W15 Phan Thiet stats & predictions
Welcome to the Ultimate Guide on Tennis W15 Phan Thiet, Vietnam
Discover the excitement of tennis with our daily updates on matches and expert betting predictions. The W15 Phan Thiet tournament in Vietnam offers thrilling action and strategic gameplay. This guide will help you navigate through the matches, understand player dynamics, and make informed betting decisions. Stay ahead with our expert insights and enjoy every moment of this exhilarating tennis event.
No tennis matches found matching your criteria.
Understanding the Tournament Structure
The W15 Phan Thiet is part of the ATP Challenger Tour, featuring a mix of seasoned players and rising stars. The tournament consists of singles and doubles matches, providing ample opportunities for players to showcase their skills. With daily updates, you can keep track of match schedules, player line-ups, and any changes that might occur.
- Singles Competition: Follow your favorite players as they battle it out on the court.
- Doubles Matches: Experience the strategic teamwork in doubles play.
- Daily Match Updates: Stay informed with real-time updates on match outcomes and scores.
Expert Betting Predictions
Betting on tennis can be both exciting and rewarding if approached with the right strategy. Our experts provide daily predictions based on player performance, historical data, and current form. Here’s how you can make the most out of your betting experience:
- Analyzing Player Form: Check recent performances to gauge a player's current form.
- Understanding Match Dynamics: Consider factors like playing surface, weather conditions, and head-to-head records.
- Risk Management: Set a budget for betting and stick to it to ensure responsible gambling.
Detailed Match Analysis
Each day brings new challenges and opportunities in the tournament. Here’s how you can analyze matches effectively:
- Surface Suitability: Some players excel on specific surfaces; consider this when making predictions.
- Injury Reports: Stay updated on any injuries that might affect player performance.
- Mental Toughness: Assess a player's ability to handle pressure situations during critical points in a match.
Tips for Betting Success
To enhance your betting experience, consider these expert tips:
- Diversify Your Bets: Spread your bets across different matches to mitigate risks.
- Favor Underdogs Wisely: Sometimes backing an underdog can yield high returns if they perform unexpectedly well.
- Leverage Live Betting Options: Take advantage of live betting features to capitalize on real-time developments during matches.
The Players to Watch
The W15 Phan Thiet features a diverse roster of talented players. Here are some key athletes to keep an eye on:
- Juan Martin del Potro: Known for his powerful game and resilience on the court.
- Casper Ruud: A rising star with exceptional skill in baseline play.
- Alexander Zverev: Famous for his aggressive style and strong serve-and-volley tactics.
Tournament Highlights & Key Moments
The tournament is not just about individual brilliance but also memorable moments that captivate audiences:
- Epic Comebacks: Witness players turning around seemingly lost matches with sheer determination.
- Dramatic Tie-Breaks: Experience nail-biting tie-breaks that decide crucial sets in tight contests.
- Inspirational Performances by Young Talent: Watch emerging players defy odds against seasoned veterans.
1: DOI: 10.1186/s13019-021-01566-z
2: # Efficacy of thoracic epidural analgesia after cardiac surgery: protocol for a systematic review
3: Authors: Yaritza Barrón-Rodríguez, María de Lourdes García-Gutiérrez, Luz Elena Gómez-Guillen, Juan Carlos Galindo-Moreno, Juan Carlos Galindo-Moreno, JF Fraser-Hurt et al., M Vainio-Ollonen, J Korttila, M Heikkilä-Luukkunen et al., S Korpipää-Torvinen et al., et al.
4: Journal: Journal of Cardiothoracic Surgery
5: Date: 14 April 2021
6: Keywords: Thoracic epidural analgesia (TEA), Cardiac surgery
7: ## Abstract
8: **Background:** Cardiac surgery is one of the most frequent surgical procedures performed worldwide; however its complications are still relevant despite advances in medicine. Among them are postoperative pain syndromes that can cause significant discomfort for patients who have undergone this type of surgery.
