BACKGROUND: Poly-ether-ether-ketone (PEEK) was introduced in dentistry as an alternative to metal alloys.
OBJECTIVE: To assess the effectiveness of PEEK-fixed retainers in preserving the stability of mandibular anterior and participant satisfaction as compared to the Dead-soft coaxial fixed retainer (DSC).
METHODS: A single-centre, two-arm parallel groups randomized clinical trial.
METHODS: The patients treated with pre-adjusted orthodontic appliances who have a Little\'s Irregularity Index (LII) ≤ 0.5 mm have been enrolled in the trial. PEEK retainers were prepared to round 0.8 mm wire by computer-aided design and manufacturing, and the DSC wire was carefully adapted to the lingual surface of the lower anterior teeth. The primary outcome was the stability of lower anterior teeth as assessed by LII, while the secondary outcomes were changes in occlusal parameters, retainer failure, and patient satisfaction. The data were collected at the debonding stage (T0), 1 month (T1), 3 months (T3), and 6 months (T6) after starting the trial, except for patient\'s satisfaction, which was recorded using an electronic form at T1 and T6.
METHODS: Single blinding of participants.
RESULTS: A total of 46 participants with an age range of 12-28 years old were randomly allocated to the two groups (n = 23 in each). Only one participant dropped out; therefore, 45 participants were analysed. The DSC group showed a significant increase in LII at T3. Both retainer groups had comparable occlusal measurements, failure frequency, and survival time, with no significant difference. The patients in the DSC group reported a statistically significant perception of change in the position of their teeth compared to those in the PEEK group.
RESULTS: No harmful effects have been reported.
CONCLUSIONS: Limited follow-up duration and the inability to blind the operator due to the nature of the intervention.
CONCLUSIONS: After 6-month retention, the PEEK retainer was equally effective to DSC retainers in maintaining the teeth alignment, with no significant differences regarding the failure frequency, survival rate, and general patient satisfaction.
BACKGROUND: https://register.clinicaltrials.gov. (NCT05557136).

Patient perception involves a patient\'s thoughts and beliefs regarding their health status. It is also associated with medical compliance and outcomes. However, discrepancies often arise between patient perception and physicians\' documentation within the medical records, resulting in misunderstanding and suboptimal doctor-patient communication. In this study, we assessed the efficacy of generative artificial intelligence (AI) in comparing the content of patient perception as recorded in patient questionnaires and physicians\' records of the Department of Breast Surgery. We evaluated the precision and recall of the generative AI by comparison with human-created ground truth. Our results demonstrated the high performance of the generative AI in comprehending and contrasting symptoms and the entire content recorded differently by patients and physicians, with F1 scores ranging from 0.77 to 0.97. These results highlight the potential contribution of a generative AI to deeper mutual comprehension in healthcare scenarios.

UNASSIGNED: Little is known regarding the opinions of the general population on anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) graft options.
UNASSIGNED: To evaluate the general population\'s perception of the use of allografts versus autografts in ACL reconstruction using a previously validated online marketplace platform.
UNASSIGNED: A prospective 34-question survey was distributed via the online marketplace. After collecting baseline demographics, participant preferences for ACL reconstruction with an allograft or autograft were established. All respondents completed a preeducation survey, reviewed an evidence-based education sheet, and completed a posteducation survey to assess their understanding. Upon completion, participants were asked which graft they would prefer. Participants were then asked if they would be willing to change their preference based on surgeon recommendation. Finally, participants were asked to rank the factors from the education sheet that were most influential.
UNASSIGNED: Cross-sectional study.
UNASSIGNED: There were 491 participants that completed the survey (mean age, 39.9 years [range, 19-72 years]; 244 male, 241 female, and 6 nonbinary/third-gender participants). Before reading the education sheet, 276 (56%) reported no graft preferences, 146 (30%) preferred autograft, and 69 (14%) preferred allograft. After reading the provided sheet, 226 (46%) participants preferred autograft, 185 (38%) preferred allograft, and 80 (16%) had no preference. The mean score on the preeducation test was 45%, and the mean score on the posteducation test was significantly greater (61%; P < .01). Overall, 345 participants (83.9%) stated they would change their preference for autograft or allograft if their surgeon recommended it. Surgeon preference (n = 330; 67%), educational information provided (n = 117; 24%), and previous knowledge (n = 44; 9%) were the most important factors for making graft selections. The mean ages of the participants selecting each graft type before and after education were as follows: allograft (37.8 ± 10.1 vs 40.6 ± 11.8 years; P = .05), autograft (38 ± 11.5 vs 39.5 ± 10.1 years; P = .21), and no preference (41.5 ± 11.2 vs 39.4 ± 11.8 years; P = .16).
UNASSIGNED: Education resulted in a greater number of individuals\' reporting a preference in graft type (either allograft or autograft) compared with preinformation questioning. In addition, 83.9% of the participants were willing to switch their graft choice if recommended by their surgeon.

