TINGKAT KECEMASAN SISWA SEKOLAH MENENGAH DALAM PERTUNJUKAN MUSIK

The study aimed to measure Student Anxiety Levels in the Music Performance Anxiety Scale (MPAS) for high school (SMA) students with musical interests in Padang City, and to conduct studies on validity and reliability. In this case, the scale will be developed for use for middle school students (adolescents), and differences between the sexes will be examined. The research was conducted on 546 high school students. Of these students, 185 (33.9%) is male, 361 (66.1%) is female, and the average age is 16.81 with an age range of 15 to 20. The correlation value of scaled items between them and with the total items is checked as a preliminary analysis. As a result of the engineering of the EFA's main components, promax rotation techniques and their analysis, three-factor construction accounted for a total of 42.74% of the total variants achieved. The achieved structure is validated by the CFA, and a match index is found in the acceptance interval. In reliability studies, Alpha Cronbach's internal consistency coefficient was calculated as 0.86 for the entire scale, 27% for bottom-up group comparisons and re-test analysis conducted. T-tests were conducted to determine the difference between the sexes. As a result of the study, a valid and reliable visible scale has been developed and the differences between the sexes are clearly visible.Keywords: gender; high school students; anxiety of musical performances

Protocol registration issues of systematic review and meta-analysis studies: a survey of global researchers

Background: Although protocol registration of systematic reviews/meta-analysis (SR/MA) is still not mandatory, authors are strongly suggested to publish their SR/MA protocols prior to submitting their manuscripts for publication as recommended by the Cochrane guidelines for conducting SR/MAs. We aimed to assess awareness, obstacles, and opinions of SR/MA authors about the protocol registration process. Methods: A cross-sectional survey study included all authors who published SR/MAs during the period from 2010 to 2016 were contacted for participation in our survey study. They were identified through the literature search of SR/MAs in Scopus database. Upon receiving their approval to join our study, an online questionnaire was sent via e-mail to each participant. We received 275 responses from 6650 successfully sent emails. Results: A total of 270 authors' responses were complete and were included in the final analysis. Our results showed that PROSPERO was the most commonly used database for protocol registration (71.3%). The registration-to-acceptance interval in PROSPERO was less than one month (99.1%). Almost half of the authors (44.2%) did not register their protocols prior to publishing their SR/MAs and their opinion that lack of knowledge of its importance and mandance to be registered was the most commonly reported reason (44.9%). A significant proportion of respondents (37.4%) believed that people would steal their ideas from protocol databases, while only 5.3% reported that their SR/MA had been stolen. However, the majority (72.9%) of participants agreed that protocol registries have a role in preventing unnecessary duplication of reviews. Finally, 37.4% of participants agreed that SR/MA protocol registration should be mandatory. Conclusion: About half of the participants seemed that the primary reason for not registering such protocols, that was not knowing that protocols must or should be mandatory. Therefore, tools should be available to mandate protocol registration of any SRs beforehand and increasing awareness about the benefits of protocol registration among researchers.

Protocol registration issues of systematic review and meta-analysis studies: a survey of global researchers

Background: Although protocol registration of systematic reviews/meta-analysis (SR/MA) is still not mandatory, authors are strongly suggested to publish their SR/MA protocols prior to submitting their manuscripts for publication as recommended by the Cochrane guidelines for conducting SR/MAs. We aimed to assess awareness, obstacles, and opinions of SR/MA authors about the protocol registration process. Methods: A cross-sectional survey study included all authors who published SR/MAs during the period from 2010 to 2016 were contacted for participation in our survey study. They were identified through the literature search of SR/MAs in Scopus database. Upon receiving their approval to join our study, an online questionnaire was sent via e-mail to each participant. We received 275 responses from 6650 successfully sent emails. Results: A total of 270 authors' responses were complete and were included in the final analysis. Our results showed that PROSPERO was the most commonly used database for protocol registration (71.3%). The registration-to-acceptance interval in PROSPERO was less than one month (99.1%). Almost half of the authors (44.2%) did not register their protocols prior to publishing their SR/MAs and their opinion that lack of knowledge of its importance and mandance to be registered was the most commonly reported reason (44.9%). A significant proportion of respondents (37.4%) believed that people would steal their ideas from protocol databases, while only 5.3% reported that their SR/MA had been stolen. However, the majority (72.9%) of participants agreed that protocol registries have a role in preventing unnecessary duplication of reviews. Finally, 37.4% of participants agreed that SR/MA protocol registration should be mandatory. Conclusion: About half of the participants seemed that the primary reason for not registering such protocols, that was not knowing that protocols must or should be mandatory. Therefore, tools should be available to mandate protocol registration of any SRs beforehand and increasing awareness about the benefits of protocol registration among researchers.

