Understanding Public Perception of Naloxone: A Study of FAQs and Answer Source Credibility.

PURPOSE: The most commonly used intervention for opioid overdoses is naloxone. With naloxone soon to be sold over-the-counter in the United States, the goal of this paper is to categorize frequently asked questions (FAQs) and answers about naloxone using internet sources in a cross-sectional fashion. METHODS: Terms "narcan" and "naloxone" were searched on a clean Google Chrome browser using the "People also asked" tab to find FAQs and their answer sources. We classified questions and sources and assessed each website's quality and credibility grading with JAMA benchmark criteria. The Kruskal-Wallis H test was used to determine variance of mean JAMA score by source type and Post-Hoc Dunn's test with Bonferroni corrected alpha of 0.005 used to compare source types. RESULTS: Of the 305 unique questions, 202 (66.2%) were classified as facts, 78 (25.6%) were policy, and 25 (8.2%) were value. Of the 144 unique answer sources, the two most common included 55 (38.2%) which were government entities and 47 (32.6%) which were commercial entities. Ninety-two (of 144, 63.9%) sources met three or more JAMA benchmark criteria. Statistical analysis showed a significant difference between the JAMA benchmark scores by source type H(4) = 12.75, p = 0.0126 and between the mean rank of academic and government sources (p = 0.0036). CONCLUSION: We identified FAQs and their citations about naloxone, highlighting potential lack of understanding and knowledge of this important intervention. We recommend updating websites to accurately reflect current and useful information for those that may require naloxone.

Frequently asked questions about mobility devices among older adults.

PURPOSE: To assess frequently asked questions (FAQs) about mobility devices among older adults. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We searched multiple terms on Google to find FAQs. Rothwell's classification, JAMA benchmark criteria, and Brief DISCERN were used to categorize and assess each entry. RESULTS: Our search yielded 224 unique combinations of questions and linked answer sources. Viewing questions alone resulted in 214 unique FAQs, with the majority seeking factual information (130/214, 60.7%). Viewing website sources alone resulted in 175 unique answer sources, most of which were retail commercial sites (68/175, 38.9%) followed by non-retail commercial sites (65/175, 37.1%). Statistical analysis showed a significant difference between the JAMA benchmark scores by source type (p < 0.00010) and Brief DISCERN scores by source type (p = 0.0001). DISCUSSION: Our findings suggest government, academic, and possibly non-retail commercial sources may provide better quality information about the use of mobility devices. We recommend medical providers be prepared to promote and provide quality resources on the risks, benefits, and proper techniques for using mobility devices.

Effects of statin therapies on individuals taking antipsychotics: a systematic review.

Patients taking antipsychotics to treat severe mental illness may develop adverse effects such as dyslipidaemia. We aimed to provide an update to a previous systematic review showing statin therapy lowering lipid levels in individuals taking antipsychotics, while further identifying any safety concerns or changes in BMI or blood pressure. In August 2022, we searched MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, PubMed and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for studies on the effects of statins on lipid profile measures for individuals with severe mental illness taking first- or second-generation antipsychotic medications. Data extraction was performed in a masked duplicate fashion. On the basis of article type, the risk of bias in each study was assessed using ROBINS-I or RoB-2. The GRADE criteria were used for certainty assessment. Our initial search returned 396 articles, of which 6 were included in our analysis. Five of them (83.3%) identified a significant change between baseline and posttreatment lipids. Of the articles recording blood pressure, BMI or weight and significant safety concerns, no significant changes were found. The certainty assessment for this systematic review was rated as moderate. A meta-analysis was not performed. We found that studies continue to demonstrate the use of statin therapy in dyslipidaemia prevention and treatment and, in relation, decrease cardiovascular disease risk through significantly reduced LDL-C levels. Patients at risk of developing dyslipidaemias secondary to antipsychotic treatment should be considered for lipid-lowering therapy with a statin. The limited number of studies included and their heterogeneity demonstrate areas for improvement for future research.

Editorial conflicts of interest related to the management of stable ischemic heart disease.

OBJECTIVE: Our study examines the association between the favorability of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and/or coronary artery bypass surgery (CABG) and the presence of conflicts of interest (COIs) among authors. METHODS: We used the "Citing Articles" tool on the New England Journal of Medicine website to identify editorials on the use of PCI/CABG for stable ischemic heart disease. Authors were rated as "supportive," "neutral," or "critical" of these interventions based on the content of their editorials. COIs for each author were identified using past publications found on Scopus, PubMed, or a general internet search. RESULTS: A total of 606 articles were identified, and data were extracted from 56 of them. Among the 149 authors, 64 (43.0%) had a COI. Of these 64 authors, 19 (29.7%) disclosed their COI, while 45 (70.3%) did not. Overall, among authors with a COI, there was no association between disclosed and undisclosed COIs and the authors' view of PCI/CABG [χ2 (2, N = 64) = 1.63, p = .44]. If an author was associated with Medtronic, Abbott, or Boston Scientific, they were more likely to favor PCI/CABG if they had an undisclosed COI relative to authors who disclosed COIs [χ2 (1, N = 31) = 5.04, p = .025]. Authors publishing in a cardiology journal were more likely to view PCI/CABG favorably relative to those publishing in a general medicine journal [χ2 (2, N = 62) = 7.17, p = .028]. CONCLUSION: Editors should adopt policies to counteract the unbalancing effects that COIs have on medical opinions and evidence.

Evaluation of spin in the abstracts of emergency medicine systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

INTRODUCTION: The objective of this study was to assess for spin - a form of reporting that overemphasizes benefits or downplay harms - within abstracts of systematic reviews and meta-analyses related to the clinical practice of emergency medicine (EM). METHODS: PubMed was searched for systematic reviews and meta-analyses published since 2015 in either EM or general medical journals that examined an aspect of emergency medical care. In a duplicate, masked fashion, article titles and abstracts were screened to determine eligibility based on predetermined inclusion criteria. The included full-text studies were read and evaluated for spin using a previously determined search strategy. Two authors further evaluated study quality using the AMSTAR-2 tool. RESULTS: Our PubMed search identified 478 systematic reviews and meta-analyses, of which a random sample of 200 was selected for data extraction. Spin within the abstract of the manuscript was identified in 34.5% (69/200) of the included reviews. We identified seven of the nine spin types, with two types being most common: (1) conclusion claiming a benefit despite high risk of bias among studies reviewed (19.5% of abstracts), and (2) conclusion claiming a benefit despite reporting bias (14.5%). No significant associations were found between the presence of spin and any of the evaluated study characteristics, the AMSTAR-2 appraisal, or the journal of publication. CONCLUSION: Spin is commonly present in abstracts of EM systematic reviews. The reporting quality for EM systematic reviews requires improvement. Measures should be taken to improve the overall review process and way information is conveyed through abstracts.