of future users, and by the MRC framework of complex intervention, with a repeated process of development and testing. This process resulted in six prototypes which are available for feasibility testing among a small group of community-dwelling stroke survivors.An amendment to this paper has been published and can be accessed via the original article.Background Increased violent events happen in the general hospitals in China and yet non-psychiatric departments do not have tools for violence-tendency screening. Methods The current study developed and evaluated two Inpatient Psychological Experience Questionnaires (IPEQs) for the screening of violence-related six mental health disorders (Inpatient Psychological Experience Questionnaire-1 (IPEQ-1) anxiety, depression and suicidality; Inpatient Psychological Experience Questionnaire-2 (IPEQ-2) paranoid personality disorder, emotionally unstable personality disorder and histrionic personality disorder). 17-OH PREG datasheet Two initial IPEQs (IPEQ-1 37 items and IPEQ-2 30 items) were developed and assessed by domain experts. Then 1210 inpatients were recruited and divided into three groups (160, 450 and 600 samples, respectively) for IPEQs item selection and evaluation. During the two-stage item selection, three statistical methods including Pearson's correlation coefficient, exploratory factor analysis and item response theory were applied. For the item evaluation, Cronbach's alpha coefficient, test-retest reliability, criterion-related validity and construct validity of the final questionnaires were measured. Results Twelve items were selected for each IPEQs. Cronbach's alpha coefficients were 0.91 and 0.78 for IPEQ-1 and IPEQ-2, respectively. Test-retest replication ratios were 0.95 and 0.87 for IPEQ-1 and IPEQ-2, respectively. Correlation coefficients between different disorders and their related-tools scores were [0.51, 0.44] and [0.40, 0.44] for IPEQ-1 and IPEQ-2, respectively and were significant (P less then 0.01). Confirmatory factor analysis supported the validity of the final IPEQs (P less then 0.05), and the model fit index met the criterion generally. Conclusion The IPEQs developed in this study could be effective and easy-to-use tools for screening inpatients with violence-intendancy in non-psychosomatic departments.Background A common feature of performance assessments is the use of human assessors to render judgements on student performance. From a measurement perspective, variability among assessors when assessing students may be viewed as a concern because it negatively impacts score reliability and validity. However, from a contextual perspective, variability among assessors is considered both meaningful and expected. A qualitative examination of assessor cognition when assessing student performance can assist in exploring what components are amenable to improvement through enhanced rater training, and the extent of variability when viewing assessors as contributing their individual expertise. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to explore assessor cognition as a source of score variability in a performance assessment of practice-based competencies. Method A mixed-method sequential explanatory study design was used where findings from the qualitative strand assisted in the interpretation of results from the quaviews provided evidential support for the quantitative results. Conclusions This study provides insight into the nature and extent of assessor variability during a performance assessment of practice-based competencies. Study findings are interpretable from the measurement and contextual perspectives on assessor cognition. An integrated understanding is important to elucidate the meaning underlying the numerical score because the defensibility of inferences made about students' proficiencies rely on score quality, which in turn relies on expert judgements.Background Selecting the treatment procedure for cancer patients is a challenging task. We report our initial experience of complete laparoscopic radical nephroureterectomy (RNU) for patients with upper urinary tract urothelial cancer (UTUC). Methods A total of four patients with UTUC underwent complete laparoscopic RNU combined with transvesical laparoscopic excision of the distal ureter using three 5-mm ports. Transvaginal specimen extraction was applied in female patients to reduce incisional pain and improve cosmesis. Peri-operative complications were evaluated using the Clavien-Dindo classification system. Postoperative pain was evaluated during hospitalization using a numeric pain rating scale (scales of 1 to 10). Patients who underwent retroperitoneal laparoscopic surgery combined with open excision of the distal ureter during the same period were included as a control group (conventional RNU, consisting of laparoscopic nephrectomy combined with open bladder cuff excision) for pain scale evaluation. Rer outcomes and has true clinical value.Background Many treatments are currently available for amblyopic patients; although, the comparative efficacy of these therapies is unclear. We conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) to establish the relative efficacy of these treatments for amblyopia. Methods Electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library) were systematically searched from inception to Sep. 2019. Only Randomized clinical trials comparing any two or three of the following treatments were included refractive correction (spectacles alone), patching of 2 h per day (patch 2H), patch 6H, patch 12H, patch 2H + near activities (N), patch 2H + distant activities (D), atropine (Atr) daily, Atr weekly, Atr weekly + plano lens over the sound eye (Plano), optical penalization and binocular therapy. The reviewers independently extracted the data according to the PRISMA guidelines; assessed study quality by Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials. The primary outcome measure was the change in best-corrected visual a comparable, with no significant difference. Further high quality randomized controlled trials are required to determine their efficacy and acceptability. Systematic review registration CRD42019119843.