On legal guardianship: An exploratory assessment of knowledge, attitudes and practices of resident physicians.

BACKGROUND: Clinicians encounter patients under legal guardianship. We aimed to assess the knowledge, attitudes and practices (KAP) on legal guardianship in residents. METHODS: A KAP pilot survey about legal guardianship was developed by an interdisciplinary medicine-law-public health team and was distributed via institutional email to internal medicine, psychiatry, and neurology residents in a single academic institution. RESULTS: Of the 172 invited residents, 105 (61%) responded and 102 surveys were included in the final analysis. Most respondents (58% women; internal medicine 73%, neurology 15%, psychiatry 12%) had attended 42 medical schools from 16 countries and had heard about guardianship (88%), but only 23% reported having received training on guardianship during medical school or residency. The vast majority (97%) understood the intended benefit of guardianship, but only 22.5% reported knowing that guardianship removed an individual's decision-making rights. Nearly half (47%) of respondents reported never having asked for documentation to prove that an individual was a patient's guardian, and only 15% expected to see a court order as proof of guardianship status. CONCLUSIONS: Although most residents intuitively understood the intended benefit of guardianship, they did not understand its full implications for clinical practice. Training interventions are warranted.

Are reporting guidelines used in infectious diseases publications? An analysis of more than 1,000 articles.

Objective: To assess whether 16 reporting guidelines of Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of Health Research (EQUATOR) were used in infectious diseases research publications. Design: This cross-sectional, audit-type study assessed articles published in five infectious diseases journals in 2019. Methods: All articles were manually reviewed to assess if a reporting guideline was advisable and searched for the names and acronyms of 16 reporting guidelines. An "advisable use rate" was calculated. Results: We reviewed 1,251 manuscripts across five infectious diseases journals. Guideline use was advisable for 973 (75%) articles. Reporting guidelines were used in 85 articles, 6.1% of total articles, and 8% (95% CI 6%-9%) of articles for which guidelines were advised. The advisable use rate ranged from 0.06 to 0.17 for any guideline, 0-0.08 for CONSORT, 0.53-1 for Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA), and 0-0.66 for Transparent reporting of a multivariable prediction model for individual prognosis or diagnosis (TRIPOD) : The TRIPOD statement. No trends were observed across the five journals. Conclusions: The use of EQUATOR-related reporting guidelines is infrequent, despite journals and publishers promoting their usage. Whether this finding is attributable to knowledge, acceptance, or perceived usefulness of the guidelines still needs to be clarified.

Gender balance in infectious diseases and hospital epidemiology journals.

Objective: Diversity is recognized as a driver of excellence and innovation. Women represent a significant part of the infectious diseases (ID) and hospital epidemiology (HE) workforce. We aimed to assess gender representation among editors of top ID and HE journals and explore potential correlations with the gender of first and last authors in published articles. Methods: Using Scimago Journal & Country Rank, we identified 40 ID and 4 HE high-ranking journals. Editorial members were categorized by decision-making influence (levels I-III). We retrieved names of first and corresponding authors from 12 ID-focused journals' 2019 research articles. Gender assignment for editors, first authors, and last authors utilized digital galleries and manual searches. Results: Among 2,797 editors from 44 journals, 33% were women. Female representation varied across editorial levels: 26% at level I, 36% at level II, and 31% at level III. Gender balance disparities existed among journals. Female first authors accounted for 50%, and female last authors accounted for 36% of the 2,725 published articles. We found weak but significant correlations between the editors' gender and the gender of the first and last authors. Conclusion: Gender representation among ID and HE journal editors displayed unevenness, but no overt vertical segregation was observed. A generational transition among authors may be underway. Our findings suggest that a generational transition may be occurring among authors.

Gender representation in rheumatology journals: an assessment of editors, editorial boards, and authors.

Diversity is widely recognized as a driver of excellence and innovation. In recent years, women have become an increasingly significant part of the rheumatology workforce. We aimed to assess the gender representation of the leading rheumatology journals' editors and to explore whether editors' gender correlates with the gender of the first and last authors of published articles. We conducted a cross-sectional study and extracted editorial members of rheumatology journals in quartiles 1 to 3 (Clarivate Analytics) from each journal's website. We categorized editorial positions according to the level of influence in manuscript acceptance decision-making (levels I to III). The gender of editors and of the first and last authors in all 2019 original articles published in a sample of 15 rheumatology journals was assigned using a combination of digital gallery and manual searches. There were 2242 editors' names retrieved from 43 journals, 24 (26%) of the 94 editors at level I, 139 (36%) of 385 editors at level II, and 469 (27%) of 1763 at level III were female. The imbalance between journals was heterogeneous. Females were the first authors in 1342 (48%) and the last authors in 969 (35%) of the 2797 published articles. However, we found no significant correlation between editors' and authors' gender. Our data showed uneven gender representation on the editorial boards of most rheumatology journals, but we did not find any apparent vertical segregation or influence on publishing by gender. Our findings suggest that a generational transition may be occurring among authors.

