients treated with biological drugs compared with those treated with traditional DMARDs. We did a systematic literature search with Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and ClinicalTrials.gov from their inception to Feb 11, 2014. Search terms included “biologics”, “rheumatoid arthritis” and their synonyms. Trials were eligible for inclusion if they included any of the approved biological drugs and reported serious infections. We assessed the risk of bias with the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool. We did a Bayesian network meta-analysis of published trials using a binomial likelihood model to assess the risk of serious infections in patients with rheumatoid arthritis who were treated with biological drugs, compared with those treated with traditional DMARDs. The odds ratio (OR) of serious infection was the primary measure of treatment effect and calculated 95% credible intervals using Markov Chain Monte Carlo methods. The systematic review identified 106 trials that reported serious infections and included patients with rheumatoid arthritis who received biological drugs. Compared with traditional DMARDs, standard-dose biological drugs (OR 1·31, 95% credible interval [CrI] 1·09–1·58) and high-dose biological drugs (1·90, 1·50–2·39) were associated with an increased risk of serious infections, although low-dose biological drugs (0·93, 0·65–1·33) were not. The risk was lower in patients who were methotrexate naive compared with traditional DMARD-experienced or anti-tumour necrosis factor biological drug-experienced patients. The absolute increase in the number of serious infections per 1000 patients treated each year ranged from six for standard-dose biological drugs to 55 for combination biological therapy, compared with traditional DMARDs. Standard-dose and high-dose biological drugs (with or without traditional DMARDs) are associated with an increase in serious infections in rheumatoid arthritis compared with traditional DMARDs, although low-dose biological drugs are not. Clinicians should discuss the balance between benefit and harm with the individual patient before starting biological treatment for rheumatoid arthritis. Rheumatology Division at the University of Alabama at Birmingham.

AbstractObjectivesTo determine the rate of a first recurrent venous thromboembolism (VTE) event after discontinuation of anticoagulant treatment in patients with a first episode of unprovoked VTE, and the cumulative incidence for recurrent VTE up to 10 years.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.Data sourcesMedline, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (from inception to 15 March 2019).Study selectionRandomised controlled trials and prospective cohort studies reporting symptomatic recurrent VTE after discontinuation of anticoagulant treatment in patients with a first unprovoked VTE event who had completed at least three months of treatment.Data extraction and synthesisTwo investigators independently screened studies, extracted data, and appraised risk of bias. Data clarifications were sought from authors of eligible studies. Recurrent VTE events and person years of follow-up after discontinuation of anticoagulant treatment were used to calculate rates for individual studies, and data were pooled using random effects meta-analysis. Sex and site of initial VTE were investigated as potential sources of between study heterogeneity.Results18 studies involving 7515 patients were included in the analysis. The pooled rate of recurrent VTE per 100 person years after discontinuation of anticoagulant treatment was 10.3 events (95% confidence interval 8.6 to 12.1) in the first year, 6.3 (5.1 to 7.7) in the second year, 3.8 events/year (95% confidence interval 3.2 to 4.5) in years 3-5, and 3.1 events/year (1.7 to 4.9) in years 6-10. The cumulative incidence for recurrent VTE was 16% (95% confidence interval 13% to 19%) at 2 years, 25% (21% to 29%) at 5 years, and 36% (28% to 45%) at 10 years. The pooled rate of recurrent VTE per 100 person years in the first year was 11.9 events (9.6 to 14.4) for men and 8.9 events (6.8 to 11.3) for women, with a cumulative incidence for recurrent VTE of 41% (28% to 56%) and 29% (20% to 38%), respectively, at 10 years. Compared to patients with isolated pulmonary embolism, the rate of recurrent VTE was higher in patients with proximal deep vein thrombosis (rate ratio 1.4, 95% confidence interval 1.1 to 1.7) and in patients with pulmonary embolism plus deep vein thrombosis (1.5, 1.1 to 1.9). In patients with distal deep vein thrombosis, the pooled rate of recurrent VTE per 100 person years was 1.9 events (95% confidence interval 0.5 to 4.3) in the first year after anticoagulation had stopped. The case fatality rate for recurrent VTE was 4% (95% confidence interval 2% to 6%).ConclusionsIn patients with a first episode of unprovoked VTE who completed at least three months of anticoagulant treatment, the risk of recurrent VTE was 10% in the first year after treatment, 16% at two years, 25% at five years, and 36% at 10 years, with 4% of recurrent VTE events resulting in death. These estimates should inform clinical practice guidelines, enhance confidence in counselling patients of their prognosis, and help guide decision making about long term management of unprovoked VTE.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42017056309.