Search

Problem Statement/Abstract Cutaneous wart is a common dermatological condition in the pediatric age group with a prevalence ranging between 22 and 33%.[[1]] Decision-making is challenging as 60-70% of the patients have spontaneous recovery by approximately 12 months without any intervention.[[2]],[[3]] Recommendations regarding the intervention are uncertain as multiple available options lead to similar outcomes. The responses of the patients under the columns heading placebo, SA, and CRT are known as the multivariate format [Table 1]. The Cochrane review comparing several treatment modalities also does not offer a decisive answer.[[4]] Many physicians prescribe salicylic acid (SA) and cryotherapy (CRT) to clear warts. A two-way ANOVA that may affect the outcome consists of two factors such as drug type (placebo, SA, and CRT) and severity of immune suppression (low, moderate, and high). [Extracted from the article]

Life expectancy is gradually increasing due to continuously improving medical and nonmedical interventions. The increasing life expectancy is desirable but brings in issues such as impairment of quality of life, disease perception, cognitive health, and mental health. Thus, questionnaire building and data collection through the questionnaires have become an active area of research. However, questionnaire development can be challenging and suboptimal in the absence of careful planning and user-friendly literature guide. Keeping in mind the intricacies of constructing a questionnaire, researchers need to carefully plan, document, and follow systematic steps to build a reliable and valid questionnaire. Additionally, questionnaire development is technical, jargon-filled, and is not a part of most of the graduate and postgraduate training. Therefore, this article is an attempt to initiate an understanding of the complexities of the questionnaire fundamentals, technical challenges, and sequential flow of steps to build a reliable and valid questionnaire. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Randomized control trialsare the gold standard for testing the efficacy of new interventions. Historically, superiority trials were methods of choice as reference (standard) interventions were not established for many disease conditions. However currently, reference interventions are available for most of adverse conditions. Despite this, many investigators are using superiority trials in comparison to more suitable noninferiority and equivalence trials. The application of noninferiority and equivalence trials is on the rise, but by and large, these trials are poorly understood, ill-conceived, inappropriately analyzed, and reported and misinterpreted. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]