STROCSS 2021: Strengthening the reporting of cohort, cross-sectional and case-control studies in surgery

Introduction: Strengthening The Reporting Of Cohort Studies in Surgery (STROCSS) guidelines were developed in 2017 in order to improve the reporting quality of observational studies in surgery and updated in 2019. In order to maintain relevance and continue upholding good reporting quality among observational studies in surgery, we aimed to update STROCSS 2019 guidelines. / Methods: A STROCSS 2021 steering group was formed to come up with proposals to update STROCSS 2019 guidelines. An expert panel of researchers assessed these proposals and judged whether they should become part of STROCSS 2021 guidelines or not, through a Delphi consensus exercise. / Results: 42 people (89%) completed the DELPHI survey and hence participated in the development of STROCSS 2021 guidelines. All items received a score between 7 and 9 by greater than 70% of the participants, indicating a high level of agreement among the DELPHI group members with the proposed changes to all the items. / Conclusion: We present updated STROCSS 2021 guidelines to ensure ongoing good reporting quality among observational studies in surgery

Diabetes mellitus and oral lichen planus: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Objective: To undertake a meta-analysis of the association of Oral Lichen Planus (OLP) with diabetes, two diseases with an important impact on public health and the economy, but the evidence of which about their association is inconsistent. Methods: Relevant studies were localized by searching MEDLINE, EMBASE, Conference Proceedings, and other databases from inception to October 2020, without restrictions. The reference lists of included studies and of related reviews were also inspected. Global pooled odds ratios were calculated, and predefined subgroup analyses were performed. The heterogeneity between studies and publication bias was assessed and sensitivity analysis was carried out. Results: Thirty-two studies were included in the meta-analysis. Pooled ORs showed a moderate association between diabetes and OLP [OR: 1.87 (95%CI: 1.57, 2.34)]. The association is limited to studies carried out on adults only [OR: 2.12 (95%CI: 1.75, 2.57)] and is observed in all study designs. Globally, the heterogeneity was low to moderate. Studies carried out in European populations show a stronger association of diabetes and OLP than Asiatic studies [OR: 2.49 (95%CI: 1.87, 3.32) and 1.60 (95%CI: 1.25, 2.03), respectively]. Conclusions: Diabetes and OLP are moderately associated. Systematic diagnosis of diabetes in OLP patients could prove usefulS

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

Externe Schlauchdrainage oder Omentumplastik bei der Behandlung von Echinococcus-Zysten (Finnenblasen): eine prospektive randomisierte Studie

Background: Surgical procedures advocated for management of residual hepatic hydatid cyst cavity have been a subject of controversy. The aim of this study was to compare omentoplasty (OP) and external tube drainage (ETD).Material and methods: This was a prospective randomized controlled study conducted on radiologically documented cases of hepatic hydatidosis (n=50) in a tertiary care hospital of Kashmir. Patients were divided into two groups; in one group ETD was performed and in another OP was done.Results: Twenty-eight patients were offered ETD and 22 OP. There was no statistically significant difference in mean operative time. The overall complication rate was higher in ETD (42.86%) as compared to OP (22.73%). In ETD group two patients had bile leak and infection of residual cavity each; whereas no such complication was seen in OP. The mean pain scores were elevated in ETD (p<0.0016).The mean hospital stay was more in ETD as compared to OP (p<0.0031). Also time for resumption of activities of daily life was more in ETD (p<0.0026). The recurrence of disease was seen in three patients in ETD as compared to none in OP. Conclusion: Omentoplasty offers a number of advantages over external tube drainage and should remain the preferred option whenever possible.Einleitung: Die chirurgischen Verfahren zur Behandlung von vorhandenen Echinococcus-Zysten in der Leber werden kontrovers beurteilt. Das Ziel dieser Studie war es, die Omentumplastik (OP) mit dem externen Schlauch-Drainageverfahren (ETD) zu vergleichen.Material und Methoden: Eine prospektive randomisierte, kontrollierte Studie an radiologisch nachgewiesenen Fällen von Leberechinococcose (n=50) wurde in einem Krankenhaus der Maximalversorgung von Kashmir durchgeführt. Die Patienten wurden in zwei Gruppen eingeteilt: Bei der einen Gruppe wurde die externe Schlauchdrainage (ETD) durchgeführt, die andere Gruppe wurde operativ mit Omentumplastik (OP) behandelt.Ergebnisse: 28 Patienten erhielten das ETD-Verfahren und 22 wurden operativ mit Omentumplastik (OP) behandelt. Die gesamte Komplikationsrate war bei ETD höher (42,86 %), verglichen mit dem OP-Verfahren (22,73 %). In den ETD-Gruppen entstanden bei zwei Patienten Gallenfisteln und Infektionen der Zysten, während in der Kontrollgruppe keine Komplikationen beobachtet wurden. Bei der ETD-Gruppe waren die durchschnittlichen Schmerzskalen (pain scores) erhöht (p<0,0016). Der mittlere Krankenhausaufenthalt war bei ETD länger als bei dem OP-Verfahren (p<0,0031). Die Zeit bis zur Wiederaufnahme des täglichen Lebens war bei ETD länger (p<0,0026). Rückfälle wurden bei drei ETD-Patienten gesehen, keine Rückfälle bei OP.Folgerung: Omentumplastik bietet eine Reihe von Vorteilen gegenüber dem ETD-Verfahren und sollte - wenn möglich - die bevorzugte Therapie sein

STROCSS 2021: Strengthening The Reporting of Cohort, Cross-sectional and Case-control Studies in Surgery

Introduction: Strengthening The Reporting Of Cohort Studies in Surgery (STROCSS) guidelines were developed in 2017 in order to improve the reporting quality of observational studies in surgery and updated in 2019. In order to maintain relevance and continue upholding good reporting quality among observational studies in surgery, we aimed to update STROCSS 2019 guidelines. Methods: A STROCSS 2021 steering group was formed to come up with proposals to update STROCSS 2019 guidelines. An expert panel of researchers assessed these proposals and judged whether they should become part of STROCSS 2021 guidelines or not, through a Delphi consensus exercise. Results: 42 people (89%) completed the DELPHI survey and hence participated in the development of STROCSS 2021 guidelines. All items received a score between 7 and 9 by greater than 70% of the participants, indicating a high level of agreement among the DELPHI group members with the proposed changes to all the items. Conclusion: We present updated STROCSS 2021 guidelines to ensure ongoing good reporting quality among observational studies in surgery

The STROCSS statement: Strengthening the Reporting of Cohort Studies in Surgery.