Nocardia pseudobrasiliensis Co-infection in SARS-CoV-2 Patients.

During the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, few cases of Nocar-dia spp. co-infection have been reported during or after a COVID-19 infection. Nocardia spp. are gram-positive aerobic actinomycetes that stain partially acid-fast, can infect immunocompromised patients, and may cause dis-seminated disease. We report the case of a 52-year-old immunocompromised man who had Nocardia pseudobrasiliensis pneumonia develop after a SARS-CoV-2 in-fection. We also summarize the literature for no-cardiosis and SARS-CoV-2 co-infections. Nocardia spp. infection should remain a part of the differential diagnosis for pneumonia in immunocompromised hosts, regardless of other co-infections. Sulfonamide/carbapenem combina-tions are used as empiric therapy for nocardiosis; species identification and susceptibility testing are required to se-lect the optimal treatment for each patient.

The Use of Reporting Guidelines in Rheumatology: A Cross-Sectional Study of Over 850 Manuscripts Published in 5 Major Rheumatology Journals.

OBJECTIVE: To assess whether 16 of the Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of Health Research (EQUATOR) Network-related reporting guidelines were used in rheumatology publications. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional study of research articles published in 5 high-performance rheumatology-focused journals in 2019. All articles were (1) manually reviewed to assess whether the use of a reporting guideline could be advisable, and (2) searched for the names and acronyms (eg, CONSORT [Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials], STROBE [Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology]) of 16 reporting guidelines. To calculate the "advisable use rate," the number of articles for which a guideline was used was divided by the number of articles for which the guideline was advised. Descriptive statistics were used. RESULTS: We reviewed 895 manuscripts across the 5 journals. The use of a guideline was deemed advisable for 693 (77%) articles. Reporting guidelines were used in 50 articles, representing 5.6% of total articles and 7.2% (95% CI 5-9) of articles for which guidelines were advised. The advisable use rate boundaries within which a guideline was applied by the journals were 0.03 to 0.10 for any guideline, 0 to 0.26 for CONSORT, 0.01 to 0.07 for STROBE, 0 to 0.8 for Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA), and 0 to 0.14 for Animal Research: Reporting of In Vivo Experiments (ARRIVE). No identifiable trends in the variables studied were observed across the 5 journals. CONCLUSION: The limited use of reporting guidelines appears counterintuitive, considering that guidelines are promoted by journals and are intended to help authors report relevant information. Whether this finding is attributable to issues with the diffusion, awareness, acceptance, or perceived usefulness of the guidelines remains to be clarified.

Ranking the importance of their own diseases: A positioning analysis in rheumatic patients and their proxies.

INTRODUCTION/OBJECTIVE: To assess the positioning that patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), rheumatoid arthritis (RA), ankylosing spondylitis (AS) and their proxies give to their diseases. METHODS: Subjects completed a self-administered questionnaire to rank 11 diseases from "worst" to "least bad". Then they defined the "worst" disease and ranked 10 diseases from highest to lowest importance from a list including "my rheumatic disease/my relative's disease". The lists of the included diseases represented the mindshare from a sample of healthy adults. RESULTS: There were 570 respondents (104 SLE, 99 RA, 82 AS, and 285 proxies). Rheumatoid arthritis was considered the third-worst disease (recoded ranking first by 41% of patients and 43% proxies, second by 49% and 44%, and third by 10% and 13%). A disease that kills was the preferred definition for the worst disease. "My disease/my relative's disease" was ranked fourth in importance (first by 41% of patients, second by 38%, and third by 21%). Rankings were not associated with age, schooling, disease duration, or setting. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: Most respondents ranked their own disease considerably lower than other non-rheumatic conditions.

