An elderly man presenting with an acute upper gastrointestinal bleed: a case report

An 80 year old man presented to the Accident and Emergency Department complaining of “black stools”, increasing shortness of breath, chest tightness and epigastric pain. An upper gastro-intestinal bleed was diagnosed and the patient was managed conservatively with aggressive resuscitation and close monitoring. An oesophogastroduodenoscopy found no cause for the bleeding which ceased and the patient was discharged with a general practitioner follow-up

The SCARE 2023 guideline: updating consensus Surgical CAse REport (SCARE) guidelines

BACKGROUND: The Surgical CAse REport (SCARE) guidelines were first published in 2016 as a tool for surgeons to document and report their surgical cases in a standardised and comprehensive manner. However, with advances in technology and changes in the healthcare landscape, it is important to revise and update these guidelines to ensure they remain relevant and valuable for surgeons. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The updated guidelines were produced through a Delphi consensus exercise. Members of the SCARE 2020 guidelines Delphi group, editorial board members, and peer reviewers were invited to participate. Potential contributors were contacted by e-mail. An online survey was completed to indicate their agreement with the proposed changes to the guideline items. RESULTS: A total of 54 participants were invited to participate and 44 (81.5%) completed the survey. There was a high degree of agreement among reviewers, with 36 items (83.7%) meeting the threshold for inclusion. CONCLUSION: Through a completed Delphi consensus exercise we present the SCARE 2023 guidelines. This will provide surgeons with a comprehensive and up-to-date tool for documenting and reporting their surgical cases while highlighting the importance of patient-centred care

Protocol for the development of a core indicator set for reporting burn wound infection in trials:ICon-B study

INTRODUCTION: Systematic reviews of high-quality randomised controlled trials are necessary to identify effective interventions to impact burn wound infection (BWI) outcomes. Evidence synthesis requires that BWI is reported in a consistent manner. Cochrane reviews investigating interventions for burns report that the indicators used to diagnose BWI are variable or not described, indicating a need to standardise reporting. BWI is complex and diagnosed by clinician judgement, informed by patient-reported symptoms, clinical signs, serum markers of inflammation and bacteria in the wound. Indicators for reporting BWI should be important for diagnosis, frequently observed in patients with BWI and assessed as part of routine healthcare. A minimum (core) set of indicators of BWI, reported consistently, will facilitate evidence synthesis and support clinical decision-making.AIMS: The Infection Consensus in Burns study aims to identify a core indicator set for reporting the diagnosis of BWI in research studies.METHODS: (1) Evidence review: a systematic review of indicators used in trials and observational studies reporting BWI outcomes to identify a long list of candidate indicators; (2) refinement of the long list into a smaller set of survey questions with an expert steering group; (3) a two-round Delphi survey with 100 multidisciplinary expert stakeholders, to achieve consensus on a short list of indicators; (4) a consensus meeting with expert stakeholders to agree on the BWI core indicator set.ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Participants will be recruited through professional bodies, such that ethical approval from the National Health Service (NHS) Health Research Authority (HRA) is not needed. The core indicator set will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publication, co-production with journal editors, research funders and professional bodies, and presentation at national conferences.PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42018096647.</p

Bibliometric analysis of academic journal recommendations and requirements for surgical and anesthesiologic adverse events reporting.

BACKGROUND Standards for reporting surgical adverse events vary widely within the scientific literature. Failure to adequately capture adverse events hinders efforts to measure the safety of healthcare delivery and improve the quality of care. The aim of the present study is to assess the prevalence and typology of perioperative adverse event reporting guidelines among surgery and anesthesiology journals. MATERIALS AND METHODS In November 2021, three independent reviewers queried journal lists from the SCImago Journal & Country Rank (SJR) portal (www.scimagojr.com), a bibliometric indicator database for surgery and anesthesiology academic journals. Journal characteristics were summarized using SCImago, a bibliometric indicator database extracted from Scopus journal data. Quartile 1 (Q1) was considered the top quartile and Q4 bottom quartile based on the journal impact factor. Journal author guidelines were collected to determine whether adverse event reporting recommendations were included and, if so, the preferred reporting procedures. RESULTS Of 1,409 journals queried, 655 (46.5%) recommended surgical adverse event reporting. Journals most likely to recommend adverse event reporting were: 1) by category surgery (59.1%), urology (53.3%), and anesthesia (52.3%); 2) in top SJR quartiles (i.e. more influential); 3) by region, based in Western Europe (49.8%), North America (49.3%), and the Middle East (48.3%). CONCLUSIONS Surgery and anesthesiology journals do not consistently require or provide recommendations on perioperative adverse event reporting. Journal guidelines regarding adverse event reporting should be standardized and are needed to improve the quality of surgical adverse event reporting with the ultimate goal of improving patient morbidity and mortality

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

Bibliometric Analysis of Academic Journal Recommendations and Requirements for Surgical and Anesthesiologic Adverse Events Reporting

