Objective: To translate the Örebro Musculoskeletal Pain Screening Questionnaire (ÖMPSQ) into Urdu and to determine the psychometric properties of its Urdu version. Methods: This cross-sectional study recruited 300 participants (18–60 years) with non-specific low back pain (NSLBP), who were able to read Urdu. Test-retest reliability was assessed using intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC), and reproducibility through Cronbach’s α. Face and content validity were examined via individual interviews, and construct validity by correlating with relevant reference standards. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) & confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was also carried out Results: ÖMPSQ was successfully translated into Urdu version with acceptable face and content validity. ÖMPSQ Urdu version showed acceptable internal consistency (α=0.789) & good test-retest reliability (ICC=0.784, 95% confidence interval, p<0.001) while good correlation was demonstrated between ÖMPSQ and Chronic Pain Grade Scale (pain and disability subscales i.e., r=0.809 and 0.807, respectively). However, Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire showed moderate correlation (r=0.513). Additionally, no significant floor or ceiling effects were observed in the ÖMPSQ Urdu version. EFA revealed a five-factor solution using twenty items, 89.21% was the total item variance in the database, while CFA demonstrated good model fit with strong factor loadings and acceptable fit indices Conclusion The ÖMPSQ Urdu version is valid and reliable for assessing the risk of long-term disability & workplace absence in NSLBP patients.

Statins represent the first-line therapy for cholesterol management. However, for patients prone to statin side effects, unable to tolerate higher doses, or requiring additional low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) reduction, ezetimibe alone or in combination with statins is recommended. This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of combining lowor moderate-intensity statins with ezetimibe compared to high-intensity statin monotherapy, yielding reliable evidence to guide clinical decision-making and personalize treatment strategies. PubMed, Embase, and Scopus were systematically searched from inception until May 2023. All randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing a high-intensity statin with a low/ moderate-intensity statin with ezetimibe were included. The outcomes of interest comprised changes in concentrations of lipids—LDL-C, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C), total cholesterol (TC), and triglycerides (TGs)—and apolipoprotein (Apo) A1, Apo B, and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hs-CRP), along with major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). All data were analyzed using Review Manager version 5.4. p-values less than 0.05 were considered to indicate statistical significance. Overall, 20 RCTs, with 5,412 participants, were included. A low/moderate-intensity statin combined with ezetimibe yielded a significantly greater reduction in LDL-C levels than high-intensity statin monotherapy (mean difference [MD], −6.59; 95% confidence interval [CI], −10.95, −2.24; p=0.003; I 2 =84%). No significant differences were observed between combination and high-intensity statin monotherapy regarding TC, TG, or HDL-C levels. However, hs-CRP levels were significantly higher with combination therapy (MD, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.01, 0.64; p=0.04; I 2 =0%). Combination therapy involving a low/moderate-intensity statin with ezetimibe was significantly associated with lower LDL-C levels than high-intensity statin monotherapy. No significant differences were observed for TC, TGs, HDL-C, alanine transaminase, or MACE. However, creatine phosphokinase levels significantly increased with monotherapy.

Statins represent the first-line therapy for cholesterol management. However, for patients prone to statin side effects, unable to tolerate higher doses, or requiring additional low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) reduction, ezetimibe alone or in combination with statins is recommended. This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of combining lowor moderate-intensity statins with ezetimibe compared to high-intensity statin monotherapy, yielding reliable evidence to guide clinical decision-making and personalize treatment strategies. PubMed, Embase, and Scopus were systematically searched from inception until May 2023. All randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing a high-intensity statin with a low/ moderate-intensity statin with ezetimibe were included. The outcomes of interest comprised changes in concentrations of lipids—LDL-C, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C), total cholesterol (TC), and triglycerides (TGs)—and apolipoprotein (Apo) A1, Apo B, and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hs-CRP), along with major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). All data were analyzed using Review Manager version 5.4. p-values less than 0.05 were considered to indicate statistical significance. Overall, 20 RCTs, with 5,412 participants, were included. A low/moderate-intensity statin combined with ezetimibe yielded a significantly greater reduction in LDL-C levels than high-intensity statin monotherapy (mean difference [MD], −6.59; 95% confidence interval [CI], −10.95, −2.24; p=0.003; I 2 =84%). No significant differences were observed between combination and high-intensity statin monotherapy regarding TC, TG, or HDL-C levels. However, hs-CRP levels were significantly higher with combination therapy (MD, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.01, 0.64; p=0.04; I 2 =0%). Combination therapy involving a low/moderate-intensity statin with ezetimibe was significantly associated with lower LDL-C levels than high-intensity statin monotherapy. No significant differences were observed for TC, TGs, HDL-C, alanine transaminase, or MACE. However, creatine phosphokinase levels significantly increased with monotherapy.

