Rachel Thavayogan

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

INTRODUCTIONnThe 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).nnnMETHODS AND ANALYSISnWe 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.nnnRESULTSnThe 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.nnnCONCLUSIONnWe 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.

A narrative synthesis of research evidence for tinnitus-related complaints as reported by patients and their significant others

BackgroundThere are a large number of assessment tools for tinnitus, with little consensus on what it is important to measure and no preference for a minimum reporting standard. The item content of tinnitus assessment tools should seek to capture relevant impacts of tinnitus on everyday life, but no-one has yet synthesised information about the range of tinnitus complaints. This review is thus the first comprehensive and authoritative collection and synthesis of what adults with tinnitus and their significant others report as problems in their everyday lives caused by tinnitus.MethodsElectronic searches were conducted in PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, as well as grey literature sources to identify publications from January 1980 to June 2015 in which participants were enrolled because tinnitus was their primary complaint. A manual search of seven relevant journals updated the search to December 2017. Of the 3699 titles identified overall, 84 records (reporting 86 studies) met our inclusion criteria and were taken through to data collection. Coders collated generic and tinnitus-specific complaints reported by people with tinnitus. All relevant data items were then analyzed using an iterative approach to narrative synthesis to form domain groupings representing complaints of tinnitus, which were compared patients and significant others.ResultsFrom the 86 studies analyzed using data collected from 16,381 patients, 42 discrete complaints were identified spanning physical and psychological health, quality of life and negative attributes of the tinnitus sound. This diversity was not captured by any individual study alone. There was good convergence between complaints collected using open- and closed-format questions, with the exception of general moods and perceptual attributes of tinnitus (location, loudness, pitch and unpleasantness); reported only using closed questions. Just two studies addressed data from the perspective of significant others (nu2009=u200979), but there was substantial correspondence with the patient framework, especially regarding relationships and social life.ConclusionsOur findings contribute fundamental new knowledge and a unique resource that enables investigators to appreciate the broad impacts of tinnitus on an individual. Our findings can also be used to guide questions during diagnostic assessment, to evaluate existing tinnitus-specific HR-QoL questionnaires and develop new ones, where necessary.Trial RegistrationPROSPERO registration number: CRD42015020629. Protocol published in BMJ Open. 2016;6e009171.

A protocol for the development of the STROCSS guideline: Strengthening the Reporting of Cohort Studies in Surgery

Highlights • No guidelines currently exist to support authors reporting on surgical cohort studies.• We hereby provide our protocol for the development of the STROCSS Guideline for surgical cohort studies.• Dissemination to interested parties and journals will be encouraged to endorse the reporting guideline.

Impact of the PROCESS guideline on the reporting of surgical case series: A before and after study

INTRODUCTIONnThe PROCESS guideline was developed in 2016 through expert Delphi consensus. It aimed to improve the quality of reporting of surgical case series. This study assessed the impact of the introduction of the PROCESS guideline on reporting for surgical case series submitted to three journals.nnnMETHODSn20 case series published in the International Journal of Surgery Case Reports (IJSCR), the International Journal of Surgery (IJS) or the Annals of Medicine and Surgery (AMS) in September to December 2016, prior to the introduction of the PROCESS guideline (the pre-PROCESS period), were randomly identified and scored against the PROCESS criteria. Two authors independently scored each article a total score out of 29, the PROCESS score (expressed as a percentage). Scores for the two researchers were compared and consensus was reached to achieve a final score set. The process was repeated for the January 2017 to April 2017 issues of the three journals, post PROCESS implementation (the post-PROCESS period).nnnRESULTSnThe mean PROCESS score was 80% (range 66-90%) for the pre-PROCESS period and 84% (range 72-95%) for the post-PROCESS period, a 4% relative increase [STATS]. The Cohens Kappa score between researchers was 0.907 implying very substantial agreement.nnnCONCLUSIONnImplementation of the PROCESS guideline resulted in a 5% improvement in the reporting quality of surgical case series published in three journals. Further research is needed to identify and successfully navigate existing barriers to greater compliance. Authors, reviewers and editors should adhere to the guidelines to boost reporting quality. Journals should develop their policies and guide for authors to incorporate the guideline and mandate compliance.

The Academic Surgical Collaborative: A three-year review of a trainee research collaborative

Introduction The Academic Surgical Collaborative (ASC) is a trainee research collaborative (TRC) formed in the UK in October 2014. Three years on, the achievements are presented along with advice for emerging and established TRCs. Methods: A retrospective review of internal, member-maintained ASC records was conducted. Membership numbers, PubMed indexed publications, presentations and prizes awarded were all calculated over time. Google Scholar was used to calculate citations per ASC publication. An online survey was distributed to members to ascertain member satisfaction. Results With 62 active members (predominantly medical students) the ASC has published 33 PubMed indexed papers over three years, with a mean of 21 citations per paper (SD 89, range 0–491). 54 presentations have been delivered and eight prizes have been awarded for ASC research projects. 60% of ASC members believe the ASC delivers research that improves patient care. Key learning points for the ASC have been the use of a set of resources distributed to new members, the value of regular meetings, close mentoring throughout research projects to develop the skills of junior researchers, encouragement for junior members to present at conferences, and an ongoing focus on research conduct and improving evidence based medicine. Conclusions The ASC has fulfilled many of its goals set out at its inception. The ASCs subsequent aims are to enhance existing research training for junior members, advances in the field of core outcome development and also multi-collaborative research.

Impact of the SCARE guideline on the reporting of surgical case reports: A before and after study

INTRODUCTIONnThe SCARE guideline was developed in 2016 through an expert Delphi consensus exercise. It aimed to improve the quality of reporting of surgical case reports. The aim of this study was to assess the impact of introducing the SCARE guideline for surgical on reporting of case reports submitted to a single journal.nnnMETHODSnA total of 20 case reports published in the International Journal of Surgery Case Reports (IJSCR) and Annals of Medicine and Surgery (AMS) in July and August 2016, prior to the introduction of the SCARE guideline (the pre-SCARE period), were randomly identified and scored against the SCARE criteria. Two independent teams performed the scoring giving a total score out of a theoretical maximum of 34 for each case report, the SCARE score (expressed as a percentage). The scores for the two teams were then compared and consensus was reached to achieve a final sore set. This process was repeated for the January and February 2017 issues of the journal, post implementation of the guideline (the post-SCARE period). SCARE scores were compared between the pre- and post-SCARE periods.nnnRESULTSnThe mean pre-SCARE score was 75.0% (standard deviationxa0±xa06.29, Range 62-84), and the mean post-SCARE score was 82.6% (standard deviationxa0±xa08.02, range 66-99), a 10% relative increase in compliance which was statistically significant (Pxa0<xa00.001). The Cohens Kappa score between teams A and B was 0.871, implying very substantial agreement.nnnCONCLUSIONnImplementation of the SCARE guideline resulted in a 10% improvement in the reporting quality of surgical case reports published in a single journal. Adherence to SCARE reporting guidelines by authors, reviewers and editors should be improved to boost reporting quality. Journals should develop their policies, submission processes and guide for authors to incorporate the guideline.