Ranking the importance of their own diseases: A positioning analysis in rheumatic patients and their proxies / La importancia que dan los pacientes reumáticos a sus propias enfermedades: un análisis de posicionamiento

Introduction/objective: To assess the positioning that patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), rheumatoid arthritis (RA), ankylosing spondylitis (AS) and their proxies give to their diseases. Methods: Subjects completed a self-administered questionnaire to rank 11 diseases from “worst” to “least bad”. Then they defined the “worst” disease and ranked 10 diseases from highest to lowest importance from a list including “my rheumatic disease/my relative's disease”. The lists of the included diseases represented the mindshare from a sample of healthy adults. Results: There were 570 respondents (104 SLE, 99 RA, 82 AS, and 285 proxies). Rheumatoid arthritis was considered the third-worst disease (recoded ranking first by 41% of patients and 43% proxies, second by 49% and 44%, and third by 10% and 13%). A disease that kills was the preferred definition for the worst disease. “My disease/my relative's disease” was ranked fourth in importance (first by 41% of patients, second by 38%, and third by 21%). Rankings were not associated with age, schooling, disease duration, or setting. Discussion and conclusions: Most respondents ranked their own disease considerably lower than other non-rheumatic conditions.(AU)

Introducción/objetivo: Evaluar el posicionamiento que pacientes con lupus eritematoso sistémico (LES), artritis reumatoide (AR), espondilitis anquilosante (EA) y sus acompañantes dan a sus enfermedades. Métodos: Los participantes completaron un cuestionario para clasificar 11 enfermedades de «peor» a «menos mala». Luego definieron la «peor» enfermedad y el ranking de 10 enfermedades de una lista que incluía «mi enfermedad reumática/de mi familiar». Las listas de enfermedades incluidas representaron la «conciencia de marca» de un grupo de adultos sanos. Resultados: Hubo 570 encuestados (104 LES, 99 AR, 82 EA y 285 acompañantes). La AR se posicionó como la tercera peor enfermedad (en primer lugar, por el 41% de pacientes, segundo por el 49% y tercero por el 10%). La definición preferida para «peor» enfermedad fue aquella que mata. «Mi enfermedad reumática/de mi familiar» fue la cuarta más importante (primer lugar por el 41% de pacientes, segundo por el 38% y tercero por el 21%). El posicionamiento no estuvo asociado con edad, escolaridad, duración de la enfermedad ni centro de atención. Discusión y conclusiones: La mayoría de los encuestados calificaron su enfermedad reumática más abajo que otros padecimientos no reumáticos.(AU)

Evaluation of the quality and subsequent performance of manuscripts rejected by Clinical Rheumatology: a research report.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the quality and performance of manuscripts previously rejected by a rheumatology-focused journal. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional, audit-type, exploratory study of manuscripts submitted to Clinical Rheumatology (CLRH) and rejected by one associate editor in 2019. We used a 36-item quality assessment instrument (5-point ordinal scale, 1 being worst). Performance variables included whether a rejected manuscript was published in another PubMed-listed journal, impact factor of the publishing journal (Scimago), number of citations (Web of Science), and social media attention (Altmetrics). Exploratory variables included authors' past publications, use of reporting guidelines, and text structure. Exploratory variables were assessed using non-parametric tests. RESULTS: In total, 165 manuscripts were rejected. Reporting guidelines were used in only five (4%) manuscripts. The mean overall quality rating was 2.48 ± 0.73, with 54% of manuscripts rated 2; 40-80% were rated < 3 on crucial items. Over a 26-month follow-up, 79 (48%) rejected manuscripts were published in other journals, mostly with lower impact factors; 70% of these had at least one citation, compared with 90.5% for manuscripts published in CLRH. Altmetrics was significantly lower for manuscripts published elsewhere than for those published in CLRH. As for text structure, the methods and results sections were shorter and the discussion longer than suggested. The corresponding authors' past experience and text structure were not associated with quality or acceptance. CONCLUSIONS: Research report quality is an area for improvement, mainly for items critical to explaining the research and findings. The use of reporting guidelines should be encouraged by journals. Key Points • The quality of research reports (in rejected manuscripts) is insufficient. • Guidelines for reporting are seldom used in rejected manuscripts. • A manuscript rejected by Clinical Rheumatology may subsequently be published in another journal with a lower impact factor and have fewer citations and less social media attention than accepted manuscripts.

Complications of Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography in Patients With Previous Bariatric Surgery: A National Inpatient Sample Analysis, 2007-2013.