UNASSIGNED: Surgical resection is the primary treatment for early-stage lung cancer, but little is known about the outcomes that truly matter to patients. This aim of our study was to identify the aspects of postoperative outcomes that matter most to patients undergoing lung cancer surgery and explore the influence of clinical and demographic factors on their importance ratings.
UNASSIGNED: We performed a cross-sectional study of patients undergoing lung resection for non-small cell lung cancer at our institution from November 2021 to May 2022. Patients were surveyed using a self-developed questionnaire and the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer core health-related quality of life questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30) prior to surgery. Ordinal logistic regression was performed to determine associations between individual patient factors and outcome importance ratings.
UNASSIGNED: Forty patients completed the survey during the study period. Patients prioritized oncologic outcomes, with 95% rating R0 resection and cancer recurrence as \"very important\". Other important factors included overall survival (90%), postoperative complications (e.g., myocardial infarction: 92.5%, infection: 87.5%), and the need for reoperation (82.5%). Health-related quality of life factors, such as chronic pain (77.5%) and the ability to return to normal physical and exercise levels (75%), were also highly valued. Certain patient clinical and demographic factors demonstrated significant associations with importance placed on certain outcomes. Preoperative health-related quality of life scores did not influence outcome importance ratings.
UNASSIGNED: This study provides insights into the outcomes that matter most to patients undergoing lung cancer surgery. Oncologic outcomes and postoperative complications were prioritized, while scar-related factors were less important. Patient preferences varied based on demographic and clinical factors. Understanding these preferences can enhance shared decision-making and improve patient-centered care in thoracic surgical oncology.

BACKGROUND: We evaluated the impact of gender on disease severity, health-related quality of life (HRQoL), treatment management, and patient-healthcare professional (HCP) interactions from the perspectives of patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA).
METHODS: Data were collected from a global online patient survey conducted by The Harris Poll (November 2, 2017 to March 12, 2018). Eligible patients were aged ≥ 18 years, with a self-reported diagnosis of PsA for > 1 year, had visited a rheumatologist/dermatologist in the past 12 months, and had reported previously using ≥ 1 conventional synthetic or biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug. Data were stratified by gender and analyzed descriptively, inferentially by binomial (chi-square) tests, and by multivariate logistic regression models.
RESULTS: Data from 1286 patients who participated were included: 52% were female, 48% were male. Varying perceptions of disease severity between males and females were indicated by differences in symptoms leading to a diagnosis of PsA, and in symptoms reported despite treatment; more females than males reported joint tenderness, skin patches/plaques, and enthesitis. More females than males reported a major/moderate impact of PsA on their physical activity and emotional/mental well-being. Reasons for switching medication differed between genders, with more females switching because they perceived their medication to not be effective enough related to their joint symptoms. More females than males were very satisfied with their communication with their rheumatologist and were more likely to discuss the impact of PsA on their daily lives, their treatment satisfaction, and treatment goals with their rheumatologist.
CONCLUSIONS: Patients\' perceptions of the impact of PsA on HRQoL, treatment management, and interactions with HCPs varied between males and females. More females than males reported major/moderate physical and emotional impacts of PsA. When treating patients, it is important for HCPs to consider the potential impact of gender on patients\' experience of PsA and its symptoms. Graphical plain language summary available for this article.

