Evaluation of the endorsement of the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis (PRISMA) statement on the quality of published systematic review and meta-analyses.

Introduction PRISMA statement was published in 2009 in order to set standards in the reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Our aim was to evaluate the impact of PRISMA endorsement on the quality of reporting and methodological quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses, published in journals in the field of gastroenterology and hepatology (GH). Methods Quality of reporting and methodological quality were evaluated by assessing the adherence of papers to PRISMA checklist and AMSTAR quality scale. After identifying the GH journals which endorsed PRISMA in instructions for authors (IA), we appraised: 15 papers published in 2012 explicitly mentioning PRISMA in the full text (Group A); 15 papers from the same journals published in 2012 not explicitly mentioning PRISMA in the full text (Group B); 30 papers published the year preceding PRISMA endorsement from the same journals as above (Group C); 30 papers published in 2012 on the 10 highest impact factor journals in GH which not endorsed PRISMA (Group D). Results PRISMA statement was referred in the IA in 9 out of 70 GH journals (12.9%). We found significant increase in overall adherence to PRISMA checklist (Group A, 90.1%; Group C, 83.1%; p = 0.003) and compliance to AMSTAR scale (Group A, 85.0%; Group C, 74.6%; p = 0.002), following the PRISMA endorsement from the nine GH journals. Explicit referencing of PRISMA in manuscript was not associated with increase in quality of reporting and methodological quality (Group A vs. B, p = 0.651, p = 0.900, respectively). Adherence to PRISMA checklist, and the compliance with AMSTAR were significantly higher in journals endorsing PRISMA compared to those not (Groups A+B vs. D; p = 0.003 and p = 0.016, respectively). Conclusion The endorsement of PRISMA resulted in increase of both quality of reporting and methodological quality. It is advised that an increasing number of medical journals include PRISMA in the instructions for authors

Sociodemographic determinants of knowledge on the figure of radiologist: results of a survey in large university hospital

Introduction Despite overlaying an irreplaceable role as a key diagnostic tool in modern medicine, the role of radiologist still appears to be unclear to patients. Methods We conducted a survey in outpatient clinic of Radiological Sciences Department of the University Hospital “A. Gemelli” in Rome, aiming to assess how correct patients identify the figure of the radiologist. The patients were interviewed by the trained physician using structured questionnaire. Results We included the number of 259 patients. Majority were female 63.3%, most were 60-69 years old (24.3%), have finished second grade secondary school (35.1%) and were subjected to magnetic resonance (28.6%) while the least were subjected to chest X-ray (8.1%). Only 38.7% answered correctly to question No 1 “Who performed your examination?”, and only 30.9% correctly identified the radiologist as a person interpreting the exam (question No 2 “Who is going to interpret your radiological examination?”). Overall, 16.8% responded correctly to the both questions. Significantly less patients with primary school (OR: 0.18, CI 95% 0.06-0.49) and first grade secondary school (OR: 0.37, CI 95% 0.18-0.75) correctly addressed the question No 1 in compare to those with second grade secondary school. The first grade secondary education (OR: 0.43, CI 95% 0.20-0.92) was inversely associated with correct answer to question No 2.  Patients with primary education were significantly less prone to give both correct answers (OR: 0.12, CI 95% 0.02-0.60). Conclusion We report insufficient knowledge among patients on radiologist’s role in healthcare system. The level of knowledge is associated with level of education

Correction: Lung cancer multi-omics digital human avatars for integrating precision medicine into clinical practice: the LANTERN study

non

Folate intake and the risk of oral cavity and pharyngeal cancer: A pooled analysis within the International Head and Neck Cancer Epidemiology Consortium: Folate Intake and the Risk of OPC

There are suggestions of an inverse association between folate intake and serum folate levels and the risk of oral cavity and pharyngeal cancers (OPC), but most studies are limited in sample size, with only few reporting information on the source of dietary folate. This study aims to investigate the association between folate intake and the risk of OPC within the International Head and Neck Cancer Epidemiology (INHANCE) Consortium

Carotenoid intake and head and neck cancer: a pooled analysis in the International Head and Neck Cancer Epidemiology Consortium

