Search

Vaccines against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) have been discovered within a very small duration of time as compared to the traditional way for the development of vaccines, which raised the question about the safety and efficacy of the approved vaccines. The purpose of this study is to look at the effectiveness and safety of vaccine platforms against the incidence of COVID‐19. The literature search was performed on PubMed/Medline, Cochrane, and clinical trials.gov databases for studies published between 1 January 2020 and 19 February 2022. Preferred Reporting Items for Systemic Review and Meta‐Analysis Statement guidelines were followed. Among 284 articles received by keywords, a total of 11 studies were eligible according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria (studies in special populations, e.g., pregnant women, paediatric patients, editorials, case reports, review articles, preclinical and in vitro studies) of the study. A total of 247,186 participants were considered for randomisation at baseline, among them, 129,572 (52.42%) were provided with vaccine (Intervention group) and 117,614 (47.58%) with the placebo (Control group). A pooled fold change estimation of 0.19 (95% CI: 0.12–0.31, p < 0.0001) showed significant protection against the incidence of COVID‐19 in the vaccines received group versus the placebo group. mRNA based, inactivated vaccines and non‐replicating viral vector‐based vaccines showed significantly protection against the incidence of COVID‐19 compared to placebo with pooled fold change estimation was 0.08 (95% CI: 0.06–0.10), 0.20 (95% CI: 0.14–0.29) and 0.36 (95% CI: 0.28–0.46), respectively. Injection site discomfort and fatigue were the most common side effect observed in mRNA, non‐replicating viral vector, inactivated, and protein subunit‐based vaccines. All the approved vaccines were found safe and efficacious but mRNA‐based vaccines were found to be more efficacious against SARS‐CoV‐2 than other platforms. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: In graduate medical education, trainees have different academic and professional growth needs throughout their career, but these needs have not been well studied (Gusic, Zenni, Ludwig & First, 2010). Traditional mentoring programs in many disciplines including medicine, science, law, business and education report individuals with mentors having higher earnings, higher job satisfaction and higher rates of promotion, compared to individuals without mentors (Bussey-Jones et al.,2006; Sambunak, Straus & Marusic, 2010). Methods: We developed a structured mentoring program in the Department of Medicine in Cooper University Hospital which encourages both academic and professional growth through a major emphasis on academic scholarship. We created a 21 questions survey to evaluate mentee satisfaction towards their assigned mentors. The questions fit into four categories consisting of the mentor's personal attributes and action characteristics and mentee's short term and long term career goals. Sixty junior trainees (Post Graduate Year 1-3) and 39 senior trainees (Post Graduate Year 4-7) completed the survey. Results and Conclusions: Senior trainees were more satisfied with their mentors' intrinsic qualities (96%) compared to junior trainees (93%), χ2 (1, N=980) = 5.72, p=0.017. Additionally, senior trainees were more satisfied with their mentors' action characteristics (95%) compared to junior trainees (91%), χ2(1, N=677) = 4.03, p=0.045. Junior trainees had a lower satisfaction rating, compared to their senior colleagues, which might imply that their needs and desires were not properly addressed by their mentors. Both junior and senior trainees identified the lowest satisfaction rates in their mentors' communication skills and ability to challenge them. This was an area of weakness within the mentorship program which requires further research and attention. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]