“
“Objective The present study was undertaken to establish reference values for Schirmer tear test (STT) and intraocular pressure (IOP) in the long-eared hedgehog (Hemiechinus auritus). Animals Fourteen healthy long-eared hedgehogs (H.similar to auritus) selleckchem of either sex were studied. Procedures The hedgehogs were individually immobilized with an intramuscular injection of combined Ketamine (20 mg/kg) and Diazepam (0.5 mg/kg), and each animal

underwent ophthalmic examinations including: STT, tonometry, biomicroscopy, and indirect ophthalmoscopy. Results No significant effects of animal gender, weight, side (right vs. left eye) were found in this study. Mean (SD) STT values for all eyes (n = 28) were 1.7 +/- 1.2 mm/1 min with a range of 04 mm/1 min. Mean STT in male animals was 2.2 +/- 1.2. Mean STT in female Hedgehogs was 1.3 +/- 1.1. Mean (SD) IOP values by applanation tonometry were 20.1 +/- 4.0 mmHg (range 11.526.5 mmHg). Mean (SD) IOP values by applanation OICR-9429 price tonometry were 18.2 +/- 4.0 and 22.0 +/- 3.2 mmHg for males and females, respectively. Conclusions This study reports STT and IOP findings in long-eared hedgehogs (H.similar to auritus).”
“Objectives: To summarize current available data on simulation-based training in resuscitation for health care professionals.

Data sources: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, ERIC, Web of Science, Scopus and reference lists of

published reviews.

Study selection: Published studies of any language or date that enrolled health professions’ Cediranib learners to investigate the use of technology-enhanced simulation to teach resuscitation in comparison with no intervention or alternative training.

Data extraction:

Data were abstracted in duplicate. We identified themes examining different approaches to curriculum design. We pooled results using random effects meta-analysis.

Data synthesis: 182 studies were identified involving 16,636 participants. Overall, simulation-based training of resuscitation skills, in comparison to no intervention, appears effective regardless of assessed outcome, level of learner, study design, or specific task trained. In comparison to no intervention, simulation training improved outcomes of knowledge (Hedges’ g) 1.05 (95% confidence interval, 0.81-1.29), process skill 1.13 (0.99-1.27), product skill 1.92 (1.26-2.60), time skill 1.77 (1.13-2.42) and patient outcomes 0.26 (0.047-0.48). In comparison with non-simulation intervention, learner satisfaction 0.79 (0.27-1.31) and process skill 0.35 (0.12-0.59) outcomes favored simulation. Studies investigating how to optimize simulation training found higher process skill outcomes in courses employing “”booster”" practice 0.13 (0.03-0.22), team/group dynamics 0.51 (0.06-0.97), distraction 1.76 (1.02-2.50) and integrated feedback 0.49 (0.17-0.80) compared to courses without these features.