9: Postoperative pain control has been studied extensively; however there is no consensus regarding which technique is best suited for pain management after cardiac surgery.
10: Thoracic epidural analgesia (TEA) has been used extensively as an effective method for controlling postoperative pain after cardiac surgery; however there is no evidence demonstrating its efficacy over other techniques.
11: **Methods:** We will conduct a systematic review following PRISMA guidelines using four electronic databases (MEDLINE via PubMed®, Scopus®, Cochrane Library®and Embase®). We will search randomized clinical trials comparing TEA versus other techniques for pain control after cardiac surgery published between January 2000–March 2020.
12: **Discussion:** We hypothesize that TEA improves pain control after cardiac surgery compared to other techniques; furthermore we believe that TEA decreases postoperative complications such as atrial fibrillation or length of stay at hospital.
13: **Conclusion:** We expect our study will contribute valuable information regarding optimal pain control after cardiac surgery.
14: ## Background
15: Postoperative pain is common after cardiac surgery [[1]]; therefore adequate pain management is essential [[1]]. However there is no consensus regarding which technique is best suited for postoperative analgesia after cardiac surgery [[1]].
16: Thoracic epidural analgesia (TEA) has been used extensively as an effective method for controlling postoperative pain after cardiac surgery [[1]– [3]]; however there is no evidence demonstrating its efficacy over other techniques [[4]].
17: ### Rationale
18: The main objective of this systematic review will be to evaluate whether TEA provides better analgesic effects than other methods used after cardiac surgery. It will also evaluate whether TEA reduces postoperative complications such as atrial fibrillation or length of stay at hospital compared to other techniques.
19: ### Objectives
20: The primary objective will be to determine whether TEA improves postoperative analgesia compared with other techniques used in patients undergoing cardiac surgery.
21: Secondary objectives include:
22: * Determining whether TEA reduces intra-operative opioid consumption.
23: * Determining whether TEA reduces post-operative opioid consumption.
24: * Determining whether TEA decreases post-operative complications such as atrial fibrillation or length of stay at hospital compared with other techniques.
25: * Determining whether TEA decreases mortality rates compared with other techniques.
26: * Determining whether TEA improves patient satisfaction scores compared with other techniques.
27: ## Methods/design
28: ### Protocol registration
29: This systematic review protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42020179274).
30: ### Search strategy
31: A comprehensive search strategy was developed by two authors (YBR-R & MLGG) using four electronic databases (MEDLINE via PubMed^® , Scopus^® , Cochrane Library^® , Embase^® ) from January 2000–March 2020 without language restrictions. The search strategy included free text terms combined with medical subject headings (MeSH) terms related to thoracic epidural anesthesia/analgesia or paravertebral block combined with terms related to myocardial revascularization or heart valve replacement/repair. Additionally we searched reference lists from identified articles manually including those included in meta-analyses found during database searches (see Additional file 1).
32:
33:
34:
35:
36:
37:
38:
39:
40:
41:
42:
43:
44:]
45#### Selection criteria
46 Table 1 shows inclusion/exclusion criteria according PICOS recommendations [[5]]:* Population – Patients ≥18 years old undergoing elective coronary artery bypass grafting or heart valve replacement/repair were eligible.
47* Intervention – Thoracic epidural anesthesia/analgesia administered at any time point before or during operation was considered eligible.
48* Comparators – Any technique used as comparator including continuous infusion perineural catheters placed either supraclavicular/parasternal region (continuous intercostal nerve block), transversus abdominis plane block (TAP block), wound infusion catheters placed either subcutaneously or intramuscularly within incision site or systemic administration using oral/intravenous routes were considered eligible.
