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

INTRODUCTION: The 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. METHODS: 20 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). RESULTS: The 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 Cohen's Kappa score between researchers was 0.907 implying very substantial agreement. CONCLUSION: Implementation 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.

Clinical outcome and service implications of screening women at increased breast cancer risk from a family history.

INTRODUCTION: The value of special screening for women at moderate breast cancer risk with a family history of breast cancer remains controversial. Little is known about recall rates, false negative outcomes and the impact on clinical service. Despite this, surveillance programmes within breast units have been established in the United Kingdom. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In our institution, screening of women at moderate (lifetime risk, 17-30%) and high risk (>30%) consisted of annual clinical examination and mammography from the age of 35 years. The active study period ran for four months and each patient was followed through a further screening cycle (whole study period), providing information on interval cancers and detection at the subsequent screen. RESULTS: One thousand one hundred and thirty-two women attended for their incident screen: 137 at high risk, 803 at moderate risk and 192 at standard risk. The median age at cancer diagnosis in the moderate risk group was 54 (range, 45-68) years and the high-risk group 51 (46-52) years, compared to 63 (45-69) years in the standard risk group. Seven cancers were diagnosed during the four-month active study period. Two patients were diagnosed with interval cancers and eight at the next screen, giving a cancer incidence in the whole study period of 17/1132 (1.5%). Thirteen patients had invasive cancer and four had ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) The median invasive tumour size was 15 had (range, 7-28)mm and the median DCIS size was 4 (2-30)mm. 10/13 (76.9%) invasive cancers were < or =20mm and 2/13 patients (15.4%) with invasive cancer were lymph node positive. The sensitivity and specificity of mammography were 85.7% and 98.8%, respectively. The mammogram recall rate was 27.6 per 1000. The benign to malignant surgery ratio was 8:17. CONCLUSION: Screening women at increased breast cancer risk is effective. Early detection and recall rates are comparable to that of older women attending the British National Breast Screening Programme.