Background and Objective: Patients with spinal muscular atrophy (SMA) treated with a disease-modifying therapy (DMT) are often classified as responders or non-responders based on the attainment of a specific improvement threshold on validated functional scales. This categorization may significantly impact treatment reimbursement in some countries. The aim of this research is to evaluate the perception of treatments and their benefit by patients considered as responders or non-responders. Methods: In this non-commercial multicenter study, 99 post-symptomatically treated SMA type I-III patients with a median age of 11.2 (0.39-57.4) years at treatment initiation were stratified into three groups based on their treatment outcomes, i.e., those exhibiting clinically significant improvement (N = 41), those with non-clinically significant improvement (N = 18), or those showing no improvement (N = 40). Fifteen months after treatment, the initiation patients or patients\' caregivers were assessed using a patient-rated scoring system based on the Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) scale, comprising 22 questions targeting important aspects and tasks in the daily life of patients with SMA. Results: We found no statistical difference in the patient perception of treatment benefits in 17 out of 22 domains across patient groups. Conclusions: Our results suggest that functional motor scales do not recapitulate patients\' and patients\' caregivers\' experience of the effect of nusinersen treatment in SMA.

OBJECTIVE: To developed and evaluate the validity, reliability, and Arabic translation of a questionnaire for preadolescent perception to removable functional appliances.
METHODS: A new questionnaire was drafted based on previously used questionnaires. Twelve orthodontic experts were selected within content and face validity panel and twenty preadolescents wearing functional appliances were participated in the face validation of the questionnaire. Two rounds of content validity were performed with the same experts. The final form of the validated questionnaire was translated from English to Arabic language. The content validity index (CVI) was used for content validity and the Cronbach\'s alpha test was used to assess the internal consistency reliability of the questionnaire.
RESULTS: During the first round of content validity, 50 items were relevant to the underlying construct (Item-CVI ≥ 0.78), while four items were considered not valid (Item-CVI < 0.78) and the average scale-CVI was 0.93. In terms of face validation by experts, the percentage of agreement was adequate (96.4%). The questionnaire was modified by removing the non-valid items, adding/modifying items, and merging some categories. For second round of content validity, all items were found to be valid (I-CVI ≥ 0.78) and the overall questionnaire had adequate content validity (Scale-CVI/Ave = 0.94). The translated valid questionnaire also achieved a perfect agreement (100%) for face validity by patients. The internal consistency was appropriate (≥ 0.7).
CONCLUSIONS: A new valid, reliable, and translated questionnaire (English and Arabic versions) that cover the majority of aspects of patients\' perception during treatment with removable functional appliances has been developed.

UNASSIGNED: Comprehensive oral care is a service centered around the patient, and individuals who need it the most often face limited access. Patient perception acts as a guide for enhancing quality, ensuring patients\' future intent to utilize the services and facilitating recommendations to others. The present study aimed to assess the patients\' perception of comprehensive dental services availed at a Primary Health Center (PHC).
UNASSIGNED: This qualitative study was based on a phenomenological interpretive approach, and judgment sampling method was employed. A validated interview guide, developed from relevant literature was employed in the local language to conduct interviews among adults visiting the PHC, gathering their views regarding the services provided. The interviews were audio recorded on a digital voice recorder, and files were password protected. Content saturation guided the determination of the final number of participants interviewed. After translating and transcribing the interviews, thematic analysis and coding were performed using ATLAS. ti 23 for Windows.
UNASSIGNED: A total of 12 participants were included in the study, following data saturation. Among them, there were 8(66.7%) female and 4(33.3%) male participants. Ten overarching main themes were discerned through the assigned codes, including positive views, neutral views, negative views, previous dental clinics visited, previous experience with dental treatment, treatments sought at the center, referrals, source of information about the dental center, subsequent visits and suggestions for improvement.
UNASSIGNED: The findings of this study revealed a positive patient perception of the comprehensive dental services offered at the PHC. Through insightful interviews, various strengths, and areas for improvement regarding the center and care provision were identified. These insights provide valuable suggestions that can be applied to elevate the utilization of dental services, ensuring continuous improvement in patient care.

