Conference abstracts describing systematic reviews on pain were selectively published, not reliable, and poorly reported

Risk of Pancreatitis After Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine-Needle Aspiration of Pancreatic Cystic Lesions: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

INTRODUCTION

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) is frequently used to risk-stratify pancreatic cystic lesions (PCLs). Rising PCL incidence and developments in tissue acquisition and specimen analysis necessitate updated appraisal of EUS-FNA safety, particularly the risk of postprocedure pancreatitis, the most common EUS-FNA-related adverse event. Our systematic review aims to accurately quantify the risk of EUS-FNA-related pancreatitis to best inform decisions regarding EUS-FNA's optimal role in PCL workup.

METHODS

We performed systematic searches in 4 databases from inception to April 2024 for original English-language studies investigating EUS-FNA-related pancreatitis. We extracted data on demographics and EUS-FNA-related pancreatitis risk, severity, and risk factors. These were meta-analyzed through the DerSimonian Laird Method using a random-effects model. Meta-regression of pancreatitis risk was performed to delineate associations with clinical and procedural characteristics.

RESULTS

Sixty-four studies comprised 8,086 patients and reported 110 EUS-FNA-related pancreatitis events. Pooled risk of EUS-FNA-related pancreatitis was 1.4% (95% confidence intervals, -0.8% to 3.5%; I2 = 0.00), which was predominantly of mild severity (67%) and uniformly nonfatal. Pancreatitis risk lacked significant association with sample size, age, sex, cyst size, needle caliber, or passes, although we noted trends toward higher risk in studies published after 2015, those using higher gauge needles (19 G vs 22 G/25 G), and those performing EUS-guided through-the-needle biopsy.

DISCUSSION

We note with high certainty that pancreatitis after EUS-FNA of PCLs is infrequent and mild in severity with no mortality in the included cohort. EUS-guided through-the-needle biopsy may serve as a significant risk factor for EUS-FNA-related pancreatitis risk; however, further studies are needed to delineate other predisposing characteristics.

Patients values regarding primary health care: a systematic review of qualitative and quantitative evidence

BACKGROUND

Accessible and high-quality primary health care (PHC) is fundamental to countries moving towards universal health coverage. In order to improve the quality of patient-centered care provided in PHC, a comprehensive understanding of patients' values is crucial to address any gaps in the health care system. This systematic review aimed to identify patients' values relevant to PHC.

METHODS

We searched primary qualitative and quantitative studies about patients' values related to primary care in PubMed and EMBASE (Ovid) from 2009 to 2020. The studies' quality was assessed using Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Critical Appraisal Checklist for both quantitative and qualitative studies and Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Studies (COREQ) for qualitative studies. A thematic approach was used in the data synthesis.

OUTCOME

The database search resulted in 1,817 articles. A total of 68 articles were full-text screened. Data were extracted from nine quantitative and nine qualitative studies that met the inclusion criteria. The participants of the studies were mainly the general population in high-income countries. Four themes emerged from the analysis: patients' values related to privacy and autonomy; values associated with the general practitioners including virtuous characteristics, knowledge and competence; values involving patient-doctor interactions such as shared decision-making and empowerment; and core values related to the primary care system such as continuity, referral, and accessibility.

CONCLUSIONS

This review reveals that the doctor's personal characteristics and their interactions with the patients are critical considerations concerning the primary care services from the patients' point of view. The inclusion of these values is essential to improve the quality of primary care.

Thirty-year survey of bibliometrics used in the research literature of pain: Analysis, evolution, and pitfalls

During the last decades, the emergence of Bibliometrics and the progress in Pain research have led to a proliferation of bibliometric studies on the medical and scientific literature of pain (B/P). This study charts the evolution of the B/P literature published during the last 30 years. Using various searching techniques, 189 B/P studies published from 1993 to August 2022 were collected for analysis-half were published since 2018. Most of the selected B/P publications use classic bibliometric analysis of Pain in toto, while some focus on specific types of Pain with Headache/Migraine, Low Back Pain, Chronic Pain, and Cancer Pain dominating. Each study is characterized by the origin (geographical, economical, institutional, …) and the medical/scientific context over a specified time span to provide a detailed landscape of the Pain research literature. Some B/P studies have been developed to pinpoint difficulties in appropriately identifying the Pain literature or to highlight some general publishing pitfalls. Having observed that most of the recent B/P studies have integrated newly emergent software visualization tools (SVTs), we found an increase of anomalies and suggest that readers exercise caution when interpreting results in the B/P literature details.