49* Outcomes - Primary outcome included patient self-reported visual analogue scale (VAS) score ≤4 measured at rest at any time point up until discharge from hospital; secondary outcomes included intra-operative opioid consumption measured by milligrams morphine equivalents consumed intra-operatively until skin closure; cumulative opioid consumption measured by milligrams morphine equivalents consumed up until discharge from hospital; incidence rate ratio (IRR) defined as number events divided by person-time-at-risk expressed per patient-day; proportion defined as number events divided by total number patients exposed expressed per cent (%); length-of-stay defined as number days spent hospitalized from operation date until discharge date expressed per day(s); mortality rates defined as number deaths divided by total number patients exposed expressed per cent (%); patient satisfaction scores measured using validated questionnaires such as American Heart Association Get With The Guidelines-Surgical Care Survey Patient Satisfaction Questionnaire version II expressed per cent (%).
50:* Study design - Randomized controlled trials were considered eligible.
51Table 1 Inclusion/exclusion criteria according PICOS recommendations
52| | Inclusion Criteria | Exclusion Criteria |
53| --- | --- | --- |
54| P - Population | • Patients ≥18 years old• Patients undergoing elective coronary artery bypass grafting or heart valve replacement/repair• Patients receiving thoracic epidural anesthesia/analgesia• Patients receiving comparator interventions• Written informed consent obtained prior enrollment into study | • Pediatric population (< 18 years old)• Emergency operations• Unwillingness/unavailability/unable/unable-to-obtain written informed consent prior enrollment into study |
55: | I - Intervention | • Thoracic epidural anesthesia/analgesia administered preoperatively OR intraoperatively OR postoperatively | N/A |
56:
57:
58:
59:
60:
61:
62:
63:
64:
65:
66:
67:
68:
69:
70:] |
71| C - Comparator | • Any technique used as comparator including continuous infusion perineural catheters placed either supraclavicular/parasternal region(continuous intercostal nerve block), transversus abdominis plane block(TAP block), wound infusion catheters placed either subcutaneously or intramuscularly within incision siteor systemic administration using oral/intravenous routes | N/A |
72| O - Outcomes | • Primary outcome includes patient self-reported visual analogue scale(VAS) score ≤4measured at rest at any time point up until discharge fromhospital• Secondary outcomes include intra-operative opioid consumptionmeasured by milligrams morphine equivalents consumedintra-operatively until skin closure;cumulative opioid consumptionmeasured by milligrams morphine equivalentsconsumed up until discharge from hospital;incidence rate ratio(IRR) definedas number events dividedby person-time-at-riskexpressedperpatient-day;proportiondefinedasnumber eventsdividedby totalnumber patients exposedexpressedper cent(%);length-of-staydefinedasnumberdays spenthospitalizedfromoperation dateuntildischarge dateexpressedperday(s);mortality ratesdefinedasnumber deathsdividedby totalnumber patients exposedexpressedper cent(%);patient satisfaction scoresmeasuredusing validated questionnaires suchas American Heart Association Get WithThe Guidelines-Surgical Care SurveyPatient Satisfaction Questionnaireversion IIexpressedper cent(%) | N/A |
73| S - Study Design | • Randomized controlled trials(RCTs) published betweenJanuary2000–March2020were considered eligible.• Non-randomized studies(case reports/case series/cross-sectionalstudies/cohort studies/large simple randomizedcontrolled trials/LARGE SIMPLE RCTs/narrative reviews/meta-analyses/systematic reviews)/conference abstracts/patent applications were excluded |
74 #### Data collection process
75 Two authors independently screened titles and abstracts followed by full-text screening against eligibility criteria described above using Rayyan QCRI platform [[6]]. Disagreements were resolved through discussion between two reviewers; if unable consensus was reached third reviewer would make final decision regarding article inclusion/exclusion based upon full-text screening results obtained previously described above. A PRISMA flow diagram was created detailing reasons why articles were excluded following full-text screening results obtained previously described above [[7]].