INTRODUCTION: The development of reporting guidelines over the past 20 years represents a major advance in scholarly publishing with recent evidence showing positive impacts. Whilst over 350 reporting guidelines exist, there are few that are specific to surgery. Here we describe the development of the STROCSS guideline (Strengthening the Reporting of Cohort Studies in Surgery). METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We published our protocol apriori. Current guidelines for case series (PROCESS), cohort studies (STROBE) and randomised controlled trials (CONSORT) were analysed to compile a list of items which were used as baseline material for developing a suitable checklist for surgical cohort guidelines. These were then put forward in a Delphi consensus exercise to an expert panel of 74 surgeons and academics via Google Forms. RESULTS: The Delphi exercise was completed by 62% (46/74) of the participants. All the items were passed in a single round to create a STROCSS guideline consisting of 17 items. CONCLUSION: We present the STROCSS guideline for surgical cohort, cross-sectional and case-control studies consisting of a 17-item checklist. We hope its use will increase the transparency and reporting quality of such studies. This guideline is also suitable for cross-sectional and case control studies. We encourage authors, reviewers, journal editors and publishers to adopt these guidelines

STROCSS 2021: Strengthening the reporting of cohort, cross-sectional and case-control studies in surgery

Introduction: Strengthening The Reporting Of Cohort Studies in Surgery (STROCSS) guidelines were developed in 2017 in order to improve the reporting quality of observational studies in surgery and updated in 2019. In order to maintain relevance and continue upholding good reporting quality among observational studies in surgery, we aimed to update STROCSS 2019 guidelines. Methods: A STROCSS 2021 steering group was formed to come up with proposals to update STROCSS 2019 guidelines. An expert panel of researchers assessed these proposals and judged whether they should become part of STROCSS 2021 guidelines or not, through a Delphi consensus exercise. Results: 42 people (89%) completed the DELPHI survey and hence participated in the development of STROCSS 2021 guidelines. All items received a score between 7 and 9 by greater than 70% of the participants, indicating a high level of agreement among the DELPHI group members with the proposed changes to all the items. Conclusion: We present updated STROCSS 2021 guidelines to ensure ongoing good reporting quality among observational studies in surgery

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 7e9 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

“The SCARE guidelines: Consensus-based surgical case report guidelines” [Int. J. Surg. 34 (2016) 180–186]((2016) 34 (180–186)(S174391911630303X)(10.1016/j.ijsu.2016.08.014))

© 2016 IJS Publishing Group Ltd The publisher regrets that there was an error in the author list of this paper. The members of the SCARE Group were not tagged as a collaborator group. This has now been corrected. The names of the collaborator group are as follows: Raafat Afifi, Cairo University Raha Al-Ahmadi, King Faisal Specialist Hospital and Research Centre Joerg Albrecht, John H. Stroger Jr. Hospital of Cook County Abdulrahman Alsawadi, Colchester Hospital University NHS Foundation Trust Jeffrey Aronson, Radcliffe Infirmary, Oxford M. Hammad Ather, Aga Khan University Mohammad Bashashati, Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center Somprakas Basu, Banarus Hindu University Patrick Bradley, Nottingham University Hospitals Mushtaq Chalkoo, Hyderpora Ben Challacombe, Guy's and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust Trent Cross, James Cook University Laura Derbyshire, North West Deanery Naheed Farooq, Central Manchester University Hospital Foundation Trust Jerome Hoffman, University of California Los Angeles Huseyin Kadioglu, Bezmialem Vakif University Veeru Kasivisvanathan, University College London Boris Kirshtein, Soroka University Medical Center Roberto Klappenbach, Simplemente Evita Hospital Daniel Laskin, Virginia Commonwealth University Diana Miguel, University Hospital Jena James Milburn, Queens Medical Centre Seyed Reza Mousavi, Shohada Medical Center Tajrish Oliver Muensterer, University Medicine Mainz James Ngu, Changi General Hospital Iain Nixon, East Kent University Hospitals Ashraf Noureldin, Cumberland Royal Infirmary Benjamin Perakath, Dr. Gray's Hospital Nicholas Raison, King's College London Kandiah Raveendran, Fatimah Hospital Timothy Sullivan, Minneapolis Heart Institute Achilleas Thoma, McMaster University Mangesh Thorat, Wolfson Institue of Preventative Medicine, Queen Mary University of London Michele Valmasoni, Università di Padova Samuele Massarut, Centro di Riferimento Oncologico Aviano, Italy Anil D'cruz, Tata Memorial Hospital Baskaran Vasudevan, MIOT Hospitals Salvatore Giordano, Turku University Hospital Gaurav Roy, Medanta-The Medicity Donagh Healy, University Hospital Waterford David Machado-Aranda, University of Michigan Bryan Carroll, Eastern Virginia Medical School David Rosin, University of West IndiesThe publisher would like to apologise for any inconvenience caused