linjc16/ctgov huggingface dataset:
The Effect of Intercostal Nerve Block With Dexamethasone and Ropivacaine on Rebound Pain After Thoracoscopic Surgery

Study Overview
=================
Brief Summary
-----------------
Regional nerve block is one of the commonly used methods for postoperative analgesia after thoracoscopic surgery. Recent studies have found that rebound pain may occur after regional block, which is defined as acute postoperative pain that occurs after the resolution of sensory block related to regional anesthesia, and seriously affects the quality of postoperative recovery of patients. There is evidence that rebound tenderness is associated with local anesthetic toxicity and proinflammatory effects. The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of dexamethasone on rebound pain after a single intercostal nerve block in patients undergoing thoracoscopic surgery.

Official Title
-----------------
The Effect of Intercostal Nerve Block With Dexamethasone and Ropivacaine on Rebound Pain After Thoracoscopic Surgery: a Randomized, Double-blind, Controlled Study

Conditions
-----------------
Rebound Pain, Dexamethasone, Intercostal Nerve Block, Thoracoscopic Surgery

Intervention / Treatment
-----------------
* Drug: Dexamethasone 8mg+0.375% ropivacaine
* Drug: 0.375% ropivacaine


Participation Criteria
=================
Eligibility Criteria
-----------------
Inclusion Criteria: Patients scheduled for elective thoracoscopic surgery Age > 18 years old ASA ⅰ-ⅲ Informed consent was signed Exclusion Criteria: Patients with aoagulation disorders Patients with allergy to local anesthetics Patients with severe cardiopulmonary diseases Patients had systemic steroid use Patients with chronic pain Patients with uncontrolled diabetes and mental disorders History of drug abuse; Body Mass Index more than 35 kg.m-2 Pregnant or breastfeeding woman.

Ages Eligible for Study
-----------------
Minimum Age: 18 Years

Sexes Eligible for Study
-----------------
All

Accepts Healthy Volunteers
-----------------
No

Study Plan
=================
How is the study designed?
-----------------

Design Details

Primary Purpose: Treatment
Allocation: Randomized
Intervention Model: Parallel Assignment
Masking: Triple


Arms and Interventions

| Participant Group/Arm | Intervention/Treatment |
| --- | --- |
| Experimental: group dexamethasone<br>Dexamethasone 8mg+0.375% ropivacaine | Drug: Dexamethasone 8mg+0.375% ropivacaine<br>* Ultrasound-guided intercostal nerve block was performed on the surgical side, and 3 to 5ml of a mixture of 0.375% ropivacaine and 8 mg dexamethasone was injected at each point<br>|
| Sham Comparator: group control<br>0.375% ropivacaine | Drug: 0.375% ropivacaine<br>* Ultrasound-guided intercostal nerve block was performed on the surgical side, and 3 to 5ml 0.375% ropivacaine was injected at each point<br>|

What is the study measuring?
-----------------
Primary Outcome Measures

| Outcome Measure | Measure Description | Time Frame |
| --- | --- | --- |
| The incidence of rebound pain after the disappearance of nerve block effect | NRS < 3 in PACU and NRS > 7 after the disappearance of nerve block effect | 8 hours after the nerve block |
The Effect of N-acetylcysteine in Decreasing the Incidence of Linezolid-induced Thrombocytopenia in Critically Ill Patients

Study Overview
=================
Brief Summary
-----------------
Study the effect of acetylcysteine on decreasing the incidence of LIT in critically ill patients. Study the impact of acetylcysteine on the time to onset of LIT and the time to recovery of platelets.