76 #### Data extraction process
77 Two authors independently extracted data from included studies using standardized data extraction form designed specifically for this review purpose containing following information:* General characteristics including publication year,title,journal name,numberofpatients,numberof male/female participants,and mean age±standard deviation(MSD).
78 * Characteristics relatedto intervention groupincluding typeof procedure performed(e.g.,coronary artery bypass grafting[CABG],heartvalve replacement/replacement),typeof anesthesiaused(thoracicafterior approach vs.paravertebralapproach),levelsof injection(e.g.,T3–T6 vs.T5–T8),local anestheticsused(e.g.,bupivacaine vs.ropivacaine),dosagesand concentrationsused(e.g.,0·125% vs·0·25%),routeof administration(e.g.,bolusvs.infusion).
79 * Characteristicsrelatedto comparison groupincluding typeof procedure performed(e.g,CABG,valvularreplacementsurgery),typeoffentanylpatchused(if applicable)e.g.,25 μg/hvs50 μg/h,typeofsurgicalincisionmade(e.g,minimally invasive vs.open approach),typeofpost-operativepainmanagementprotocolused(if applicable)e.g..non-opioidbasedvs.opioid-based,namespecificdrugsincludedinprotocolifapplicable(e.g,.acetaminophenvs.codeinetransdermalfentanyl patch).
80 #### Risk-of-bias assessment process
81 Two authors independently assessed risk-of-bias within individual studies using Cochrane Collaboration’s tool assessing risk-of-bias across seven domains namely random sequence generation selection bias allocation concealment performance bias detection bias attrition bias reporting bias followed by discussion resolving disagreements between reviewers [[8]] If unable reach consensus third reviewer would make final decision regarding risk-of-bias assessment based upon results obtained previously described above.* Random sequence generation selection bias – low risk if random numbers tables/computers programs used otherwise high risk if non-random methods used e.g..consecutive numbering/alphabetical ordering;
82 * Allocation concealment – low risk if centralized telephone/web-based system used otherwise high risk if open-labelallocation/performancebias occurred;
83 * Performance bias – low risk if double-blinding achieved otherwise high risk if single/double blinding not achieved;
84 * Detection bias – low risk if valid reliable outcome measures used otherwise highriskifinvalid/reliableoutcome measuresnotused;
85 * Attrition bias – lowriskif less than20%loss follow-upotherwisehighriskif more than20%loss follow-up;
86 * Reporting bias – lowriskif all prespecifiedoutcomesreportedotherwisehighriskifany prespecifiedoutcomes not reported;
87 :* Other sources ofsponsorship/funding/bias not addressedwithinCochrane Collaboration’s tool assessing risk-of-bias e.g..conflicts interestfinancial/non-financial/support receivedfromindustry/non-industry sources etc..
88 #### Data synthesis process
89 For dichotomous variables we calculated pooled odds ratios(ORs)with95%CIsusing Mantel-Haenszel fixed/random-effects model depending upon level heterogeneity among studies assessed using Chi-square test(I^2 statistic).For continuous variables we calculated pooled mean differences(MDs)with95%CIsusing inverse variance fixed/random-effects model depending upon level heterogeneity among studies assessed using Chi-square test(I^2 statistic).Heterogeneity among studies would be interpreted according Higgins’ recommendations where I^2 value< 30%indicateslow heterogeneity,I^2 value≥30%and< 60%indicatesmoderate heterogeneity,I^2 value≥60%indicatessubstantial heterogeneity.[[9]]
90 If possible we conducted subgroup analyses based upon typeof procedure performed(i.e.CABG,valvularreplacementsurgery).
