European Journal of Cardiovascular Medicine

Background: Generic medicines are pharmaceutically equivalent alternatives to brand drugs that are marketed after patent expiry at substantially lower cost, without any difference in quality, safety, dosage form, strength, or intended clinical effect. Despite regulatory assurances of bioequivalence, public uptake of generics continues to be shaped by knowledge gaps, brand loyalty, and misconceptions about inferior quality. Objective: This study was undertaken to assess the level of awareness, knowledge, and perception of the general public toward generic medicines and to identify the socio-demographic and informational factors associated with a favourable attitude toward their use.Materials and Methods: A cross-sectional, questionnaire-based descriptive study was conducted among adult members of the general public using a pre-validated, structured questionnaire covering socio-demographic details, awareness, perception, and sources of information. Data were summarised using descriptive statistics, and associations between demographic variables and awareness/perception scores were examined using the Chi-square test, with p < 0.05 considered statistically significant.Results: Of the respondents, a majority had heard the term “generic medicine”, but a considerably smaller proportion could correctly describe its meaning in relation to bioequivalence and regulatory approval. Cost saving was the most widely recognised advantage, whereas doubts about efficacy, safety, and manufacturing quality were the most common reasons for hesitancy. Awareness and favourable perception were significantly associated with higher educational attainment and prior experience of using a generic medicine, while pharmacists and physicians emerged as the most trusted sources of information.Conclusion: Although the public is broadly familiar with the term “generic medicine”, true understanding of bioequivalence and regulatory oversight remains limited, and residual mistrust continues to restrict wider acceptance. Targeted public education, active promotion by prescribers and pharmacists, and transparent quality communication from regulators could meaningfully improve acceptance and rational use of generic medicines

Background: Painkillers, particularly non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and paracetamol, are among the most commonly self-administered medications worldwide. Easy over-the-counter (OTC) availability, aggressive advertising, and the tendency toward self-medication have contributed to widespread misuse among the general, non-medical population. Misuse is frequently driven by inadequate knowledge of appropriate dosage, duration of use, drug interactions, and associated adverse effects.Objective: To assess the level of knowledge and awareness regarding painkiller misuse and its health implications among adults with no formal medical background, and to identify sociodemographic factors associated with poor knowledge.Methods: A community-based, cross-sectional survey was conducted among 420 non-medical adults aged 18–65 years using a pre-validated, structured, self-administered questionnaire covering demographic details, patterns of painkiller use, and knowledge/awareness domains. Data were analysed using descriptive statistics and the chi-square test, with p < 0.05 considered statistically significant.Results: Of 420 respondents, 68.3% reported using painkillers without a prescription at least once in the preceding six months. Only 34.5% demonstrated adequate overall knowledge of safe painkiller use, while 41.2% were unaware of potential gastrointestinal, renal, or hepatic complications associated with prolonged or excessive use. Knowledge scores were significantly associated with educational level and prior history of adverse effects (p < 0.05).Conclusion: A substantial proportion of non-medical adults exhibit inadequate knowledge and awareness of the risks associated with painkiller misuse. Targeted community health education, stricter regulation of OTC analgesic sales, and pharmacist-led counselling are recommended to reduce self-medication-related harm.

Background: Knee ligament injuries are a common consequence of sporting and traffic-related trauma, and accurate, timely diagnosis is essential for guiding management and preventing long-term joint instability. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has become the principal non-invasive modality for evaluating the cruciate and collateral ligaments, but its diagnostic performance across individual structures requires continued prospective validation against arthroscopic findings. Objective: To prospectively evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of MRI in detecting anterior cruciate ligament (ACL), posterior cruciate ligament (PCL), medial collateral ligament (MCL), and lateral collateral ligament (LCL) injuries, using arthroscopy as the reference standard, and to describe the pattern and severity of injury in a cohort of patients with acute knee trauma. Methods: This prospective observational study enrolled 136 patients with clinically suspected knee ligament injury who underwent 1.5-Tesla MRI followed by diagnostic or therapeutic arthroscopy within four weeks. MRI findings were independently graded by two musculoskeletal radiologists and compared against arthroscopic findings to calculate sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, accuracy, and inter-observer kappa statistics. Results: ACL injury was the most frequent finding (52.2%), followed by MCL (33.8%), PCL (13.2%), and LCL (8.8%) injuries; 28.7% of patients had multiligament involvement. MRI demonstrated high sensitivity and specificity for ACL (93.0%, 89.5%) and PCL (88.9%, 91.8%) tears, with comparatively lower but acceptable performance for MCL and LCL injuries. Inter-observer agreement was almost perfect for ACL (κ = 0.84) and substantial for the remaining structures (κ = 0.62–0.79). Conclusion: MRI is a highly reliable, reproducible, and non-invasive tool for diagnosing knee ligament injuries, particularly cruciate ligament tears, and should remain the imaging modality of choice prior to arthroscopic planning.

Medical emergencies in dental practice are uncommon but potentially life-threatening situations that require immediate recognition and management. Dentists are expected to possess adequate knowledge, positive attitude, and proper clinical practice regarding emergency management to ensure patient safety. In India, increasing numbers of medically compromised patients seeking dental treatment highlight the importance of emergency preparedness among dental practitioners. However, studies conducted in different parts of the country reveal varying levels of awareness, confidence, and preparedness among dentists. This article reviews the knowledge, attitude, and practice (KAP) of Indian dentists regarding medical emergencies and emphasizes the need for regular training, continuing dental education, and maintenance of emergency equipment in dental clinics. Medical emergencies in dental practice are those adverse medical events that may present in the course of dental treatment. Each of those events requires a correct diagnosis for effective and safe management. Medical emergencies in dental practice are uncommon but could occur at any time. Dentist should be able enough to handle the emergency.