Benefit of Extended Surveillance of Low-Risk Pancreatic Cysts After 5-Year Stability: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Low-risk branch duct intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms (BD-IPMNs) lacking worrisome features (WF) and high-risk stigmata (HRS) warrant surveillance. However, their optimal duration, especially among cysts with initial 5 years of size stability, warrants further investigation. We systematically reviewed the surveillance of low-risk BD-IPMNs and investigated the incidence of WF/HRS and advanced neoplasia, high-grade dysplasia, and pancreatic cancer during the initial (<5 years) and extended surveillance period (>5-years).

METHODS

A systematic search (CRD42020117120) identified studies investigating long-term IPMN surveillance outcomes of low-risk IPMN among the Cochrane Library, Embase, Google Scholar, Ovid Medline, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science, from inception until July 9, 2021. The outcomes included the incidence of WF/HRS and advanced neoplasia, disease-specific mortality, and surveillance-related harm (expressed as percentage per patient-years). The meta-analysis relied on time-to-event plots and used a random-effects model.

RESULTS

Forty-one eligible studies underwent systematic review, and 18 studies were meta-analyzed. The pooled incidence of WF/HRS among low-risk BD-IPMNs during initial and extended surveillance was 2.2% (95% CI, 1.0%-3.7%) and 2.9% (95% CI, 1.0%-5.7%) patient-years, respectively, whereas the incidence of advanced neoplasia was 0.6% (95% CI, 0.2%-1.00%) and 1.0% (95% CI, 0.6%-1.5%) patient-years, respectively. The pooled incidence of disease-specific mortality during initial and extended surveillance was 0.3% (95% CI, 0.1%-0.6%) and 0.6% (95% CI, 0.0%-1.6%) patient-years, respectively. Among BD-IPMNs with initial size stability, extended surveillance had a WF/HRS and advanced neoplasia incidence of 1.9% (95% CI, 1.2%-2.8%) and 0.2% (95% CI, 0.1%-0.5%) patient-years, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

A lower incidence of advanced neoplasia during extended surveillance among low-risk, stable-sized BD-IPMNs was a key finding of this study. However, the survival benefit of surveillance among this population warrants further exploration through high-quality studies before recommending surveillance cessation with certainty.

Frequency and characteristics of promissory conference abstracts, i.e. abstracts without results, accepted at Cochrane Colloquia 1994-2020

Background

The purpose of a conference abstract is to summarize the main points of a research-related report that will be presented at an academic conference. However, some conferences accept and publish abstracts without results, which is contrary to the basic idea of a conference abstract as a dissemination tool. A conference abstract without results included is called a “promissory abstract”. This study aimed to analyze the frequency and characteristics of promissory conference abstracts, i.e. abstracts submitted without results, accepted at Cochrane Colloquia.

Methods

We analyzed 8297 conference abstracts accepted at 25 Cochrane Colloquia, organized in 1994–2020, which were publicly available on the website of the Cochrane Library. Two authors screened abstracts to identify promissory abstracts. We extracted characteristics of promissory abstracts.

Results

Among abstracts accepted for Cochrane Colloquia, 8.7% were promissory; 475 (66%) were accepted as poster presentations, 241 (34%) as oral presentations and 1 as a workshop. The median number of authors in promissory abstracts was 4 (interquartile range: 3 to 6 authors). In 245 (34%) promissory abstracts, affiliations of authors were not reported. The authors were most commonly affiliated with the following countries: UK (472; 36%), Canada (N = 123; 26%), China (N = 76; 16%), United States (N = 66; 14%) and Australia (N = 53; 11%). There were 512 (71%) promissory abstracts in which study design was not reported.

Conclusion

Promissory abstracts were commonly accepted at Cochrane Colloquia. Such abstracts deserve further attention, as they are detrimental in terms of the dissemination of new knowledge presented at a conference. Conference organizers could ask authors to update the abstract results subsequently to enable the dissemination of information presented at a conference.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12874-021-01442-3.

Biomedical conferences’ author instructions rarely mention guidelines for reporting abstracts of trials and systematic reviews

Aim: To analyze whether instructions for authors of biomedical conference abstracts mention guidelines for writing randomized controlled trial and systematic review abstracts and to evaluate reasons for their absence from instructions. Materials & methods: We analyzed instructions for authors of biomedical conferences advertized in 2019 and assessed whether they mentioned Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Abstracts and Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials for Abstracts guidelines. We surveyed contact persons from abstract/publication committees of selected conferences to analyze why relevant guidelines were missing. Results: Instructions for abstracts were available for 819 conferences. Only two (0.2%) had reporting instructions for randomized controlled trial/systematic review authors. Almost half of the contacted conference organizers whose response we received were not aware of Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Abstracts and Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials for Abstracts guidelines. Conclusion: Conference organizers do not require and are not familiar enough with reporting guidelines.