91 If possible we conducted sensitivity analyses excludingstudieswith highrisk-of-biasassessedusingCochrane Collaboration’s tool assessing risk-of-bias across seven domains namely random sequence generation selection bias allocation concealment performance bias detectionbiasattritionbiasreportingbiasonce exclusionstudieswith highriskscorecould potentially change overall findings/resultsobtained previously describedabove.[[8]]
92 If possible we conducted meta-regression analyses exploring potential sources explaining heterogeneityamongststudiesincludingvariablesrelatedto general characteristics,intervention groupand comparisongroup respectively.[[10]]
93 Publication biases were assessed visually inspecting funnel plots asymmetry qualitatively quantitatively Egger’s regression asymmetry test whenever ten ore more studies available[[11]].
94 All statistical analyses were performed using Review Manager Version5·3(Copenhagen:The Nordic Cochrane Centre,Cochrane Collaboration2014).
95 ## Discussion
96 ### Limitations
97 Potential limitations may include small sample sizes limited generalizability selection biases attrition biases reporting biases due inadequate blinding/confounding factors etc.; furthermore lack standardization across included studies regarding definitions measurement tools utilized may limit comparability validity reliability results obtained previously describedabove[[12], [13]].Additionallylanguage restrictions may exclude potentially relevantarticles thus limiting comprehensiveness results obtained previously describedabove[[14]].
98 Despite aforementionedlimitationswe believe oursystematicreviewwill provide valuableinformationregardingoptimalpaincontrolaftercardiacsurgeriespecificallywhetherTEAsupersedothertechniquesbaseduponavailableevidencethusfaraccordingtoourbestknowledgeandunderstandingatthispointintime.Please note that while efforts made minimize potential sources ofsponsorship/funding/bias none could be completely eliminated due nature human error inherent within researchprocess itself thus readers should interpretfindings/resultsobtainedpreviouslydescribedaboveaccordinglywithcautioncriticalthinkingmindsetalwaysremainingopenmindedtowaysimproveuponcurrentstateartknowledgetimepassesonwardsintofuturenewdiscoveriesawaitthosewhoarecuriousdaringenoughseekthemoutthereisnolimitstopossibilitywhatwecanachievewithcollectiveeffortcollaborationinnovationperseveranceetc..Thankyouforreading!
99 ## Conclusions
100 We hypothesize that TEAsupersedothertechniquesforpostoperativepaincontrolaftercardiacsurgeriespecificallywhetherTEAsupersedothertechniquesbaseduponavailableevidencethusfaraccordingtoourbestknowledgeandunderstandingatthispointintime.Please note that while efforts made minimize potential sources ofsponsorship/funding/bias none could be completely eliminated due nature human error inherent within researchprocess itself thus readers should interpretfindings/resultsobtainedpreviouslydescribedaboveaccordinglywithcautioncriticalthinkingmindsetalwaysremainingopenmindedtowaysimproveuponcurrentstateartknowledgetimepassesonwardsintofuturenewdiscoveriesawaitthosewhoarecuriousdaringenoughseekthemoutthereisnolimitstopossibilitywhatwecanachievewithcollectiveeffortcollaborationinnovationperseveranceetc..Thankyouforreading!
** TAGS **
- ID: 1
start_line: 11
end_line: 11
information_type': methodology
brief description': Description of systematic review methodology following PRISMA
guidelines.'
level of complexity': A
factual obscurity': B
formulaic complexity': N/A
is a chain of reasoning': false
assumptions': Assuming familiarity with PRISMA guidelines and systematic review processes.
'
final_conclusion': The methodology for conducting the systematic review is established.
*** Excerpt data for ID: 1 ***
*** Conversation ***
## Suggestions for complexity
1. How does adherence to PRISMA guidelines influence the reproducibility and reliability of systematic reviews?
2. In what ways might different electronic databases yield varying results when searching for randomized clinical trials?
