AbstractRumex vesicarius(RV) is an edible wild annual plant, and it is reported that it contains a good source of minerals, protein, and ascorbic acid. Several studies have indicated the anti-liver damage, anticancer, antimicrobial, and antioxidant properties of the RV plant. There are currently no reports regarding the effect of RV on fertility. Therefore, this study focuses on the impact of RV water seed extracts on mice fertility. RV plants were collected, and water seed extracts were prepared; 50 mg/kg body weight (BW) of this was then injected into the mice (male and female) using an oral feeding tube 5 days before mating (group I) or during caging of the females with the males for 1 week to detect their fertility rate. In the different female groups, no significant difference between their BW and their newborn's BW in the treated and control groups was found. Female fertility, pregnancy, and offspring rates showed some variation within each female group and between the different female groups. In comparing the fertility and offspring rate between the different groups, there was a significant difference (P< 0.05) between groups I and III females and between groups I and IV females, while the other groups showed no significant differences. In contrast, the other groups showed no significant differences. Regarding the impact of the water seed extract on males, the BW was approximately the same in control and treated males.
Objectives: Staphylococcus aureus is an opportunist that causes systemic infections and dental infections in the human being body. This organism increases its resistance to many categories of antibiotics all day and turn out to be more resistant, and this led to a growing feeling of concern in this era. Given this fact, the aims of this study were to determine the frequency of S. aureus in oral infections and to determine the prevalence of MRSA strains and the sensitivity of isolated S. aureus to antibiotics, in patients who attended dental clinics in major public hospitals and private clinics in the city of Sana'a-Yemen. Subjects and methods: The study was conducted for a year, early in December 2018 and ending in November 2019. The study included 296 patients, 153 male and 143 female, ages 5 to 65, with an average age of 36.2 years. Demographic and clinical data were collected in questionnaire, then pus or oral swabs were collected from patients, cultivated, isolated and identified by standard laboratory techniques. MRSA was ascertained by means of the method of disc diffusion to 1µg of oxicillin disc and 5 µg of methacillin disc; an antimicrobial sensitivity test was carried out by disc diffusion method of selected antibiotics.The oral infections include dental abscesses, periodontal abscesses, gingivitis, periodentitis, dental caries, pulpitis and oral thrush. Results: Of a total of 296 cultured pus and swabs, only 217 produced a positive culture (73.3%). Gram-positive bacteria formed 67.4% of the total isolates where S. aureus was the predominant pathogen (43.1%). The prevalence of MRSA was 23.5%. There was a higher rate of antibiotic resistance tested in MRSA isolates compared to a lower rate of resistance in MSSA as well as 22.2% of MRSA isolates were vancomycin resistant, while only 11.4% of MSSA were vancomycin resistant. Conclusion: It can be concluded, S. aureus was the most widespread isolate in dental infections, high rate of MRSA, the appearance of S. aureus isolates resistant to vancomycin and other broad choice of antibiotics have raised MRSA in oral infections into a multi-drug-resistant, making it more and more hazardous in oral infections. Consistent assessment of oral associated infections and observing the pattern of antibiotic sensitivity and strict drug policy for antibiotics are recommended. Peer Review History: Received 16 March 2020; Revised 2 May; Accepted 12 May, Available online 15 May 2020 Academic Editor:Ahmad Najib, Universitas Muslim Indonesia, Makassar, Indonesia, ahmad.najib@umi.ac.id UJPR follows the most transparent and toughest 'Advanced OPEN peer review' system. The identity of the authors and, reviewers will be known to each other. This transparent process will help to eradicate any possible malicious/purposeful interference by any person (publishing staff, reviewer, editor, author, etc) during peer review. As a result of this unique system, all reviewers will get their due recognition and respect, once their names are published in the papers. We expect that, by publishing peer review reports with published papers, will be helpful to many authors for drafting their article according to the specifications. Auhors will remove any