BACKGROUND: Standards for reporting surgical adverse events (AEs) vary widely within the scientific literature. Failure to adequately capture AEs hinders efforts to measure the safety of healthcare delivery and improve the quality of care. The aim of the present study is to assess the prevalence and typology of perioperative AE reporting guidelines among surgery and anesthesiology journals. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In November 2021, three independent reviewers queried journal lists from the SCImago Journal & Country Rank (SJR) portal (www.scimagojr.com), a bibliometric indicator database for surgery and anesthesiology academic journals. Journal characteristics were summarized using SCImago, a bibliometric indicator database extracted from Scopus journal data. Quartile 1 (Q1) was considered the top quartile and Q4 bottom quartile based on the journal impact factor. Journal author guidelines were collected to determine whether AE reporting recommendations were included and, if so, the preferred reporting procedures. RESULTS: Of 1409 journals queried, 655 (46.5%) recommended surgical AE reporting. Journals most likely to recommend AE reporting were: by category surgery (59.1%), urology (53.3%), and anesthesia (52.3%); in top SJR quartiles (i.e. more influential); by region, based in Western Europe (49.8%), North America (49.3%), and the Middle East (48.3%). CONCLUSIONS: Surgery and anesthesiology journals do not consistently require or provide recommendations on perioperative AE reporting. Journal guidelines regarding AE reporting should be standardized and are needed to improve the quality of surgical AE reporting with the ultimate goal of improving patient morbidity and mortality

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

Impact of COVID-19 on cardiovascular testing in the United States versus the rest of the world

Objectives: This study sought to quantify and compare the decline in volumes of cardiovascular procedures between the United States and non-US institutions during the early phase of the coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted the care of many non-COVID-19 illnesses. Reductions in diagnostic cardiovascular testing around the world have led to concerns over the implications of reduced testing for cardiovascular disease (CVD) morbidity and mortality. Methods: Data were submitted to the INCAPS-COVID (International Atomic Energy Agency Non-Invasive Cardiology Protocols Study of COVID-19), a multinational registry comprising 909 institutions in 108 countries (including 155 facilities in 40 U.S. states), assessing the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on volumes of diagnostic cardiovascular procedures. Data were obtained for April 2020 and compared with volumes of baseline procedures from March 2019. We compared laboratory characteristics, practices, and procedure volumes between U.S. and non-U.S. facilities and between U.S. geographic regions and identified factors associated with volume reduction in the United States. Results: Reductions in the volumes of procedures in the United States were similar to those in non-U.S. facilities (68% vs. 63%, respectively; p = 0.237), although U.S. facilities reported greater reductions in invasive coronary angiography (69% vs. 53%, respectively; p < 0.001). Significantly more U.S. facilities reported increased use of telehealth and patient screening measures than non-U.S. facilities, such as temperature checks, symptom screenings, and COVID-19 testing. Reductions in volumes of procedures differed between U.S. regions, with larger declines observed in the Northeast (76%) and Midwest (74%) than in the South (62%) and West (44%). Prevalence of COVID-19, staff redeployments, outpatient centers, and urban centers were associated with greater reductions in volume in U.S. facilities in a multivariable analysis. Conclusions: We observed marked reductions in U.S. cardiovascular testing in the early phase of the pandemic and significant variability between U.S. regions. The association between reductions of volumes and COVID-19 prevalence in the United States highlighted the need for proactive efforts to maintain access to cardiovascular testing in areas most affected by outbreaks of COVID-19 infection

Interventions to reduce and prevent obesity in pre-conceptual and pregnant women:a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND: The increasing prevalence of obesity in pregnant women is associated with adverse maternal and neonatal outcomes, and increased costs to healthcare, the economy and broader society. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy of behavioural interventions for managing gestational weight gain (GWG) in the pre-conceptual and pregnancy period in overweight, obese and morbidly obese women. SEARCH METHODS: A search was performed for published studies in the English language, from date? 2000-31 December 2012 in five electronic databases; PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane Library, CINAHL and PsycINFO. SELECTION CRITERIA: Studies were included if they compared the efficacy or effectiveness of a particular behavioural intervention in pregnant or pre-conceptual women with standard maternity care. Studies that included women with co-morbid conditions such as diabetes mellitus and polycystic ovarian syndrome were excluded to help isolate the effect of the intervention. RESULTS: Fifteen studies involving 3,426 participants were included. One study (n = 692) focused on the pre-conceptual period and the remaining 14 (n = 2,734) in the pregnancy period. Pooled mean difference for GWG indicated a lower GWG in the intervention groups when compared to standard maternity care groups (n = 1771, mean difference (MD) -1.66 kg, 95% CI -3.12 to -0.21 kg). With respect to the types of participants, considerable heterogeneity between studies was shown in the obese subgroup [Tau(2) = 15.61; Chi(2) = 40.80, df = 3 (P<0.00001); I(2) = 93%]. CONCLUSIONS: Behavioural interventions in pregnancy may be effective in reducing GWG in obese women without comorbid conditions, but not overweight or morbidly obese women. Behavioural interventions had no effect on postpartum weight loss or retention, gestation week of delivery and infant birth weight in overweight, obese and morbidly obese women