Protocol registration issues of systematic review and meta-analysis studies: a survey of global researchers

Background: Although protocol registration of systematic reviews/meta-analysis (SR/MA) is still not mandatory, authors are strongly suggested to publish their SR/MA protocols prior to submitting their manuscripts for publication as recommended by the Cochrane guidelines for conducting SR/MAs. We aimed to assess awareness, obstacles, and opinions of SR/MA authors about the protocol registration process. Methods: A cross-sectional survey study included all authors who published SR/MAs during the period from 2010 to 2016 were contacted for participation in our survey study. They were identified through the literature search of SR/MAs in Scopus database. Upon receiving their approval to join our study, an online questionnaire was sent via e-mail to each participant. We received 275 responses from 6650 successfully sent emails.Results: A total of 270 authors' responses were complete and were included in the final analysis. Our results showed that PROSPERO was the most commonly used database for protocol registration (71.3%). The registration-to-acceptance interval in PROSPERO was less than one month (99.1%). Almost half of the authors (44.2%) did not register their protocols prior to publishing their SR/MAs and their opinion that lack of knowledge of its importance and mandance to be registered was the most commonly reported reason (44.9%). A significant proportion of respondents (37.4%) believed that people would steal their ideas from protocol databases, while only 5.3% reported that their SR/MA had been stolen. However, the majority (72.9%) of participants agreed that protocol registries have a role in preventing unnecessary duplication of reviews. Finally, 37.4% of participants agreed that SR/MA protocol registration should be mandatory. Conclusion: About half of the participants seemed that the primary reason for not registering such protocols, that was not knowing that protocols must or should be mandatory. Therefore, tools should be available to mandate protocol registration of any SRs beforehand and increasing awareness about the benefits of protocol registration among researchers.

Current issues in protocol registration for systematic review and meta-analysis studies: a survey of global researchers

Background Although protocol registration of systematic reviews/meta-analysis (SR/MA) is still not mandatory, authors are strongly suggested to publish their SR/MA protocols prior to submitting their manuscripts for publication as recommended by the Cochrane guidelines for conducting SR/MAs. We aimed to assess awareness, obstacles, and opinions of SR/MA authors about the protocol registration process.Methods A cross-sectional survey study included all authors who published SR/MAs during the period from 2010 to 2016 were contacted for participation in our survey study. They were identified through the literature search of SR/MAs in Scopus database. Upon receiving their approval to join our study, an online questionnaire was sent via e-mail to each participant.Results A total of 270 authors' responses were complete and were included in the final analysis. Our results showed that PROSPERO was the most commonly used database for protocol registration (71.3%). The registration-to-acceptance interval in PROSPERO was less than one month (99.1%). Almost half of the authors (44.2%) did not register their protocols prior to publishing their SR/MAs and their lack of knowledge of its importance was the most commonly reported reason (44.9%). A significant proportion of respondents (37.4%) believed that people would steal their ideas from protocol databases, while only 5.3% reported that their SR/MA had been stolen. However, the majority (72.9%) of participants agreed that protocol registries have a role in preventing unnecessary duplication of reviews. Finally, 37.4% of participants agreed that SR/MA protocol registration should be mandatory.Conclusion Lack of knowledge about SR/MA protocol registration process seems to be the primary reason for not registering such protocols. Therefore, interventions for increasing awareness about the benefits of protocol registration among researchers would be welcome.

Cutaneous Biodistribution: A High-Resolution Methodology to Assess Bioequivalence in Topical Skin Delivery

A draft guideline from the European Medicines Agency (EMA) highlights the need for methods to assess the quality/equivalence of topical drug formulations. The “cutaneous biodistribution method”, which provides insight into a drug’s spatial distribution in the epidermis/dermis, was used to compare cutaneous bioavailability of econazole nitrate (ECZ) from a reference medicinal product (RMP) and two approved bioequivalent generic creams under finite dose conditions. Statistically significant differences between the ECZ biodistributions from the RMP/Generics were determined and used with acceptance criteria based on those from the EMA to evaluate bioequivalence. In porcine skin, ECZ deposition in total skin, epidermis, upper and lower dermis from Generic 1 was within the acceptance interval, contrary to Generic 2, which was marginally below it. For human skin, Generic 1 deposition was marginally above the acceptance interval and not bioequivalent. The results were consistent with those using the EMA’s acceptance intervals using the ratio of the mean ECZ depositions of Generic 1 and the RMP. Differences identified using this data-rich technique may not translate to observable differences in clinical efficacy; however, generics with non-statistically different biodistributions to the RMP should have a comparable clinical effect. The cutaneous biodistribution method could benchmark the development of topical generic products.

Quality Control of Norwegian Pharmacy HbA1c Testing: A Modest Beginning

Background: Many pharmacy services involve laboratory testing using point-of-care (POC) instruments. Our aim was to describe the implementation of quality control of the HbA1c POC instruments and investigate the performance in internal quality control (IQC) and external quality control (EQA) for HbA1c POC instruments in Norwegian community pharmacies. Methods: Two project pharmacists from each of 11 pharmacies participated in a training program covering capillary blood sampling, how to use the POC HbA1c instrument (DCA Vantage) and IQC and EQA. The pharmacies were enrolled in an EQA program for HbA1c, and their performance was compared with that of general practitioners’ (GP) offices. Results: Two of 89 (2.2%) IQC measurements were outside the acceptance interval. Seven out of 11 pharmacies sent in results in EQA in all the three surveys during six months. Two pharmacies did not analyze the control material in any of the surveys, one pharmacy analyzed the control material in one of the surveys, and one pharmacy analyzed two of the surveys. Of these pharmacies, 56-100% obtained “very good” evaluation for trueness and 71-100% obtained “very good” evaluation for precision. The corresponding numbers for GP offices were 75-87% for trueness and 84-94% for precision. No pharmacies obtained a “poor” evaluation. Conclusions: Norwegian community pharmacies can perform IQC and EQA on a HbA1c POC instrument, and the performance is comparable with that of GP offices. The compliance in the EQA surveys was modest, but the duration of the study and participation in the EQA program was probably too short to implement all the new procedures for all pharmacies.