error of their article and they will improve their article(s) according to the previous reports displayed with published article(s). The main purpose of it is 'to improve the quality of a candidate manuscript'. Our reviewers check the 'strength and weakness of a manuscript honestly'. There will increase in the perfection, and transparency. Received file: Reviewer's Comments: Average Peer review marks at initial stage: 5.5/10 Average Peer review marks at publication stage: 8.0/10 Reviewer(s) detail: Dr. Mohamed Awad Mousnad,Faculty of Pharmacy, International University of Africa (IUA), Khartoum, Sudan, m_abdalaziz@yahoo.com Dr. George Zhu,Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran, sansan4240732@163.com Similar Articles: PREVALENCE OF METHICILLIN RESISTANT STAPHYLOCOCCUS AUREUS (MRSA) AND ANTIMICROBIAL SUSCEPTIBILITY PATTERNS AT A PRIVATE HOSPITAL IN SANA'A, YEMEN PREVALENCE, ANTIMICROBIAL SUSCEPTIBILITY PATTERN AND RISK FACTORS OF MRSA ISOLATED FROM CLINICAL SPECIMENS AMONG MILITARY PATIENTS AT 48 MEDICAL COMPOUND IN SANA'A CITY-YEMEN
Background Surgery is the main modality of cure for solid cancers and was prioritised to continue during COVID-19 outbreaks. This study aimed to identify immediate areas for system strengthening by comparing the delivery of elective cancer surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic in periods of lockdown versus light restriction. Methods This international, prospective, cohort study enrolled 20 006 adult (≥18 years) patients from 466 hospitals in 61 countries with 15 cancer types, who had a decision for curative surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic and were followed up until the point of surgery or cessation of follow-up (Aug 31, 2020). Average national Oxford COVID-19 Stringency Index scores were calculated to define the government response to COVID-19 for each patient for the period they awaited surgery, and classified into light restrictions (index 60). The primary outcome was the non-operation rate (defined as the proportion of patients who did not undergo planned surgery). Cox proportional-hazards regression models were used to explore the associations between lockdowns and non-operation. Intervals from diagnosis to surgery were compared across COVID-19 government response index groups. This study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04384926. Findings Of eligible patients awaiting surgery, 2003 (10·0%) of 20 006 did not receive surgery after a median follow-up of 23 weeks (IQR 16–30), all of whom had a COVID-19-related reason given for non-operation. Light restrictions were associated with a 0·6% non-operation rate (26 of 4521), moderate lockdowns with a 5·5% rate (201 of 3646; adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0·81, 95% CI 0·77–0·84; p<0·0001), and full lockdowns with a 15·0% rate (1775 of 11 827; HR 0·51, 0·50–0·53; p<0·0001). In sensitivity analyses, including adjustment for SARS-CoV-2 case notification rates, moderate lockdowns (HR 0·84, 95% CI 0·80–0·88; p<0·001), and full lockdowns (0·57, 0·54–0·60; p<0·001), remained independently associated with non-operation. Surgery beyond 12 weeks from diagnosis in patients without neoadjuvant therapy increased during lockdowns (374 [9·1%] of 4521 in light restrictions, 317 [10·4%] of 3646 in moderate lockdowns, 2001 [23·8%] of 11 827 in full lockdowns), although there were no differences in resectability rates observed with longer delays. Interpretation Cancer surgery systems worldwide were fragile to lockdowns, with one in seven patients who were in regions with full lockdowns not undergoing planned surgery and experiencing longer preoperative delays. Although short-term oncological outcomes were not compromised in those selected for surgery, delays and non-operations might lead to long-term reductions in survival. During current and future periods of societal restriction, the resilience of elective surgery systems requires strengthening, which might include protected elective surgical pathways and long-term investment in surge capacity for acute care during public health emergencies to protect elective staff and services. Funding National Institute for Health Research Global Health Research Unit, Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland, Bowel and Cancer Research, Bowel Disease Research Foundation, Association of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgeons, British Association of Surgical Oncology, British Gynaecological Cancer Society, European Society of Coloproctology, Medtronic, Sarcoma UK, The Urology Foundation, Vascular Society for Great Britain and Ireland, and Yorkshire Cancer Research.