Official Title
-----------------
The Effect of N-acetylcysteine in Decreasing the Incidence of Linezolid-induced Thrombocytopenia in Critically Ill Patients

Conditions
-----------------
Linezolid Induced Thrombocytopenia

Intervention / Treatment
-----------------
* Drug: N acetyl cysteine


Participation Criteria
=================
Eligibility Criteria
-----------------
Inclusion Criteria: All adult patients, age > or = 18 years old, admitted to the ICU with different indications. Candidates for intravenous linezolid therapy for > or =1 day. Exclusion Criteria: Taking any myelosuppressive drug. Baseline platelets < 50000. Patients with hematological malignancy. COVID-19 patients. Patients with immune thrombocytopenia. Patients who refused to sign the informed consent

Ages Eligible for Study
-----------------
Minimum Age: 18 Years

Sexes Eligible for Study
-----------------
All

Accepts Healthy Volunteers
-----------------
No

Study Plan
=================
How is the study designed?
-----------------

Design Details

Primary Purpose: Prevention
Allocation: Randomized
Intervention Model: Parallel Assignment
Masking: None (Open Label)


Arms and Interventions

| Participant Group/Arm | Intervention/Treatment |
| --- | --- |
| Active Comparator: Acetylcysteine group<br>Generic name: N-acetylcysteine. Trade name: Fluimucil. Company: Zambon. Dosage form: ampoules for intravenous administration. Dose: 600mg taken every 12 hours daily with a fixed dose as there is no need for renal or hepatic adjustment, starting with the inception of linezolid therapy. Duration: at least one day or more | Drug: N acetyl cysteine<br>* Fluimucil 600 mg iv to be taken twice daily as infusion<br>|
| Placebo Comparator: Placebo<br> | Drug: N acetyl cysteine<br>* Fluimucil 600 mg iv to be taken twice daily as infusion<br>|

What is the study measuring?
-----------------
Primary Outcome Measures

| Outcome Measure | Measure Description | Time Frame |
| --- | --- | --- |
| difference in incidence of LIT between patients who received NAC and patients who didn't. | Defined as platelets < 150000 OR decrease > or = 50% of baseline platelets. | One year | 

Secondary Outcome Measures

| Outcome Measure | Measure Description | Time Frame |
| --- | --- | --- |
| difference in Time to onset of LIT and time to recovery between the 2 groups | after having thrombocytopenia, regardless of discontinuation of linezolid, recovery is defined as the restoration and maintenance of platelet counts > 70% of baseline values | One year |
Osteoporotic Precisely Screening Using Chest Radiograph and Artificial Neural Network (OPSCAN)

Study Overview
=================
Brief Summary
-----------------
Artificial Intelligence-assisted Diagnosis and Prognostication in Osteoporosis Using Chest X-ray

Official Title
-----------------
Osteoporotic Precisely Screening Using Chest Radiograph and Artificial Neural Network (OPSCAN): a Randomized Controlled Trial

Conditions
-----------------
Osteoporosis, Osteoporotic Fractures

Intervention / Treatment
-----------------
* Other: AI-enabled Chest X-ray-based Screening Tool


Participation Criteria
=================
Eligibility Criteria
-----------------
Inclusion Criteria: Patients recieved at least 1 chest X-ray examination in 2022 More than 66% chest X-ray identified as high risk of osteoporosis by AI-CXR Exclusion Criteria: Patients with history of at least 1 dual energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) Patients with history of osteoporosis or osteoportic fracture Patients recieved prescription anti-osteoporotic treatment (excluding vitamin D or calcium) Patients died before 01 Jan 2023

Ages Eligible for Study
-----------------
Minimum Age: 40 Years

Sexes Eligible for Study
-----------------
All

Accepts Healthy Volunteers
-----------------
No

Study Plan
=================
How is the study designed?
-----------------

Design Details

Primary Purpose: Screening
Allocation: Randomized
Intervention Model: Parallel Assignment
Masking: None (Open Label)


Arms and Interventions

| Participant Group/Arm | Intervention/Treatment |
| --- | --- |
| Experimental: Intervention<br>Patients randomized to intervention will have access to the screening tool. | Other: AI-enabled Chest X-ray-based Screening Tool<br>* Primary care clinicians in the intervention group had access to the report, which displayed whether the AI-Chest X-ray result was positive or negative.The system will send a message to corresponding physicians if positive finding.<br>|
| No Intervention: Control<br>Patients randomized to control will continue routine practice. | |

