Ashley M. Yu

Stop this waste of people, animals and money

Our evidence disputes this view. We spent 12 months rigorously characterizing nearly 2,000 biomedical articles from more than 200 journals thought likely to be predatory. More than half of the corresponding authors hailed from highand upper-middle-income countries as defined by the World Bank. Of the 17% of sampled articles that reported a funding source, the most frequently named funder was the US National Institutes of Health (NIH). The United States produced more articles in our sample than all other countries save India. Harvard University (with 9 articles) in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and the University of Texas (with Predatory journals are easy to please. They seem to accept papers with little regard for quality, at a fraction of the cost charged by mainstream openaccess journals. These supposedly scholarly publishing entities are murky operations, making money by collecting fees while failing to deliver on their claims of being open access and failing to provide services such as peer review and archiving. Despite abundant evidence that the bar is low, not much is known about who publishes in this shady realm, and what the papers are like. Common wisdom assumes that the hazard of predatory publishing is restricted mainly to the developing world. In one famous sting, a journalist for Science sent a purposely flawed paper to 140 presumed predatory titles (and to a roughly equal number of other open-access titles), pretending to be a biologist based in African capital cities. At least two earlier, smaller surveys found that most authors were in India or elsewhere in Asia. A campaign to warn scholars about predatory journals has concentrated its efforts in Africa, China, India, the Middle East and Russia. Frequent, aggressive solicitations from predatory publishers are generally considered merely a nuisance for scientists from rich countries, not a threat to scholarly integrity. Stop this waste of people, animals and money

Systematic review of atopic dermatitis disease definition in studies using routinely-collected health data.

Routinely collected electronic health data obtained for administrative and clinical purposes are increasingly used to study atopic dermatitis (AD). Methods for identifying AD patients in routinely collected electronic health data differ, and it is unknown how this might affect study results.

The prevalence of atopic dermatitis beyond childhood: A systematic review and meta‐analysis of longitudinal studies

There are sparse and conflicting data regarding the long‐term clinical course of atopic dermatitis (AD). Although often described as a childhood disease, newer population‐based estimates suggest the prevalence of pediatric and adult disease may be similar.

Conclusions about atopic dermatitis persistence might be premature

Conclusions about atopic subjects who reported AD symptoms on a second dermatitis persistence might be premature To the Editor: We read the review by Kim et al and applaud the authors for addressing this important challenging topic. It is well known that atopic dermatitis (AD) is a condition whereby patients often have episodic flares and that some patients might have prolonged periods without symptoms followed by recurrences. The relapsing nature of AD complicates the measurement of disease activity over time and the average frequency and duration of asymptomatic periods is variable and poorly defined. For these reasons, the definition of persistence is not straightforward, and a metaanalysis on this topic requires careful consideration of methodologic issues and clear explanations of terminology. To interpret the results of this study, we believe readers require additional information regarding the inclusion criteria, the definition of persistence in each study, and the degree of statistical heterogeneity in the meta-analysis. In relation to specific inclusion criteria, was there a requirement for a minimum number of assessments of AD in each study? From Supplemental Table I, it appears that both clinic-based samples and population-based birth cohorts were included, which might result in different rates of prevalence and apparent persistence. In addition, did studies include only patients with incident disease or is it possible that in some studies patients already had ongoing disease at enrollment? Studies that examined ongoing AD might find higher rates of persistence than studies that examined first report of AD. Further, was there significant heterogeneity between studies and if so, how was this investigated? It is also essential to further understand how repeated measurements of AD were conducted. In the studies with self-reported data, were symptoms assessed over the last week, year, or since the last measurement? If the latter approach was used, what was the duration of time between assessments? The authors found that studies relying on clinical examination found lower estimates of persistence, likely due to the episodic nature of the condition. Similarly, studies that measured AD disease activity less frequently or over a short time period might also find lower rates of persistence. Finally, the authors should clearly define what is meant by persistence. It seems that this metaanalysis actually measured the percentage of

Reporting of interventions and “standard of care” control arms in pediatric clinical trials: a quantitative analysis

BackgroundIn pediatric medicine, the usual treatment received by children (“standard of care”) varies across centers. Evaluations of new treatments often compare to the existing “standard of care” to determine if a treatment is more effective, has a better safety profile, or costs less. The objective of our study was to evaluate intervention and “standard of care” control arms reported in published pediatric clinical trials.MethodsPediatric clinical trials, published in 2014, reporting the use of a “standard of care” control arm were included. Duplicate assessment of reporting completeness was done using the 12-item TIDieR (Template for Intervention Description and Replication) checklist for both the “standard of care” control arms and intervention arms within the same published study.ResultsFollowing screening, 214 pediatric trials in diverse therapeutic areas were included. Several different terms were used to describe “standard of care.” There was a significant difference between the mean reported TIDieR checklist items of “standard of care” control arms (5.81 (SD 2.13) and intervention arms (8.45 (SD 1.39, p < 0.0001).ConclusionsReporting of intervention and “standard of care” control arms in pediatric clinical trials should be improved as current “standard of care” reporting deficiencies limit reproducibility of research and may ultimately contribute to research waste.