3. Can you elaborate on potential biases introduced when selecting specific time frames for literature searches?
4. How might advancements in machine learning impact future methodologies in conducting systematic reviews?
5. What ethical considerations should be taken into account when comparing different methods for pain control?
## Conversation
<|user|>How do adherence levels to PRISMA guidelines influence reproducibility? <|end|>
<|assistant|>Adherence to PRISMA guidelines significantly enhances reproducibility because these guidelines provide a structured framework ensuring transparency throughout each phase—planning, conducting, reporting—of a systematic review. By mandating clear documentation practices like predefined eligibility criteria, comprehensive search strategies, duplicate study selection processes, data extraction protocols, assessment methods addressing risks of bias among others—PRISMA minimizes arbitrary decisions that could introduce variability across different researchers' interpretations.<|end|>
<|user|>Could varying electronic databases affect result consistency? <|end|>
<|assistant|>"Yes," different electronic databases can indeed yield varying results due to several factors such as database-specific indexing practices, variations in coverage scope concerning journals or publications they index comprehensively versus partially indexed ones like regional journals not universally accessible across all platforms mentioned here like MEDLINE via PubMed®, Scopus®, Cochrane Library®, EmBase®.
Additionally,
each database employs unique algorithms influencing relevance ranking,
potentially affecting which articles are retrieved first during searches.
These disparities necessitate cross-referencing multiple databases
to mitigate incomplete retrieval risks.
Moreover,
the frequency updates differ among these resources,
which might result in temporal discrepancies
in capturing newly published studies.
Thus,
systematic reviewers must critically assess these factors
to ensure comprehensive literature coverage.<"|end"=| <|user|>"What biases arise when choosing specific time frames?" <|end|>" <|assistant|"Selecting specific time frames introduces several types of biases:
**Publication Bias**: Studies published later might reflect more advanced methodologies or updated practices which aren't captured when restricting searches too narrowly.
**Temporal Bias**: Changes over time—in medical technology advancements,
clinical practices evolution,
or even shifts in research focus areas—might skew results
if only recent years are considered.
**Survivorship Bias**: Older studies may have been omitted because
they didn't survive rigorous modern scrutiny standards,
thus excluding potentially valuable insights.
**Recency Bias**: Focusing only on newer publications could overlook foundational works
that set precedents or provided pivotal early insights.
Thus,
a balanced approach considering both historical context
and contemporary developments often yields more robust findings."<|"end"|"> <|user|"How might machine learning impact future methodologies?" <|end|"|- **Automated Literature Searches**: Advanced algorithms could automate exhaustive literature searches across multiple databases simultaneously, enhancing efficiency while minimizing human error.n
- **Data Extraction**: Machine learning models trained on vast datasets could streamline data extraction processes, automatically identifying relevant information sections, thus saving considerable manual effort.n
- **Bias Detection**: AI systems could identify potential biases within datasets more accurately than humans, flagging inconsistencies or anomalies promptly.n
- **Predictive Analytics**: Leveraging predictive models could forecast trends, help researchers anticipate future directions in medical research fields.n
- **Natural Language Processing**: Improved NLP algorithms could better comprehend nuanced scientific texts, extract contextual meanings beyond mere keywords,n facilitating deeper insights.n Therefore,nintegration machine learning into systematic reviews promises enhanced precision, speed, and depth,npotentially revolutionizing traditional methodologies."
-
**Informed Consent**: Ensuring all participants provided informed consent
especially pertinent when comparing invasive vs non-invasive methods.n
- **Risk-Benefit Analysis**: Evaluating potential harms versus benefits for each method being compared, particularly relevant when dealing with vulnerable populations like children or elderly patients.n
- **Equity & Access**: Ensuring equitable access to all comparative methods analyzed; disparities could lead marginalized groups being underserved.n
- **Transparency & Conflict Of Interest**: Researchers must disclose conflicts interest transparently especially when funded by entities benefiting from certain outcomes.n
- **Long-term Impact Assessment**: Considering long-term implications beyond immediate outcomes; some methods may present latent adverse effects only evident over extended periods."
- **Risk-Benefit Analysis**: Evaluating potential harms versus benefits for each method being compared, particularly relevant when dealing with vulnerable populations like children or elderly patients.n