UNASSIGNED: Limited data are available characterizing the impact of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic on psoriasis care for patients in Germany.
UNASSIGNED: To analyze patient perception and impact of the pandemic on well-being and psoriasis management of German patients with moderate-to-severe psoriasis or psoriasis arthritis under systemic therapies.
UNASSIGNED: The CoronaBest registry captures events of SARS-CoV-2 infections and analyzes the impact of the pandemic on patients with psoriasis or psoriasis arthritis. In June 2020, and independently in February 2022, patients with psoriasis or psoriasis arthritis received a standardized questionnaire for current treatment, protective measures, well-being, and individual risks for COVID-19, among others.
UNASSIGNED: Included were 4,194 patients in 2020 (mean age of 47.7 years and 41.8% women) and 4,818 patients in 2022 (mean age of 56.4 and 42.9% women). Treatment discontinuations were observed in 2.7% and 1.7% of patients in 2020 and 2022, respectively. In the vast majority of the cases (>92%), no additional measures were taken concerning the management of psoriasis treatments in either 2020 or 2022. Those patients with changes reported most frequently: telephone calls instead of face-to-face visits (80.2%, in 2020 vs 40.5% in 2022) or more frequent controls (27.1%, 2020 vs 22.0%, 2022). A majority (66.7%, 2020, and 70.6%, 2022) did not perceive the virus as a considerable threat. The proportion of patients feeling well informed about COVID-19 by physicians increased from 42.6% in 2020 to 51.8% in 2022. About 81.1% of patients in 2020 and 67.5% in 2022 stated that their overall personal condition was not affected due to the pandemic. Physicians attributed no special risk of contracting SARS-CoV-2 in most of the patients.
UNASSIGNED: A high rate of systemic treatment persistence and awareness of risks and protective measures indicate that health care for psoriasis largely followed current national and international recommendations during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Many clinical trials use systematic methodology to monitor adverse events and determine grade (severity), expectedness, and relatedness to treatments as determined by clinicians. However, patient perspectives are often not included in this process.
This study aimed to compare clinician vs patient grading of adverse event severity in a urogynecologic surgical trial. Secondary objectives were to estimate the association of patient grading of adverse events with decision-making and quality of life outcomes and to determine if patient perspective changes over time.
This was a planned supplementary study (Patient Perspectives in Adverse Event Reporting [PPAR]) to a randomized trial comparing 3 surgical approaches to vaginal apical prolapse. In the parent trial, adverse events experienced by patients were collected per a standardized protocol every 6 months during which clinicians graded adverse event severity (mild, moderate, severe/life-threatening). In this substudy, we obtained additional longitudinal patient perspectives for 19 predetermined \"PPAR adverse events.\" Patients provided their own severity grading (mild, moderate, severe/very severe/life-threatening) at initial assessment and at 12 and 36 months postoperatively. Clinicians and patients were masked to each other\'s reporting. The primary outcome was the interrater agreement (kappa statistic) for adverse event severity between the initial clinician and patient assessment, combining patient grades of mild and moderate. The association between adverse event severity and the Decision Regret Scale, Satisfaction with Decision Scale, the 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey, and Patient Global Impression of Improvement scores was assessed using the Spearman correlation coefficient (ρ) for continuous scales, the Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test for Patient Global Impression of Improvement, and t tests or chi-square tests comparing the assessments of patients who rated their adverse events or symptoms as severe with those who gave other ratings. To describe patient perspective changes over time, the intraobserver agreement was estimated for adverse event severity grade over time using weighted kappa coefficients.
Of the 360 randomly assigned patients, 219 (61%) experienced a total of 527 PPAR adverse events (91% moderate and 9% severe/life-threatening by clinician grading). Mean patient age was 67 years; 87% were White and 12% Hispanic. Among the patients reporting any PPAR event, the most common were urinary tract infection (61%), de novo urgency urinary incontinence (35%), stress urinary incontinence (22%), and fecal incontinence (13%). Overall agreement between clinician and participant grading of severity was poor (kappa=0.24 [95% confidence interval, 0.14-0.34]). Of the 414 adverse events that clinicians graded as moderate, patients graded 120 (29%) as mild and 80 (19%) as severe. Of the 39 adverse events graded as severe by clinicians, patients graded 15 (38%) as mild or moderate. Initial patient grading of the most severe reported adverse event was mildly correlated with worse Decision Regret Scale (ρ=0.2; P=.01), 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey (ρ=-0.24; P<.01), and Patient Global Impression of Improvement (P<.01) scores. There was no association between adverse event severity and Satisfaction with Decision Scale score. Patients with an initial grading of \"severe\" had more regret, lower quality of life, and poorer global impressions of health than those whose worst severity grade was mild (P<.05). Agreement between the patients\' initial severity ratings and their ratings at 12 months (kappa=0.48 [95% confidence interval, 0.39-0.58]) and 36 months (kappa=0.45 [95% confidence interval, 0.37-0.53]) was fair.
Clinician and patient perceptions of adverse event severity are discordant. Worse severity from the patient perspective was associated with patient-centered outcomes. Including the patient perspective provides additional information for evaluating surgical procedures.