BACKGROUND: Bariatric surgery (BS) has been proven to be effective in the treatment of obesity and weight-related diseases, but the anatomic changes after BS make endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) technically challenging. This study aims to assess the safety and clinical outcomes of ERCP in patients with previous BS. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The National Inpatient Sample from 2007 to 2013 was queried for hospitalizations of adults over 18 years of age with procedure diagnoses of ERCP. Those with prior BS were selected as cases and those without BS as controls. Case-control matching at a ratio of 1 case to 2 controls was performed based on sex, age, race, comorbidities, and obesity. The primary outcomes were inpatient mortality and ERCP-related complications. Multivariate regression analysis was used to identify independent risk factors associated to the primary outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 1,068,862 weighted hospitalizations with ERCP procedure codes were identified. Of these, 6689 with BS were selected as cases, and 13,246 were matched as controls. The reason for hospital admission was most often biliary stone disease (60.7% vs. 55.5%), followed by malignancy (3.5% vs. 12.1%) and cholangitis (7.7% vs. 4.5%) with and without BS, P<0.05. The BS group had lower rates of post-ERCP pancreatitis (0.1% vs. 1.3%), cholecystitis (0.1% vs. 0.3%), bleeding (1.0% vs. 1.4%), and inpatient mortality (0.2% vs. 0.5%), but had higher rates of cholangitis (5.0% vs. 3.7%) and systemic infections (6.2% vs. 4.8%), all P<0.05. CONCLUSIONS: BS group had lower post-ERCP pancreatitis, cholecystitis and bleeding while had more cholangitis, and systemic infection compared with those without BS. Also, BS was independently associated with reduced inpatient mortality after adjusted for age, race, and comorbidity.

An Analysis of Global Research Trends and Top-Cited Research Articles in Cardio-Oncology.

BACKGROUND: As novel cancer therapies continue to improve patient outcomes, there is an increased need for prevention and management of the cardiovascular side effects of these therapies. For this reason, the field of cardio-oncology has experienced significant scientific growth, particularly during the last decade. This study aims to assess the global publication trends and highlight the top-cited scientific articles related to cardio-oncology. METHODS: A comprehensive bibliometric analysis of multiple scientific databases was performed to characterize global publication trends in cardio-oncology from 1864 to 2020 and to determine the top-cited papers addressing cardio-oncology as a field of study. RESULTS: We identified 1,294 publications with 14,494 citations that describe cardio-oncology as a field. Cardio-oncology was the most prevalent term in the literature and was first mentioned in an article from Italy in 1996. There was no further mention of the term "cardio-oncology" until 2003, and later again in 2008. After 2010, there was a consistent increase in the number of publications and citations in cardio-oncology. Among the top 50 most cited papers, there was a noticeable trend of higher number of review articles (n = 28, 56%, with 3,208 citations), followed by guidelines and position papers (n = 9, 18%, with 2,299 citations) and original research articles (n = 9, 18%, with 1,451 citations). The most common specialty for the senior corresponding authors of the top 50 most cited papers was cardiology (n = 36; 72%), followed by oncology (n = 5; 10%); and the most prevalent countries of origin were the USA (n = 26; 52%), Italy (n = 8; 16%), and Canada (n = 6; 12%). CONCLUSION: Our quantitative analysis of publication trends in the field of cardio-oncology objectively showed the growing scientific interest in the field. To our knowledge, this is the first bibliometric analysis that determined the top 50 most cited articles in the field of cardio-oncology.

Ranking the Importance of Their Own Diseases: A Positioning Analysis in Rheumatic Patients and Their Proxies.

INTRODUCTION/OBJECTIVE: To assess the positioning that patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), rheumatoid arthritis (RA), ankylosing spondylitis (AS) and their proxies give to their diseases. METHODS: Subjects completed a self-administered questionnaire to rank 11 diseases from "worst" to "least bad". Then they defined the "worst" disease and ranked 10 diseases from highest to lowest importance from a list including "my rheumatic disease/my relative's disease". The lists of the included diseases represented the mindshare from a sample of healthy adults. RESULTS: There were 570 respondents (104 SLE, 99 RA, 82 AS, and 285 proxies). Rheumatoid arthritis was considered the third-worst disease (recoded ranking first by 41% of patients and 43% proxies, second by 49% and 44%, and third by 10% and 13%). A disease that kills was the preferred definition for the worst disease. "My disease/my relative's disease" was ranked fourth in importance (first by 41% of patients, second by 38%, and third by 21%). Rankings were not associated with age, schooling, disease duration, or setting. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: Most respondents ranked their own disease considerably lower than other non-rheumatic conditions.

Orbit and sinonasal metastasis as presenting sign of renal cell carcinoma.

Orbit and sinonasal metastases are rare. Renal cell carcinoma (RCC) can metastasise to this region. We present the case of a 49-year-old woman with weight loss, diplopia and a rapidly growing facial mass. The initial diagnosis was a primary tumour and patient underwent excisional biopsy, which showed findings consistent with a diagnosis of RCC. On a subsequent focused review of system, the patient reported having intermittent haematuria. Imaging studies revealed a complex right renal mass as the primary tumour. Metastatic RCC should be in the differential diagnosis of patients with facial masses, especially if associated with symptoms suggestive of a systemic involvement such as haematuria. Despite treatment, patients with metastatic RCC tend to have a dismal prognosis. However, early stage diagnosis of metastatic disease can considerably limit surgical complications and improve survival rate in these patients.