Comparison of splint and conventional cast for treating wrist torus fractures in children (systematic review)

Wrist torus fractures in children are common. Although it might be simple and straightforward, the management of these injuries remains controversial and depends on the personal experience and preference of the treating physician. The consensus agreement, however, is that these fractures are inherently stable. Some authors argue that splints should replace the traditional method of cast immobilisation. The splints are viewed as easier to use, more convenient and do not require follow up clinics for removal. It has also been argued that splints are more cost-effective than casts. The aim of this systematic review is to examine the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of removable splints versus casts in the treatment of torus wrist fractures of children in the current literature. This review followed the Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement for reporting. Comprehensive electronic database search and handsearch were conducted. Studies were considered for review if they were randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trial and compared removable splints and casts for treating torus fractures of distal radius and/or ulna in children. Four papers identified by two reviewers as potentially eligible for inclusion were appraised and two identified for inclusion were further assessed for any risk of bias. Data were narratively presented and discussed as meta-analysis would not have been possible for the identified studies. The limited available data favours the use of splint as a clinically effective and more cost-effective method of immobilisation. However, the findings of the systematic review are limited by the quality of the identified studies. It has been viewed that explanation to patients and parents and involving them in the decision, plus implementation of safety protocol to avoid under-treatment of misdiagnosed fractures and allow easy access of patients to the clinic, is an alternative way to provide safe, convenient and cost-effective treatment

Evidence Based Prediction and Progression Monitoring on Retinal Images from Three Nations.

Purpose: The aim of this work is to demonstrate how a retinal image analysis system, DAPHNE, supports the optimization of diabetic retinopathy (DR) screening programs for grading color fundus photography. Method: Retinal image sets, graded by trained and certified human graders, were acquired from Saudi Arabia, China, and Kenya. Each image was subsequently analyzed by the DAPHNE automated software. The sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values for the detection of referable DR or diabetic macular edema were evaluated, taking human grading or clinical assessment outcomes to be the gold standard. The automated software's ability to identify co-pathology and to correctly label DR lesions was also assessed. Results: In all three datasets the agreement between the automated software and human grading was between 0.84 to 0.88. Sensitivity did not vary significantly between populations (94.28%-97.1%) with specificity ranging between 90.33% to 92.12%. There were excellent negative predictive values above 93% in all image sets. The software was able to monitor DR progression between baseline and follow-up images with the changes visualized. No cases of proliferative DR or DME were missed in the referable recommendations. Conclusions: The DAPHNE automated software demonstrated its ability not only to grade images but also to reliably monitor and visualize progression. Therefore it has the potential to assist timely image analysis in patients with diabetes in varied populations and also help to discover subtle signs of sight-threatening disease onset. Translational Relevance: This article takes research on machine vision and evaluates its readiness for clinical use

The SCARE Statement: Consensus-based surgical case report guidelines

AbstractIntroductionCase reports have been a long held tradition within the surgical literature. Reporting guidelines can improve transparency and reporting quality. However, recent consensus-based guidelines for case reports (CARE) are not surgically focused. Our objective was to develop surgical case report guidelines.MethodsThe CARE statement was used as the basis for a Delphi consensus. The Delphi questionnaire was administered via Google Forms and conducted using standard Delphi methodology. A multidisciplinary group of surgeons and others with expertise in the reporting of case reports were invited to participate. In round one, participants stated how each item of the CARE statement should be changed and what additional items were needed. Revised and additional items from round one were put forward into a further round, where participants voted on the extent of their agreement with each item, using a nine-point Likert scale, as proposed by the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) working group.ResultsIn round one, there was a 64% (38/59) response rate. Following adjustment of the guideline with the incorporation of recommended changes, round two commenced and there was an 83% (49/59) response rate. All but one of the items were approved by the participants, with Likert scores 7–9 awarded by >70% of respondents. The final guideline consists of a 14-item checklist.ConclusionWe present the SCARE Guideline, consisting of a 14-item checklist that will improve the reporting quality of surgical case reports

The SCARE Statement: Consensus-based surgical case report guidelines

Introduction: Case reports have been a long held tradition within the surgical literature. Reporting guidelines can improve transparency and reporting quality. However, recent consensus-based guidelines for case reports (CARE) are not surgically focused. Our objective was to develop surgical case report guidelines.Methods: The CARE statement was used as the basis for a Delphi consensus. The Delphi questionnaire was administered via Google Forms and conducted using standard Delphi methodology. A multidisciplinary group of surgeons and others with expertise in the reporting of case reports were invited to participate. In round one, participants stated how each item of the CARE statement should be changed and what additional items were needed. Revised and additional items from round one were put forward into a further round, where participants voted on the extent of their agreement with each item, using a nine-point Likert scale, as proposed by the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) working group.Results: In round one, there was a 64% (38/59) response rate. Following adjustment of the guideline with the incorporation of recommended changes, round two commenced and there was an 83% (49/59) response rate. All but one of the items were approved by the participants, with Likert scores 7–9 awarded by >70% of respondents. The final guideline consists of a 14-item checklist.Conclusion: We present the SCARE Guideline, consisting of a 14-item checklist that will improve the reporting quality of surgical case reports.</p

Automated feature-based grading and progression analysis of diabetic retinopathy

BACKGROUND: In diabetic retinopathy (DR) screening programmes feature-based grading guidelines are used by human graders. However, recent deep learning approaches have focused on end to end learning, based on labelled data at the whole image level. Most predictions from such software offer a direct grading output without information about the retinal features responsible for the grade. In this work, we demonstrate a feature based retinal image analysis system, which aims to support flexible grading and monitor progression. METHODS: The system was evaluated against images that had been graded according to two different grading systems; The International Clinical Diabetic Retinopathy and Diabetic Macular Oedema Severity Scale and the UK's National Screening Committee guidelines. RESULTS: External evaluation on large datasets collected from three nations (Kenya, Saudi Arabia and China) was carried out. On a DR referable level, sensitivity did not vary significantly between different DR grading schemes (91.2-94.2.0%) and there were excellent specificity values above 93% in all image sets. More importantly, no cases of severe non-proliferative DR, proliferative DR or DMO were missed. CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrate the potential of an AI feature-based DR grading system that is not constrained to any specific grading scheme

Preferred reporting of case series in surgery; the PROCESS guidelines

AbstractIntroductionCase series have been a long held tradition within the surgical literature and are still frequently published. Reporting guidelines can improve transparency and reporting quality. No guideline exists for reporting case series, and our recent systematic review highlights the fact that key data are being missed from such reports. Our objective was to develop reporting guidelines for surgical case series.MethodsA Delphi consensus exercise was conducted to determine items to include in the reporting guideline. Items included those identified from a previous systematic review on case series and those included in the SCARE Guidelines for case reports. The Delphi questionnaire was administered via Google Forms and conducted using standard Delphi methodology. Surgeons and others with expertise in the reporting of case series were invited to participate. In round one, participants voted to define case series and also what elements should be included in them. In round two, participants voted on what items to include in the PROCESS guideline using a nine-point Likert scale to assess agreement as proposed by the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) working group.ResultsIn round one, there was a 49% (29/59) response rate. Following adjustment of the guideline with incorporation of recommended changes, round two commenced and there was an 81% (48/59) response rate. All but one of the items were approved by the participants and Likert scores 7-9 were awarded by >70% of respondents. The final guideline consists of an eight item checklist.ConclusionWe present the PROCESS Guideline, consisting of an eight item checklist that will improve the reporting quality of surgical case series. We encourage authors, reviewers, editors, journals, publishers and the wider surgical and scholarly community to adopt these