Journal of Education and Health Promotion

Abstract BACKGROUND: Diagnostic dilemma arises when patients with clinical suspicion of COVID‑19
disease having moderate‑to‑severe respiratory symptoms yield negative result for COVID‑19 in
reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT‑PCR). This study evaluated the clinical, laboratory
and HRCT thorax findings among RT‑PCR‑negative COVID‑19 suspects with moderate‑to‑severe
disease.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A hospital‑based retrospective observational study was conducted
between July 2021 to December 2021, among 60 moderate and severe symptomatic COVID‑19
suspects admitted in the severe acute respiratory illness (SARI) ward and intensive care unit (ICU),
who were negative for COVID‑19 in RT‑PCR. Data were abstracted from the medical records section
of the hospital using a predesigned data abstraction form and presented by descriptive statistics.
RESULTS: Mean age of study participants was 55.5 years (SD 14.1 years), and majority were
males (n = 43, 71.7%). Common presenting symptoms were fever (n = 60, 100%), dyspnea
(n = 57, 95%), and cough (n = 54, 90%). The common laboratory findings were rise of C‑reactive
protein (n = 60, 100%), NLR (n = 49, 81.7%), d‑dimer (n = 47, 78.3%), ferritin (n = 46, 76.7%), and
LDH (n = 40, 66.7%). HRCT scan of thorax revealed ground glass opacities with or without consolidations
located bilaterally with diffuse or peripheral distribution, interlobar septal thickening (n = 43, 74.1%),
vascular thickening (n = 35, ≥58.3%), and sub‑pleural lines (n = 32, 53.3%). Median CT‑SS value
was 15 (IQR 11–19), and majority (n = 56, 93.3%) belonged to CO‑RADS ≥4.
CONCLUSION: Diagnosis of COVID‑19 can be presumed in RT‑PCR‑negative suspected
COVID‑19 patients with moderate‑to‑severe disease, with marked rise of inflammatory markers and
HRCT revealing typical findings of COVID‑19 pneumonia.

Abstract BACKGROUND: Experiential learning sessions as a teaching aid have been applied early in the
medical undergraduate curriculum to improve the knowledge and inculcate research interest. We
compared the ability of 1st‑year medical undergraduates to answer the molecular biology questions
among those who had attended the experiential learning sessions of molecular biology techniques
versus those who did not attend.
SUBJECTS AND METHODS: A randomized controlled trial was carried out with 200 1st‑year medical
undergraduates, among whom 69 students were selected by simple random sampling for the
demonstration of the molecular biology techniques, such as isolation of genomic DNA, polymerase
chain reaction, cell culture techniques, western blotting, and high‑performance liquid chromatography
for 1‑week duration. Student’s feedback was collected on a five‑point Likert sc ale at the end of the
session to understand how they agree or disagree with a particular statement. The content validity
rate (CVR) and content validity index (CVI) of the questionnaire were determined, and its internal
consistency was examined by Cronbach’s alpha. The internal assessment marks of these students,
valued by faculty who were blinded to their training sessions, were compared with the rest of the
131 students by independent t‑test to know the outcome of these experiential learning sessions.
RESULTS: On CVR and CVI assessment, all the questions scored more than 0.70 and 0.85,
respectively. Cronbach’s alpha for the whole questionnaire was 0.85. Student’s feedback indicated
that these sessions did complement the cognitive skills acquired for these techniques. We also
found a statistically significant improvement (P = 0.006) in the examination performance between
the students who attended versus those who did not attend the experiential learning sessions.
CONCLUSION: Experiential learning, through demonstration and hands‑on experience, enhance d
the learning of molecular biology techniques among 1st‑year medical undergraduates.