PRISMA for abstracts: best practice for reporting abstracts of systematic reviews in Endodontology

An abstract is a brief overview of a scientific, clinical or review manuscript as well as a stand‐alone summary of a conference abstract. Scientists, clinician–scientists and clinicians rely on the summary information provided in the abstracts of systematic reviews to assist in subsequent clinical decision‐making. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses (PRISMA) for Abstracts checklist was developed to improve the quality, accuracy and completeness of abstracts associated with systematic reviews and meta‐analyses. The PRISMA for Abstracts checklist provides a framework for authors to follow, which helps them provide in the abstract the key information from the systematic review that is required by stakeholders. The PRISMA for Abstracts checklist contains 12 items (title, objectives, eligibility criteria, information sources, risk of bias, included studies, synthesis of results, description of the effect, strength and limitations, interpretation, funding and systematic review registration) under six sections (title, background, methods, results, discussion, other). The current article highlights the relevance and importance of the items in the PRISMA for Abstracts checklist to the specialty of Endodontology, while offering explanations and specific examples to assist authors when writing abstracts for systematic reviews when reported in manuscripts or submitted to conferences. Strict adherence to the PRISMA for Abstracts checklist by authors, reviewers and journal editors will result in the consistent publication of high‐quality abstracts within Endodontology

Acquired perforating collagenosis associated with ranibizumab injection and succesfully switched to aflibercept

Objective: To report a case of acquired reactive perforating collagenosis (ARPC) triggered by an intravitreal ranibizumab injection that was successfully treated by switching to aflibercept (AFL).Methods: A 73-year-old Caucasian man with an occult choroidal neovascular membrane in the right eye received three-monthly intravitreal ranibizumab injections. Two weeks after the second ranibizumab injection, he complained about a generalized, excessively pruriginous eruption that was further exacerbated by the third injection. On the basis of clinical and histological findings, he was diagnosed with ARPC and treated with narrow band ultraviolet-B (NBUVB) phototherapy.Results: He was subsequently switched to intravitreal AFL injections administered according to a pro re nata regimen. Following NBUVB phototherapy, three additional AFL injections were required. Still, the reactive perforating collagenosis was in remission and the choroidal neovascular membrane was inactive.Conclusions: Our case is the first report of ARPC after ranibizumab injections. Both the skin lesions and the choroidal neovascular membrane were successfully treated after switching to AFL