In this task, you're given a paragraph from the research paper and your task is to generate a suitable title for the research paper based on the given paper. Under 100 words is a good title length.
--------
Question: hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin on viral load in the upper respiratory tract of severe acute respiratory syndrome-Coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) patients. The authors report that hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) had significant virus reducing effects, and that dual treatment of both HCQ and azithromycin further enhanced virus reduction. These data have triggered speculation whether these drugs should be considered as candidates for the treatment of severe COVID-19. However, questions have been raised regarding the study's data integrity, statistical analyses, and experimental design. We therefore reanalysed the original data to interrogate the main claims of the paper. Here we apply Bayesian statistics to assess the robustness of the original paper's claims by testing four variants of the data: 1) The assumes a positive effect, compared to a model of no effect. We find that the statistical evidence is highly sensitive to these data variants. Statistical evidence for the positive effect model ranged from strong for the original data (BF +0 ~11), to moderate when including patients who deteriorated (BF +0 ~4.35), to anecdotal when excluding untested patients (BF +0 ~2), and to anecdotal negative evidence if untested patients were assumed positive (BF +0 ~0.6). To assess whether HCQ is more effective when combined with AZ, we performed the same tests, and found only anecdotal evidence for the positive effect model for the original data (BF +0 ~2.8), and moderate evidence for all other variants of the data (BF +0 ~5.6). Our analyses only explore the effects of different assumptions about excluded and untested patients. These assumptions are not adequately reported, nor are they justified in the original paper, and we find that varying them causes substantive changes to the evidential support for the main claims of the original paper. This statistical uncertainty is exacerbated by the fact that the treatments were not randomised, and subject to several confounding variables including the patients consent to treatment, different care centres, and clinical decision-making. Furthermore, while the viral load measurements were noisy, showing multiple reversals between test outcomes, there is greater certainty around other clinical outcomes such as the 4 patients who seriously deteriorated. The fact that all of these belonged to the HCQ group should be assigned greater weight when evaluating the potential clinical efficacy of HCQ. Randomised controlled trials are currently underway, and will be critical in resolving this uncertainty as to whether HCQ and AZ are effective as a treatment for COVID-19. Warning: There have been reports of people self-administering chloroquine phosphate (intended for treatment of disease in aquarium fish) , which has led to at least one death and one serious illness. We state that under no circumstances should people self-administer hydroxychloroquine, chloroquine phosphate, azithromycin, or anything similar-sounding, or indeed any other drug, unless approved by a medical doctor. The FDA has issued a specific warning: https://www.fda.gov/animal-veterinary/product-safety-information/fda-letter-stakeholders-do-not-use-chloroquine-phosphate-intended-fis h-treatment-covid-19-humans . CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license It is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. (which was not peer-reviewed) The copyright holder for this preprint .

Answer: Reply to Gautret et al. 2020: A Bayesian reanalysis of the effects of hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin on viral carriage in patients with COVID-19


Question: Bio-aerosols originate from different sources and their potentially pathogenic nature may form a hazard to healthcare workers and patients. So far no extensive review on existing evidence regarding bio-aerosols is available. This study aimed to review evidence on bio-aerosols in healthcare and the dental setting. The objectives were 1) What are the sources that generate bio-aerosols?; 2) What is the microbial load and composition of bio-aerosols and how were they measured?; and 3) What is the hazard posed by pathogenic micro-organisms transported via the aerosol route of transmission? Systematic scoping review design. Searched in PubMed and EMBASE from inception to 09-03-2016. References were screened and selected based on abstract and full text according to eligibility criteria. Full text articles were assessed for inclusion and summarized. The results are presented in three separate objectives and summarized for an overview of evidence. The search yielded 5,823 studies, of which 62 were included. Dental hand pieces were found to generate aerosols in the dental settings. Another 30 sources from human activities, interventions and daily cleaning performances in the hospital also generate aerosols. Fiftyfive bacterial species, 45 fungi genera and ten viruses were identified in a hospital setting and 16 bacterial and 23 fungal species in the dental environment. Patients with certain risk factors had a higher chance to acquire Legionella in hospitals. Such infections can lead to irreversible septic shock and death. Only a few studies found that bio-aerosol generating procedures resulted in transmission of infectious diseases or allergic reactions.

Answer: A scoping review on bio-aerosols in healthcare and the dental environment


Question: Many of us were drawn to the specialty of dermatology by the excitement of recognizing key dermatologic features that led to the diagnoses of important systemic disorders. Although there is significant overlap between the skin signs of systemic disease in children and adults, there are several conditions in which important distinctions exist in the characteristic clinical presentation. Our author, Dr. Amy Gilliam, has special experience and expertise in pediatric rheumatologic disorders. In an interesting case-based format, Dr. Gilliam provides a comprehensive overview of the clinical findings in several rheumatologic conditions that are more specific to children in contrast to their adult counterparts. Furthermore, she provides an update on diagnosis and management of several uniquely pediatric disorders including neonatal lupus erythematosis, childhood vasculitides (Kawasaki disease, Henoch Schonlein Purpura, acute hemorrhagic edema of infancy) and the more recently described neonatal-onset multisystem inflammatory disorder (NOMID) syndrome. This article provides clinically relevant information that may aid the clinician in the accurate and prompt recognition of these challenging diseases. Timely diagnosis will hopefully result in more effective therapy as well as prevention of disease-related complications that may ultimately improve the outcomes in these complex patients. T he diagnostic criteria for many systemic disorders in both adults and children include at least one skin finding, and the skin may be the first of several organs affected by these conditions. Early recognition of subtle cutaneous signs of systemic illness in childhood can help to prevent adverse outcomes through earlier initiation of appropriate treatment. Although adults and children are affected by many of the same systemic conditions, there are some dermatologic features of these illnesses that are unique to the pediatric population. In this review, several cases of children presenting with cutaneous features of systemic disease will be discussed.

Answer:
Skin Signs of Systemic Disease in Childhood EDITORIAL COMMENT