Statins represent the first-line therapy for cholesterol management. However, for patients prone to statin side effects, unable to tolerate higher doses, or requiring additional low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) reduction, ezetimibe alone or in combination with statins is recommended. This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of combining lowor moderate-intensity statins with ezetimibe compared to high-intensity statin monotherapy, yielding reliable evidence to guide clinical decision-making and personalize treatment strategies. PubMed, Embase, and Scopus were systematically searched from inception until May 2023. All randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing a high-intensity statin with a low/ moderate-intensity statin with ezetimibe were included. The outcomes of interest comprised changes in concentrations of lipids—LDL-C, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C), total cholesterol (TC), and triglycerides (TGs)—and apolipoprotein (Apo) A1, Apo B, and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hs-CRP), along with major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). All data were analyzed using Review Manager version 5.4. p-values less than 0.05 were considered to indicate statistical significance. Overall, 20 RCTs, with 5,412 participants, were included. A low/moderate-intensity statin combined with ezetimibe yielded a significantly greater reduction in LDL-C levels than high-intensity statin monotherapy (mean difference [MD], −6.59; 95% confidence interval [CI], −10.95, −2.24; p=0.003; I 2 =84%). No significant differences were observed between combination and high-intensity statin monotherapy regarding TC, TG, or HDL-C levels. However, hs-CRP levels were significantly higher with combination therapy (MD, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.01, 0.64; p=0.04; I 2 =0%). Combination therapy involving a low/moderate-intensity statin with ezetimibe was significantly associated with lower LDL-C levels than high-intensity statin monotherapy. No significant differences were observed for TC, TGs, HDL-C, alanine transaminase, or MACE. However, creatine phosphokinase levels significantly increased with monotherapy.

Statins represent the first-line therapy for cholesterol management. However, for patients prone to statin side effects, unable to tolerate higher doses, or requiring additional low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) reduction, ezetimibe alone or in combination with statins is recommended. This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of combining lowor moderate-intensity statins with ezetimibe compared to high-intensity statin monotherapy, yielding reliable evidence to guide clinical decision-making and personalize treatment strategies. PubMed, Embase, and Scopus were systematically searched from inception until May 2023. All randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing a high-intensity statin with a low/ moderate-intensity statin with ezetimibe were included. The outcomes of interest comprised changes in concentrations of lipids—LDL-C, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C), total cholesterol (TC), and triglycerides (TGs)—and apolipoprotein (Apo) A1, Apo B, and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hs-CRP), along with major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). All data were analyzed using Review Manager version 5.4. p-values less than 0.05 were considered to indicate statistical significance. Overall, 20 RCTs, with 5,412 participants, were included. A low/moderate-intensity statin combined with ezetimibe yielded a significantly greater reduction in LDL-C levels than high-intensity statin monotherapy (mean difference [MD], −6.59; 95% confidence interval [CI], −10.95, −2.24; p=0.003; I 2 =84%). No significant differences were observed between combination and high-intensity statin monotherapy regarding TC, TG, or HDL-C levels. However, hs-CRP levels were significantly higher with combination therapy (MD, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.01, 0.64; p=0.04; I 2 =0%). Combination therapy involving a low/moderate-intensity statin with ezetimibe was significantly associated with lower LDL-C levels than high-intensity statin monotherapy. No significant differences were observed for TC, TGs, HDL-C, alanine transaminase, or MACE. However, creatine phosphokinase levels significantly increased with monotherapy.

Vegetables are essential for human nutrition due to their low fat content and high levels of vitamins, minerals, and dietary fiber. However, studies have shown that vegetables are vulnerable to PTE contamination as a result of anthropogenic activities. This study determined the concentrations and health impacts associated with potentially toxic elements (PTEs) in specific vegetables (green beans, spinach, green pepper, carrots, and onions). A total of 90 vegetable samples were randomly selected and purchased from local markets and analyzed for potentially toxic elements (PTEs) (Cd, Fe, Cr, Pb, Cu, Zn, Co, and Ni) using an atomic absorption spectrophotometer (AAS). The mean concentrations (mg·kg-1) of PTEs ranged from 0.006 - 0.021 for Cd, 2.27 - 12.32 for Fe, 0.05 - 0.150 for Cr, 0.087 - 0.254 for Pb, 0.035 - 0.062 for Cu, 2.65 - 15.61 for Zn, 0.010 - 0.050 for Co, and 0.012 - 0.058 for Ni. The abundance of PTEs was found to be in the following declining order: Zn >Fe >Cu >Cr >Ni >Co >Pb >Cd. The hazard index (HI) for both children and adults was <1, suggesting that there is no likely non-carcinogenic effect from consuming these vegetables. Similarly, the carcinogenic risk was below the acceptable value range of 1.0 × 10-6 - 1.0 × 10-4. Based on the results of this study, it is unlikely that the vegetables analyzed pose a health risk to consumers. However, monitoring and continuous stringent regulations of PTEs on foodstuff for public health protection.

