Purpose: Transitioning from being pharmacy students to pharmacists is challenging. Students need to reconcile their professional aspirations and what they have learnt with the realities of practice. A smooth transition can be hampered when they are unable to enact the role they have envisaged or if their expectations are not met. These challenges relate to professional identity. A key challenge for pharmacy educators is how best to support the professional identity formation (PIF) of pharmacy students. To assist with this challenge, we conducted a scoping review to identify factors influencing pharmacy students' PIF and pedagogical strategies to support PIF. Methods: In September 2018, we undertook a scoping review of all contemporary research investigating pharmacy student PIF including all relevant qualitative, quantitative, theoretical, and gray literature. We searched eight databases for the review: MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Embase, Australian Education Index, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science. Literature published between January 2008 and September 2018 was reviewed and screened using inclusion/exclusion criteria. The selected articles were charted and thematically analyzed. Results: We included 22 articles in the review. Studies generally concurred about the importance of attending to PIF throughout the whole pharmacy curriculum. Yet, those studies reporting on pharmacy students' professional identities found that students experienced challenges forming their identities. While several curriculum interventions supporting PIF have been implemented, these tended to be one-offs and there was an absence of interventions engaging key stakeholders including placement preceptors, other health professionals, and patients/consumers. Conclusion: Supporting the formation of pharmacy students' professional identity, while recognized as an important goal for pharmacy education, requires further empirical inquiry. Pedagogical practices focused on identity formation including adopting an integrative curricular approach are required.

Neuropathic pain (NP) is an enormous burden for patients, caregivers and society. NP is a pain state that may develop after injury of the peripheral or central nervous system because of a wide range of diseases and traumas. A NP symptom component can be found also in several types of chronic pain. Many NP patients are substantially disabled for years. Due to its chronicity, severity and unpredictability, NP is difficult to treat. Tapentadol is a central-acting oral analgesic with combined opioid and noradrenergic properties, which make it potentially suitable for a wide range of pain conditions, particularly whenever a NP component is present or cannot be excluded. In randomized controlled trials, tapentadol has proved to be effective in relieving NP in diabetic peripheral neuropathy and in chronic low back pain. In observational studies, tapentadol reduced NP in chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathies, blood and solid cancers, and the NP component in neck pain and Parkinson's disease. This narrative review aims to provide clinicians with a broad overview of tapentadol effects on NP.

Background: Two prevailing, totally implantable venous access ports are routinely utilized in oncology: chest port or arm port. This systematic review with meta-analysis was conducted to compare safety and efficiency of the two techniques. Methods: We performed evidence acquisition intensively from PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library. Available comparative studies that evaluated both techniques were identified. The outcomes of interest included total complication events, procedure-related infections, thrombosis, intra-operative complications, mechanical complications, conversion rate, early port removal, and operating time. Results: Thirteen comparative studies including 3,896 patients (2,176 for chest ports, and 1,720 for arm ports) were identified. The present study showed that arm port was associated with higher procedure conversion rate (2.51% in chest port group and 8.32% in arm port group; odd ratios [OR] 0.27, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.15-0.46; p<0.001), but lower incidence of intra-operative complications (1.38% in chest port group and 0.41% in arm port group; OR 2.38, 95% CI 1.07-5.29; p=3D0.03). There were no between-group differences with respect to total complication events, procedure-related infections, thrombosis, mechanical complications, early port removal, and operating time. Subgroup analysis of patients under 60 years revealed that no significant difference was detected in intra-operative events (1.19% in chest port group and 0.02% in arm port group, OR 2.59, 95% CI 0.74-9.08; p<0.14), indicating that age may be a risk factor for intra-operative events. Sensitivity analysis did not change conclusions of all endpoints of interest. Conclusion: Arm port is associated with higher procedure conversion rate, but lower incidence of intra-operative complications, and age may be a risk factor for intra-operative events.