What is the study measuring?
-----------------
Primary Outcome Measures

| Outcome Measure | Measure Description | Time Frame |
| --- | --- | --- |
| newly diagnosed with osteoporosis | After performing an chest X-ray, the osteoporosis was followed. | Within 180 days | 

Secondary Outcome Measures

| Outcome Measure | Measure Description | Time Frame |
| --- | --- | --- |
| initiation of DXA examination | After performing an chest X-ray, the osteoporosis was followed. | Within 180 days | 
| initiation of anti-osteoporotic treatment | After performing an chest X-ray, the osteoporosis was followed. | Within 180 days |
Comparison Between Modified Bass and Horizontal Brushing Techniques

Study Overview
=================
Brief Summary
-----------------
The goal of this observational study is to determine mean plaque scores to compare the effectiveness after using modified bass and horizontal brushing technique in undergraduate dental students. The main question[s] it aims to answer are: Modified bass method is less effective than the horizontal brushing technique for plaque removal in undergraduate dental students Modified bass method is more effective than the horizontal brushing technique for plaque in undergraduate dental students. Participants will check plaque scores with the help of probe and disclosing agents after applying both techniques in a separate quadrant on the same subject. Researchers will compare modified bass and a horizontal brushing technique to see which one is reliable and more effective.

Official Title
-----------------
Comparison Between Modified Bass and Horizontal Brushing Techniques for the Adequate Removal of Plaque in Dental Students; A Randomized Control Trial

Conditions
-----------------
Tooth Plaque

Participation Criteria
=================
Eligibility Criteria
-----------------
Inclusion Criteria: Dental students between the ages of 19-24; irrespective of gender Informed consent Exclusion Criteria: Students undergoing orthodontic treatment Students having periodontal pocket Students who underwent scaling less or equal to 3 months ago

Ages Eligible for Study
-----------------
Minimum Age: 19 Years
Maximum Age: 24 Years

Sexes Eligible for Study
-----------------
All

Accepts Healthy Volunteers
-----------------
Accepts Healthy Volunteers

Study Plan
=================
How is the study designed?
-----------------
What is the study measuring?
-----------------
Primary Outcome Measures

| Outcome Measure | Measure Description | Time Frame |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Plaque Index | 0-3 (0=Excellent, 3=Poor) | 24 weeks | 

 Terms related to the study
=================
Keywords Provided by Centre Hospitalier Valida
-----------------
Toothbrushing technique, modified bass method, horizontal brushing technique
Minimal Residual Disease Quantification by Next-generation Sequencing in Pediatric B-ALL Children Patients Treated With Blinatumomab Consolidation

Study Overview
=================
Brief Summary
-----------------
A retrospective analysis to investigate pediatric B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia patients who were treated with blinatumomab for consolidation, and who were detected as minimal residual disease (MRD) positive by next generation sequencing (NGS). The efficacy of blinatumomab clearing MRD detected by NGS will be analyzed, in order to see the potential of using NGS to guide MRD eradication by blinatumomab.

Official Title
-----------------
Minimal Residual Disease Quantification by Next-generation Sequencing in Pediatric B-ALL Children Patients Treated With Blinatumomab Consolidation

Conditions
-----------------
Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia, Pediatric

Intervention / Treatment
-----------------
* Drug: Blinatumomab


Participation Criteria
=================
Eligibility Criteria
-----------------
Inclusion Criteria: Patients diagnosed with B cell precursor acute lymphoblastic leukemia Patients who received blinatumomab for consolidation Patients who were detected MRD positive by NGS before initiation of blinatumomab treatment Exclusion Criteria: Patients without data of NGS detection after receiving blinatumomab treatment

Ages Eligible for Study
-----------------
Minimum Age: 1 Year
Maximum Age: 18 Years

