Increased risks and concerns regarding patient safety in early-phase studies exist because knowledge about the new intervention is still accumulating. This means that narrow eligibility criteria are needed. However, if early-phase studies are narrow in their inclusion, for example, by not including diverse populations, there is a potential risk that new therapies have insufficient relevant efficacy and safety data. Existing research has explored equity, diversity and inclusion (EDI) factors in early-phase pharmaceutical studies, but it has not been possible to find studies that have systematically examined whether EDI factors have been considered in surgical studies reporting innovative procedures. We aim to examine how EDI factors are considered in early-phase surgical studies and surgical innovation reports to explore how this may impact on later-phase evaluation and inclusive intervention implementation.

A scoping review following the JBI (Joanna Briggs Institute) and Arksey and O’Malley’s five-step process is being conducted. We will search Scopus, PubMed and Web of Science for surgical early-phase studies. A two-step screening process for eligibility is being used. Independent double screening will take place for 20% of the papers. Eligible articles will report early evaluation of an innovative surgical/invasive procedure. Excluded will be comparative and later-phase studies and early evaluations of pharmaceutical products even in a surgical setting. Data on article details, patient eligibility and whether protected characteristics are reported and considered will be extracted. Information about EDI considerations reported in the introduction or discussion of the papers will also be extracted. Findings will be discussed with a patient advisory group. A content synthesis approach will be undertaken and descriptive summaries presented.

This study does not require ethical approval being a secondary analysis. The findings will be disseminated through academic journal publications and oral presentations.

To explore the challenges and opportunities in clinical skills teaching and learning among faculty, final-year medical students and patients at a private medical university in Pakistan, within the context of a low- and middle-income country (LMIC) medical education system.

An exploratory descriptive qualitative design using inductive thematic analysis utilising in-depth interviews and focus group discussions, framed within a metaphorical lens.

A single private-sector tertiary care teaching hospital and affiliated undergraduate medical college in an urban setting in Pakistan.

A total of 48 participants were included in the study: 12 clinical faculty members representing various disciplines and levels of experience, 16 final-year medical students and 10 house officers and 10 patients from adult inpatient wards. Participants were purposively selected to ensure maximum variation in perspectives.

Six key metaphorical themes emerged, each reflecting both the challenges and opportunities within the clinical learning journey: (1) The Safety Harness—simulation as an opportunity for structured, risk-free skill development, yet limited by authenticity; (2) The Underwater Life—the irreplaceable but unpredictable nature of bedside learning in fostering empathy and communication; (3) The Stormy Seas—systemic and cultural barriers such as patient availability, gender constraints and limited faculty resources; (4) The Ship—students navigating self-development amid evolving expectations, digital distractions and shifting motivations; (5) The Engine Room Tools—balancing diverse teaching modalities while seeking optimal time distribution between simulation and bedside learning; and (6) The Guiding Compass—the pivotal role of clinical teachers as mentors and professional exemplars. Triangulated perspectives revealed that while structured simulation and bedside experiences complement one another, significant institutional, ethical and pedagogical challenges persist, many amplified by the realities of resource-limited LMIC settings.

This study underscores the complexities of clinical teaching and learning in an LMIC context, highlighting the need for a balanced, context-sensitive model that integrates simulation with authentic bedside exposure, supported by mentorship and reflective practice. Addressing structural and faculty-related barriers is essential to advancing equitable, patient-centred clinical education in resource-constrained environments.

This study aims to determine the incidence and impact of ocular injuries among the different combat sports disciplines of boxing, mixed martial arts (MMA), kickboxing and Muay Thai in Texas, USA.

A case–control study was conducted to analyse retrospective postmatch physical reports from combat sports matches that took place in the state of Texas from January 2019 to January 2022. Ocular injuries and other match characteristics such as sport type and match outcome were identified by postmatch physical reports. Postmatch physical reports were collected from the Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation database. Statistical analysis was used to stratify injuries and compare the impact of injuries on match outcome.

Combat sports fighters in Texas, USA.

3070 participants were included in the study. Participants were fighters who participated in combat sports matches in Texas, USA, between January 2019 and January 2022.

The original plan was to measure the incidence of ocular injuries across different combat sports including boxing, MMA, kickboxing and Muay Thai. However, due to a limited sample size of kickboxing and Muay Thai matches, the ocular injury incidence was only measured for boxing and MMA. The association between ocular injury and match outcome was assessed using ² statistical analysis.

The respective incidence rates of ocular injuries in boxing and MMA were 9.7 and 12.2 injuries per 100 matches. The association between ocular injury and match outcome (win, lose or draw) was statistically significant in boxing but not statistically significant in MMA matches.

Our findings revealed that ocular injuries are significantly associated to losing a boxing match (p=0.011), but not associated to match outcome in MMA (p=0.232). Additionally, MMA matches report a larger variety of ocular injuries compared with boxing matches.

Prescribing antibiotics may reinforce patients’ beliefs that antibiotics are needed and increase future consultations for similar symptoms. This review determines the effect of antibiotic prescribing for respiratory infections in primary care on future reattendance.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies and reported following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Participants were adults or children presenting with respiratory infection in primary care.

MEDLINE (Ovid), PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, clinical trial registries and grey literature sources were searched from inception until 6 February 2024.

Eligible studies included open-label RCTs or cohort studies of antibiotics compared with no antibiotics in adults or children with respiratory infections. The outcome of interest was reattendance at least 28 days after the initial consultation.

Two reviewers independently screened, selected, assessed the quality and extracted data. Separate meta-analyses were presented for RCT and cohort studies and a combined meta-analysis of all studies.

We identified 2128 records and reviewed 48 full texts, of which five met the inclusion criteria. These reported three RCTs (1207 randomised to antibiotics, 672 controls) and three cohort studies (209 138 exposed to antibiotics, 46 469 controls). In the meta-analysis of RCTs, relative risk (RR) of reattendance with antibiotics was 1.10 (95% CI: 0.99 to 1.23), and in cohort studies, RR was 1.21 (95% CI: 0.94 to 1.49). An important limitation is that most studies were in UK primary care.

Evidence suggests prescribing antibiotics for acute respiratory tract infections in primary care probably modestly increases future reattendance for similar conditions. Reducing antibiotic prescribing may help decrease demand for primary care.

CRD42023470731.