Food and nutrition play an important role in head and neck cancer (HNC) etiology; however, the role of carotenoids remains largely undefined. We explored the relation of HNC risk with the intake of carotenoids within the International Head and Neck Cancer Epidemiology Consortium. We pooled individual-level data from 10 case-control studies conducted in Europe, North America, and Japan. The analysis included 18,207 subjects (4414 with oral and pharyngeal cancer, 1545 with laryngeal cancer, and 12,248 controls), categorized by quintiles of carotenoid intake from natural sources. Comparing the highest with the lowest quintile, the risk reduction associated with total carotenoid intake was 39 % (95 % CI 29-47 %) for oral/pharyngeal cancer and 39 % (95 % CI 24-50 %) for laryngeal cancer. Intakes of β-carotene equivalents, β-cryptoxanthin, lycopene, and lutein plus zeaxanthin were associated with at least 18 % reduction in the rate of oral and pharyngeal cancer (95 % CI 6-29 %) and 17 % reduction in the rate of laryngeal cancer (95 % CI 0-32 %). The overall protective effect of carotenoids on HNC was stronger for subjects reporting greater alcohol consumption (p < 0.05). The odds ratio for the combined effect of low carotenoid intake and high alcohol or tobacco consumption versus high carotenoid intake and low alcohol or tobacco consumption ranged from 7 (95 % CI 5-9) to 33 (95 % CI 23-49). A diet rich in carotenoids may protect against HNC. Persons with both low carotenoid intake and high tobacco or alcohol are at substantially higher risk of HNC

Increased incidence trend of low-grade and high-grade neuroendocrine neoplasms

Purpose: The incidence of neuroendocrine neoplasms is increasing. This work aimed at: (i) establishing worldwide incidence trend of low-grade neuroendocrine neoplasms; (ii) defining the incidence and temporal trend of high-grade neuroendocrine neoplasms in USA utilizing the Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results database; (iii) comparing trends for low-grade vs. high-grade neuroendocrine neoplasms. Methods: We conducted a literature search on MEDLINE and Scopus databases and incidence trends were plotted for 1973-2012. The Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results database was used to identify incidence rates in USA for 1973-2012. Incidence rates were stratified according to histological grade, gender and ethnicity. Trends were summarized as annual percent change and corresponding 95% confidence interval. Results: 11 studies were identified involving 72,048 cases; neuroendocrine neoplasm incidence rates increased over time in all countries for all sites, except for appendix. In Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results low-grade neuroendocrine neoplasm incidence rate increased from 1.09 in 1973 to 3.51 per 100,000 in 2012. During this interval, high-grade neuroendocrine neoplasm incidence rate increased from 2.54 to 10.52 per 100,000. African Americans had the highest rates of digestive neuroendocrine neoplasms with male prevalence in high-grade. Conclusions: Our data indicate an increase in the incidence of neuroendocrine neoplasms as a worldwide phenomenon, affecting most anatomical sites and involving both low-grade and high-grade neoplasms. © 2017, The Author(s)

Appendectomy during the COVID-19 pandemic in Italy: a multicenter ambispective cohort study by the Italian Society of Endoscopic Surgery and new technologies (the CRAC study)

Major surgical societies advised using non-operative management of appendicitis and suggested against laparoscopy during the COVID-19 pandemic. The hypothesis is that a significant reduction in the number of emergent appendectomies was observed during the pandemic, restricted to complex cases. The study aimed to analyse emergent surgical appendectomies during pandemic on a national basis and compare it to the same period of the previous year. This is a multicentre, retrospective, observational study investigating the outcomes of patients undergoing emergent appendectomy in March-April 2019 vs March-April 2020. The primary outcome was the number of appendectomies performed, classified according to the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma (AAST) score. Secondary outcomes were the type of surgical technique employed (laparoscopic vs open) and the complication rates. One thousand five hundred forty one patients with acute appendicitis underwent surgery during the two study periods. 1337 (86.8%) patients met the inclusion criteria: 546 (40.8%) patients underwent surgery for acute appendicitis in 2020 and 791 (59.2%) in 2019. According to AAST, patients with complicated appendicitis operated in 2019 were 30.3% vs 39.9% in 2020 (p = 0.001). We observed an increase in the number of post-operative complications in 2020 (15.9%) compared to 2019 (9.6%) (p < 0.001). The following determinants increased the likelihood of complication occurrence: undergoing surgery during 2020 (+ 67%), the increase of a unit in the AAST score (+ 26%), surgery performed > 24 h after admission (+ 58%), open surgery (+ 112%) and conversion to open surgery (+ 166%). In Italian hospitals, in March and April 2020, the number of appendectomies has drastically dropped. During the first pandemic wave, patients undergoing surgery were more frequently affected by more severe appendicitis than the previous year's timeframe and experienced a higher number of complications. Trial registration number and date: Research Registry ID 5789, May 7th, 202