Sexes Eligible for Study
-----------------
All

Accepts Healthy Volunteers
-----------------
No

Study Plan
=================
How is the study designed?
-----------------

Arms and Interventions

| Intervention/Treatment |
| --- |
|Drug: Blinatumomab|IV|

What is the study measuring?
-----------------
Primary Outcome Measures

| Outcome Measure | Measure Description | Time Frame |
| --- | --- | --- |
| MRD clearance rate (MRD<0.00001%) | The change of MRD will be detected by NGS, with sensitivity of 0.00001% and 0.01%, respectively | before blinatumomab initiation (baseline), Day 15 of blinatumomab treatment, Day 29 of blinatumomab treatment |
Advanced Pelvic Surgical Oncology Database - Prospective Observational Study

Study Overview
=================
Brief Summary
-----------------
Retrospective and prospective observational study of patients undergoing advanced pelvic oncological resection for maligancy including multi visceral resection, beyond TME resection and sacrectomy/flap reconstruction/urinary reconstruction at Glasgow Royal Infirmary. Goal is to study and report outcomes for patients to characterise and understand major complications, natural history of resectional patients and identify areas for future interventional study.

Detailed Description
-----------------
Retrospective and prospective observational study of patients undergoing advanced pelvic oncological resection for maligancy including multi visceral resection, beyond TME resection and sacrectomy/flap reconstruction/urinary reconstruction at Glasgow Royal Infirmary. Goal is to study and report outcomes for patients to characterise and understand major complications, natural history of resectional patients and identify areas for future interventional study..

Official Title
-----------------
Advanced Pelvic Surgical Oncology Database - Prospective Observational Study

Conditions
-----------------
Rectal Cancer, Pelvic Cancer, Gynecologic Cancer, Colon Cancer

Participation Criteria
=================
Eligibility Criteria
-----------------
Inclusion Criteria: Advanced pelvic oncological resection defined as more than 1 pelvic organ resected Exclusion Criteria: -
Sexes Eligible for Study
-----------------
All

Accepts Healthy Volunteers
-----------------
No

Study Plan
=================
How is the study designed?
-----------------

Arms and Interventions

| Participant Group/Arm | Intervention/Treatment |
| --- | --- |
| Advanced pelvic oncological resection<br>Complex resection | |

What is the study measuring?
-----------------
Primary Outcome Measures

| Outcome Measure | Measure Description | Time Frame |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Cancer-specific survival | Months | 10 years | 
| Overall survival | Months | 10 years | 
| Post-operative complications | Frequency | 10 years | 
| Quality of life (survey) | Score | 10 years | 

 Terms related to the study
=================
Keywords Provided by Centre Hospitalier Valida
-----------------
Pelvic exenteration, Abdominoperineal resection, Reconstructive flap, Rectal cancer
Motor Performance in Children With Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder

Study Overview
=================
Brief Summary
-----------------
Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is one of the most common neurodevelopmental disorders in children. Children with ADHD have difficulties with co-contraction, producing muscle force, and regulating movement velocity, and physical fitness. The purpose of this study was to compare the gross and fine motor abilities in children with ADHD and children with typical development.

Detailed Description
-----------------
Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is one of the most common neurodevelopmental disorders in children worldwide with a prevalence of 2.6-4.5% between the ages of 6 and 18 years. When compared to children with typical development, children with ADHD have lower scores in 9-12% of gross motor abilities, 9-36% of balance and postural control, 9-19% of fine motor abilities, and 19-22 % of manual and body coordination. Furthermore, children with ADHD have difficulties with co-contraction, producing muscle force, and regulating movement velocity, and physical fitness. As a consequence of the core symptoms of ADHD, such as inattention, impulsivity, and hyperactivity, over 30-50% of children with ADHD may have impaired motor ability. The purpose of this study was to compare the gross and fine motor abilities in children with ADHD and children with typical development.