Pediatric Wells syndrome (eosinophilic cellulitis) after vaccination: A case report and review of the literature.

A 4‐year‐old boy presented with erythematous vesicular plaques, ulceration, edema, and pruritus on the left foot and ankle 10 days after receiving the tetanus, diphtheria, pertussis, and polio; measles, mumps, rubella, and varicella; and hepatitis A/B vaccines. Biopsy showed eosinophilic infiltrates and flame figures, suggesting Wells syndrome. Patch testing showed a 1+ reaction to neomycin and aluminum hydroxide, with a recall reaction of Wells syndrome of the feet bilaterally. We report a rare case of pediatric Wells syndrome triggered by nonthimerosal vaccine components confirmed by patch testing.

Anterior segment infiltration of acute lymphoblastic leukemia: case report and systematic review

Acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) relapse implies a poor prognosis and demands emergency treatment. Leukemic infiltration of the anterior segment can masquerade as intraocular inflammation; a high index of suspicion for this complication is essential. We describe a case of ocular relapse in a 2-year-old male on maintenance therapy for ALL. A systematic review of all known cases of similar leukemic infiltration of the anterior segment of the eye in ALL was performed. A total of 106 patients in 43 reports described leukemic infiltration of the eye as an initial presentation of ALL or relapse. Ocular relapse may be the first visible manifestation of systemic disease, with concurrent disease in the CNS, bone marrow, or testes. Prognosis for ALL patients with ocular relapse is poor, with death after initial presentation reported as early as 16 days. Patients with a history of ALL presenting with any sign of ocular inflammation should be assessed for relapse and leukemic infiltration. As soon as a diagnosis of relapse has been confirmed, appropriate leukemia therapy should be initiated.

Weight loss surgery for obstructive sleep apnoea with obesity in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis protocol

Introduction Obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA) is caused by complete or partial obstruction of the upper airway resulting in repeated episodes of interrupted or shallow breaths. OSA is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. The prevalence is estimated to range from 3% to 7% in the general population but may be much higher. Several studies show that weight loss or bariatric surgery may have a role in treating OSA. The aim of this systematic review is to assess the safety and efficacy of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of weight loss surgery for adults with OSA and comorbid obesity. Methods and analysis A search of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed, EMBASE and two major Chinese biomedical databases will be performed to identify related trials published as of October 2018. This study will include RCTs, comparing different types of weight loss surgery for OSA with obesity or weight loss surgery for OSA with obesity with other upper airway surgeries. The primary outcomes that will be measured are apnoea–hypopnoea index, excess weight loss and in-hospital mortality. The secondary outcomes will include duration of hospital stay, neck circumference, reoperation, waist circumference, body mass index, Epworth Sleepiness Scale score, overt complications (eg, gastric fistula, bleeding, delayed gastric emptying, wound infection), quality of life, quality of sleep and/or functionality. The systematic review will be conducted according to the recommendations as outlined by the Cochrane collaboration. Ethics and dissemination The systematic review and meta-analysis will include published data available online and thus ethics approval will not be required. The findings will be disseminated and published in a peer-reviewed journal. Review updates will be conducted if there is new evidence that may cause any change in review conclusions. Any changes to the study protocol will be updated in the PROSPERO trial registry accordingly. PROSPERO registration number CRD42017081743.

Association between eczema and major cardiovascular outcomes in population-based studies: a systematic review protocol

Introduction Chronic inflammatory diseases such as eczema (also known as atopic dermatitis) have been inconsistently linked to cardiovascular disease and stroke in both mechanistic and epidemiological studies. There is a need to review the existing epidemiological data examining the association between eczema and major cardiovascular outcomes, including angina, myocardial infarction, coronary revascularisation, heart failure, cardiac arrhythmias, stroke and cardiovascular death, in order to improve our understanding of the comorbidities of eczema. Methods and analysis We will systematically review population-based studies, including cohort, case–control and cross-sectional studies, reporting on the association between eczema and cardiovascular outcomes. We will search Medline, Embase and Global Health, from their date of inception to April 2017, using a comprehensive search strategy formulated with the help of a librarian. Two reviewers will independently screen titles and abstracts in duplicate, followed by independent data extraction and quality assessment. We will group studies by the cardiovascular outcome under study and synthesise them narratively. If sufficient numbers of homogeneous studies are returned, we will perform meta-analyses to obtain pooled effect estimates. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis will be used to inform the reporting of this study. Trial registration number CRD42017060359.