Background Surgery is the main modality of cure for solid cancers and was prioritised to continue during COVID-19 outbreaks. This study aimed to identify immediate areas for system strengthening by comparing the delivery of elective cancer surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic in periods of lockdown versus light restriction. Methods This international, prospective, cohort study enrolled 20 006 adult (≥18 years) patients from 466 hospitals in 61 countries with 15 cancer types, who had a decision for curative surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic and were followed up until the point of surgery or cessation of follow-up (Aug 31, 2020). Average national Oxford COVID-19 Stringency Index scores were calculated to define the government response to COVID-19 for each patient for the period they awaited surgery, and classified into light restrictions (index 60). The primary outcome was the non-operation rate (defined as the proportion of patients who did not undergo planned surgery). Cox proportional-hazards regression models were used to explore the associations between lockdowns and non-operation. Intervals from diagnosis to surgery were compared across COVID-19 government response index groups. This study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04384926. Findings Of eligible patients awaiting surgery, 2003 (10·0%) of 20 006 did not receive surgery after a median follow-up of 23 weeks (IQR 16–30), all of whom had a COVID-19-related reason given for non-operation. Light restrictions were associated with a 0·6% non-operation rate (26 of 4521), moderate lockdowns with a 5·5% rate (201 of 3646; adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0·81, 95% CI 0·77–0·84; p<0·0001), and full lockdowns with a 15·0% rate (1775 of 11 827; HR 0·51, 0·50–0·53; p<0·0001). In sensitivity analyses, including adjustment for SARS-CoV-2 case notification rates, moderate lockdowns (HR 0·84, 95% CI 0·80–0·88; p<0·001), and full lockdowns (0·57, 0·54–0·60; p<0·001), remained independently associated with non-operation. Surgery beyond 12 weeks from diagnosis in patients without neoadjuvant therapy increased during lockdowns (374 [9·1%] of 4521 in light restrictions, 317 [10·4%] of 3646 in moderate lockdowns, 2001 [23·8%] of 11827 in full lockdowns), although there were no differences in resectability rates observed with longer delays. Interpretation Cancer surgery systems worldwide were fragile to lockdowns, with one in seven patients who were in regions with full lockdowns not undergoing planned surgery and experiencing longer preoperative delays. Although short-term oncological outcomes were not compromised in those selected for surgery, delays and non-operations might lead to long-term reductions in survival. During current and future periods of societal restriction, the resilience of elective surgery systems requires strengthening, which might include protected elective surgical pathways and long- term investment in surge capacity for acute care during public health emergencies to protect elective staff and services. Funding National Institute for Health Research Global Health Research Unit, Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland, Bowel and Cancer Research, Bowel Disease Research Foundation, Association of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgeons, British Association of Surgical Oncology, British Gynaecological Cancer Society, European Society of Coloproctology, Medtronic, Sarcoma UK, The Urology Foundation, Vascular Society for Great Britain and Ireland, and Yorkshire Cancer Research.
Background: Surgery is the main modality of cure for solid cancers and was prioritised to continue during COVID-19 outbreaks. This study aimed to identify immediate areas for system strengthening by comparing the delivery of elective cancer surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic in periods of lockdown versus light restriction. Methods: This international, prospective, cohort study enrolled 20 006 adult (≥18 years) patients from 466 hospitals in 61 countries with 15 cancer types, who had a decision for curative surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic and were followed up until the point of surgery or cessation of follow-up (Aug 31, 2020). Average national Oxford COVID-19 Stringency Index scores were calculated to define the government response to COVID-19 for each patient for the period they awaited surgery, and classified into light restrictions (index 60). The primary outcome was the non-operation rate (defined as the proportion of patients who did not undergo planned surgery). Cox proportional-hazards regression models were used to explore the associations between lockdowns and non-operation. Intervals from diagnosis to surgery were compared across COVID-19 government response index groups. This study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04384926. Findings: Of eligible patients awaiting surgery, 2003 (10·0%) of 20 006 did not receive surgery after a median follow-up of 23 weeks (IQR 16-30), all of whom had a COVID-19-related reason given for non-operation. Light restrictions were associated with a 0·6% non-operation rate (26 of 4521), moderate lockdowns with a 5·5% rate (201 of 3646; adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0·81, 95% CI 0·77-0·84; p<0·0001), and full lockdowns with a 15·0% rate (1775 of 11 827; HR 0·51, 0·50-0·53; p<0·0001). In sensitivity analyses, including adjustment for SARS-CoV-2 case notification rates, moderate lockdowns (HR 0·84, 95% CI 0·80-0·88; p<0·001), and full lockdowns (0·57, 0·54-0·60; p<0·001), remained independently associated with non-operation. Surgery beyond 12 weeks from diagnosis in patients without neoadjuvant therapy increased during lockdowns (374 [9·1%] of 4521 in light restrictions, 317 [10·4%] of 3646 in moderate lockdowns, 2001 [23·8%] of 11 827 in full lockdowns), although there were no differences in resectability rates observed with longer delays. Interpretation: Cancer surgery systems worldwide were fragile to lockdowns, with one in seven patients who were in regions with full lockdowns not undergoing planned surgery and experiencing longer preoperative delays. Although short-term oncological outcomes were not compromised in those selected for surgery, delays and non-operations might lead to long-term reductions in survival. During current and future periods of societal restriction, the resilience of elective surgery systems requires strengthening, which might include protected elective surgical pathways and long-term investment in surge capacity for acute care during public health emergencies to protect elective staff and services.