Official Title
-----------------
Investigating the Fine and Gross Motor Performance in Children With Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder

Conditions
-----------------
Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder

Participation Criteria
=================
Eligibility Criteria
-----------------
Inclusion Criteria: Clinical diagnosis of children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder aged at 6 -15 years old able to understand and accept verbal instructions. Exclusion Criteria: Clinical diagnosis of children with another psychiatric including autism spectrum disorder, psychotic symptoms, depression Clinical diagnosis of children with neurological disorder including cerebral palsy, epilepsy, or speech impairments the parents declined to participate in the study.

Ages Eligible for Study
-----------------
Minimum Age: 6 Years
Maximum Age: 15 Years

Sexes Eligible for Study
-----------------
All

Accepts Healthy Volunteers
-----------------
Accepts Healthy Volunteers

Study Plan
=================
How is the study designed?
-----------------

Arms and Interventions

| Participant Group/Arm | Intervention/Treatment |
| --- | --- |
| ADHD group<br>Children with ADHD | |
| Control Group<br>Typically developing children | |

What is the study measuring?
-----------------
Primary Outcome Measures

| Outcome Measure | Measure Description | Time Frame |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Motor Proficiency | The Bruininks-Oseretsky Motor Proficiency Test-2 (BOT-2) was used for the evaluation of gross and fine motor skills | One day | 

 Terms related to the study
=================
Keywords Provided by Centre Hospitalier Valida
-----------------
attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, motor skills, Children
Revision LR Femoral Stem for Hip Replacement

Study Overview
=================
Brief Summary
-----------------
This is a post-market, monocentric Retrospective and prospective, observational, open-label and baseline clinical study in order to evaluate the performance and safety of Revision LR femoral stem

Official Title
-----------------
A Retrospective and Prospective Clinical Study Evaluating Safety and Performance of Revision LR Stem in Total Hip Arthroplasty (THA)

Conditions
-----------------
Hip Arthropathy, Orthopedic Disorder

Intervention / Treatment
-----------------
* Device: Revision LR femoral stem


Participation Criteria
=================
Eligibility Criteria
-----------------
Inclusion Criteria: Males and females of any race Age ≥ 18 years old A diagnosis or condition in the target hip of one or more of the following: Primary tumors or metastasis and relative outcomes; Advanced articular destruction generated by primary degenerative or post-traumatic arthrosis or rheumatoid arthritis;Fracture or avascular necrosis; Congenital or acquired deformity; Failures of previous operations, like osteosynthesis, articular reconstruction, arthrodesis, hemi-arthroplasty or total arthroplasty; Epiphyseal region general trauma, Willingness to comply with prescribed rehabilitation and study evaluation and ability to return for follow-up visits Signed study-specific Informed Consent Form Exclusion Criteria: Acute or chronic infections, local or systemic infections, Septicaemia Persistent acute or chronic osteomyelitis Serious muscular, neurological or vascular diseases affecting the concerned limb Mass higher than 60 kg

Ages Eligible for Study
-----------------
Minimum Age: 18 Years

Sexes Eligible for Study
-----------------
All

Study Plan
=================
How is the study designed?
-----------------

Arms and Interventions

| Intervention/Treatment |
| --- |
|Device: Revision LR femoral stem|Revision LR is a modular femoral stem used for hip replacement|

What is the study measuring?
-----------------
Primary Outcome Measures

| Outcome Measure | Measure Description | Time Frame |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Revision rate of the femoral component | Revision rate of the femoral component for aseptic loosening, not resultant from a tumor recurrence. | from baseline to FU 10 Years | 

Secondary Outcome Measures

| Outcome Measure | Measure Description | Time Frame |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Implant stability | Implant stability via radiographic assessment of the X-rays at followup, using immediate postoperative X-rays as baseline; | from baseline to FU 10 Years | 
| Functionality evaluation | Functionality of the patients measured via Harris Hip Score up to last available FU | from baseline to FU 10 Years | 
| Incidence of device-related adverse events or serious adverse events. | Incidence of device-related adverse events or serious adverse events | from baseline to FU 10 Years |