Background: Tirzepatide is a novel dual glucose-dependent insulinotropic peptide (GIP)-glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist being evaluated for the treatment of various metabolic disorders. We performed a meta-analysis of randomized data on the effects of tirzepatide on serum lipid levels. Methods: We systematically searched the PubMed and ClinicalTrials.gov databases for relevant data from randomized controlled clinical trials. All articles were screened, reviewed, and extracted by at least two independent authors, with conflicts resolved by consensus. Four hundred and thirty-three records were identified in the initial literature search; 18 of them were identified for full-text review, and 14 of those were systematically reviewed and included in the analysis. The meta-analysis was performed using an inverse variance random-effects model. Results: Fourteen articles that reported data from 13 randomized controlled clinical trials were included in the review. Nine trials had a low risk of bias, two had a moderate risk, and two had a high risk of bias. The pooled analysis showed that tirzepatide was efficacious at improving all lipid markers, including cholesterol and triglycerides.Moreover, a clear dose response trend was visible across results from groups taking 5, 10, and 15 mg of tirzepatide. Conclusion There is growing evidence to support the use of tirzepatide in patients with metabolic diseases such as type 2 diabetes mellitus, metabolic syndrome, and obesity. Our results demonstrate that tirzepatide significantly improves all aspects of patient metabolism and might be superior in this regard to conventional agents such as insulin formulations or traditional GLP-1 agonists.

Background: Tirzepatide is a novel dual glucose-dependent insulinotropic peptide (GIP)-glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist being evaluated for the treatment of various metabolic disorders. We performed a meta-analysis of randomized data on the effects of tirzepatide on serum lipid levels. Methods: We systematically searched the PubMed and ClinicalTrials.gov databases for relevant data from randomized controlled clinical trials. All articles were screened, reviewed, and extracted by at least two independent authors, with conflicts resolved by consensus. Four hundred and thirty-three records were identified in the initial literature search; 18 of them were identified for full-text review, and 14 of those were systematically reviewed and included in the analysis. The meta-analysis was performed using an inverse variance random-effects model. Results: Fourteen articles that reported data from 13 randomized controlled clinical trials were included in the review. Nine trials had a low risk of bias, two had a moderate risk, and two had a high risk of bias. The pooled analysis showed that tirzepatide was efficacious at improving all lipid markers, including cholesterol and triglycerides.Moreover, a clear dose response trend was visible across results from groups taking 5, 10, and 15 mg of tirzepatide. Conclusion There is growing evidence to support the use of tirzepatide in patients with metabolic diseases such as type 2 diabetes mellitus, metabolic syndrome, and obesity. Our results demonstrate that tirzepatide significantly improves all aspects of patient metabolism and might be superior in this regard to conventional agents such as insulin formulations or traditional GLP-1 agonists.

Background: Tirzepatide is a novel dual glucose-dependent insulinotropic peptide (GIP)-glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist being evaluated for the treatment of various metabolic disorders. We performed a meta-analysis of randomized data on the effects of tirzepatide on serum lipid levels. Methods: We systematically searched the PubMed and ClinicalTrials.gov databases for relevant data from randomized controlled clinical trials. All articles were screened, reviewed, and extracted by at least two independent authors, with conflicts resolved by consensus. Four hundred and thirty-three records were identified in the initial literature search; 18 of them were identified for full-text review, and 14 of those were systematically reviewed and included in the analysis. The meta-analysis was performed using an inverse variance random-effects model. Results: Fourteen articles that reported data from 13 randomized controlled clinical trials were included in the review. Nine trials had a low risk of bias, two had a moderate risk, and two had a high risk of bias. The pooled analysis showed that tirzepatide was efficacious at improving all lipid markers, including cholesterol and triglycerides.Moreover, a clear dose response trend was visible across results from groups taking 5, 10, and 15 mg of tirzepatide. Conclusion There is growing evidence to support the use of tirzepatide in patients with metabolic diseases such as type 2 diabetes mellitus, metabolic syndrome, and obesity. Our results demonstrate that tirzepatide significantly improves all aspects of patient metabolism and might be superior in this regard to conventional agents such as insulin formulations or traditional GLP-1 agonists.

Objective: The study examined the efficacy of various generations of cephalosporins against biofilms developed by pathogenic S. aureus and E. coli. Methods: The development of biofilms by both bacteria was assessed using petri-plate and microplate methods. Biofilm hydrolysis and inhibition were tested using first to fourth generations of cephalosporins, and the effects were analyzed by crystal violet staining and phase contrast microscopy. Results: Both bacterial strains exhibited well-developed biofilms in petri-plate and microplate assays. Cefradine (first generation) showed 76.78% hydrolysis of S. aureus biofilm, while significant hydrolysis (59.86%) of E. coli biofilm was observed by cefipime (fourth generation). Similarly, cefuroxime, cefadroxil, cefepime, and cefradine caused 78.8%, 71.63%, 70.63%, and 70.51% inhibition of the S. aureus biofilms, respectively. In the case of E. coli, maximum biofilm inhibition (66.47%) was again shown by cefepime. All generations of cephalosporins were more effective against S. aureus than E. coli, which was confirmed by phase contrast microscopy. Conclusions and Relevance: Cephalosporins exhibit dual capabilities of hydrolyzing and inhibiting S. aureus and E. coli biofilms. First-generation cephalosporins exhibited the highest inhibitory activity against S. aureus, while the third and fourth generations significantly inhibited E. coli biofilms. This study highlights the importance of tailored antibiotic strategies based on the biofilm characteristics of specific bacterial strains.