Reem Farwana

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 SCARE 2018 Statement: Updating Consensus Surgical CAse REport (SCARE) Guidelines

INTRODUCTIONnThe SCARE Guidelines were published in 2016 to provide a structure for reporting surgical case reports. Since their publication, SCARE guidelines have been widely endorsed by authors, journal editors, and reviewers, and have helped to improve reporting transparency of case reports across a range of surgical specialties. In order to encourage further progress in reporting quality, the SCARE guidelines must themselves be kept up to date. We completed a Delphi consensus exercise to update the SCARE guidelines.nnnMETHODSnA Delphi consensus exercise was undertaken. All members of the previous Delphi group were invited to participate, in addition to researchers who have previously studied case reports, and editors from the International Journal of Surgery Case Reports. The expert group was sent an online questionnaire where they were asked to rate their agreement with proposed changes to each of the 24 items.nnnRESULTSn56 people agreed to participate and 45 (80%) invitees completed the survey which put forward modifications to the original guideline. The collated responses resulted in modifications. There was high agreement amongst the expert group.nnnCONCLUSIONnA modified and improved SCARE checklist is presented, after a Delphi consensus exercise was completed. The SCARE 2018 Statement: Updating Consensus Surgical CAse REport (SCARE) Guidelines.

The PROCESS 2018 Statement: Updating Consensus Preferred Reporting Of CasE Series in Surgery (PROCESS) Guidelines

INTRODUCTIONnThe PROCESS guidelines were published in 2016 to provide a structure for reporting surgical case series. The PROCESS guidelines have since been widely endorsed by a number of journals. The requirement to report compliance with each item outlined in the PROCESS statement has improved the reporting transparency of case series across a number of surgical specialties. Here, we undertook a new Delphi consensus exercise to update the PROCESS guidelines.nnnMETHODSnAll members of the previous Delphi group were invited to participate. In addition, researchers, editors, and reviewers who have previously published or reviewed case series with the International Journal of Surgery were invited to collaborate. An online questionnaire was sent to participants asking them to rate their agreement with amendments to each of the 29 items.nnnRESULTSn140 experts were invited to participate, 56 people agreed to participate, and 45 (80%) recipients completed the survey. There was a high level of agreement amongst the expert group, and unanimous consensus was reached in the first round. All except three proposed items were accepted, and the original guidelines were modified accordingly.nnnCONCLUSIONnA modified and improved PROCESS checklist is presented, after a Delphi consensus exercise was completed.

How to apply for the academic foundation programme

The UK Academic Foundation Programme (AFP) is a two-year foundation programme that includes an additional “academic theme” undertaking work in research, management/leadership, or education and teaching activities. The limited number of AFP places makes the AFP application a highly competitive process. This article outlines points to consider when applying for the AFP and successful application strategies. Reviewed by successful AFP applicants, this article provides specific insight into applications to the London Academic Unit of Application (deanery).

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.

Time management in a medical career

Time management is an essential skill in doctors. Work in the medical profession can be high stress, with multiple conflicting demands, and often involves unsocial hours. Time management is necessary to enhance patient care, management of teams, and delivery of health services. Balancing work and home life is also important for mental health and stress management. This article discusses some considerations and techniques to help individuals manage their time.

Career building starts in the mind

There is enormous flexibility in the careers of medical professionals. Careers can be defining, motivating, and inspiring. Careers require continual and active engagement in their construction, and constantly evolve as new experiences and knowledge is gained. Career building starts with the development and identification of ideas, aims, and values, which alter attitudes, habits, and ultimately shape behaviors to achieve aspirations. This article discusses the ideas and strategic approaches to optimizing experiences and building a career within medicine.

Stress management in a medical career

Stress is both the psychological and physical experienced when an individual perceives their resources as insufficient to cope with the demands of a situation. A medical career can be stressful. The work of health-care professionals involves taking responsibility for other individuals lives and mistakes can have detrimental consequences. Work can involve long hours, night shifts, and high-risk situations. High levels of stress among doctors contribute to job dissatisfaction, emotional burnout, and clinical depression, and can undermine the achievement of goals, both for individuals and for organizations. Stress management is therefore a fundamental skill for all medical professionals. This article discusses strategies for managing stress, starting with self-analysis and outlining two main stress management techniques that can be taken at an individual level.

Financial management in a medical career

Medical students often graduate with substantial debt, receive low incomes early in their careers postgraduation, and commence work having had little or no training in financial management. Furthermore, medical trainees fail to budget, have poor debt management, and hold overexpectations of increased income. Poor financial management can be a source of stress and has a negative impact on the quality of life. This article addresses some of the strategies for improving personal financial management, focusing on tracking of finances, creating a budget, debt management, and savings.

Compliance of systematic reviews in ophthalmology with the PRISMA statement

BackgroundSystematic reviews and meta-analyses are becoming increasingly important methods to summarize published research. Studies of ophthalmology may present additional challenges because of their potentially complex study designs. The aim of this study was to evaluate the reporting quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses on topics in ophthalmology to determine compliance with the PRISMA guidelines. We assessed articles published between 2010 and 2015 in the five major relevant journals with the highest impact factors.MethodsThe MEDLINE and EMBASE databases were searched to identify systematic reviews published between January 2010 and December 2015 in the following 5 major ophthalmology journals: Progress in Retinal and Eye Research, Ophthalmology, Archives of Ophthalmology, American Journal of Ophthalmology, and Survey of Ophthalmology. The screening, identification, and scoring of articles were independently performed by two teams, and the results were submitted to statistical analysis to determine medians, ranges, and 95% CIs.ResultsA total of 115 articles were included. The median compliance was 15 out of 27 items (56%), the range was 5–26 (26–96%), and the inter-quartile range was 10 (37%). Compliance was highest in items related to the ‘description of rationale’ (item 3, 100%) and sequentially lower in ‘the general interpretation of results’ (item 26, 96%) and ‘the inclusion of a structured summary in the abstract’ (item 2, 90%). Compliance was poorest in the items ‘indication of review protocol and registration’ (item 5, 9%), ‘specification of risk of biases that may affect the cumulative evidence’ (item 15, 24%), and ‘description of clear objectives in the introduction’ (item 4, 26%).ConclusionThe reporting quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in ophthalmology should be significantly improved. While we recommend the use of the PRISMA criteria as a guideline before journal submission, additional research aimed at identifying potential barriers to compliance may be required to improve compliance with PRISMA guidelines.