Correlation between the level of evidence and the class of recommendations concerning the pharmacological aspects of the Guidelines of the European Society of Cardiology.

Background The reliability of the recommendations affecting the clinical decisions is being continuously weighed in everyday practice (Gershlick, 2018). The objective of our study was to assess the consistency of the evidence behind the recommendations. Methods We narrowed our focus on the pharmacotherapeutic aspects of the most recent 38 European Society of Cardiology guidelines and analyzed the correlation between the level of evidence (LoE) classified as A, B and C and the class of recommendations (CoR) subdivided into I, IIa, IIb and III. Results Contrary to the majority of recommendations based on a LoE C (43,0%), fewer recommendations were proposed on heavily evidence-supported LoE A (23.8%), which percentage increased with subsequent updates of the guidelines. The most common recommendation was CoR I (44,9%), while the least common recommendation was CoR III (9,2%). While a similar share of A (39,1%) and C (30,1%) LoE shaped the CoR I nearly half (48,8%) of the CoR III were based on LoE C. Conversely, the overwhelming majority of the recommendations within the scope of LoE A were indisputably strong and classified as CoR I (73,7%). Conclusion The pharmacological aspects of the ESC guidelines are predominantly based on LoE C. A greater number of pharmacological recommendations are based on LoE A in comparison to the general ones. Various constraints significantly skew the credibility due to paucity of scientific data. A more nuanced approach is needed, as the guidelines cannot completely substitute the clinical experience and the patient-centered approach in shaping the optimal therapeutic outcome.

[Does the Oral Microbiome Influence Carcinogenic Changes of the Esophagus? - A Systematic Review]. / Beeinflusst das orale Mikrobiom kanzerogene Veränderungen des Ösophagus?

Does the Oral Microbiome Influence Carcinogenic Changes of the Esophagus? - A Systematic Review Abstract. The oral microbiome plays a crucial role in maintaining a physiological oral and esophageal environment, but possibly also in the development and progression of diseases, such as esophageal cancer. However, the underlying mechanism for this correlation is not understood. Esophageal carcinomas harbor a high malignancy and show a high incidence - worldwide they are the sixth most common cause of carcinoma-related death. The aim of this review was to find out to what extent the oral microbiome can be used as a marker for early detection of esophageal cancer. A systematic literature search was performed in the Pubmed®, Livivo® and Cochrane Library® databases. A total of eight studies were included in the review. These showed a correlation between oral dysbiosis and increased esophageal cancer risk, i.e., increased (i.e., genera Prevotella, Porphyromonas, Streptococcus) or decreased (i.e., genera Haemophilus, Neisseria) relative abundances of various bacteria were associated with higher risk. However, the results of the studies were very heterogeneous. A correlation between carcinogenic changes of the esophagus and changes in the oral microbiome is evident. However, further studies are needed to clarify the possible causal role of the oral microbiota in carcinogenesis.

The destiny of an abstract: What predicts publication as a full text journal article?

AIM: The progress of a discipline depends on the knowledge widely shared, an aim fulfilled by publications. But which are the factors influencing publication? We examine predictors of a subsequent publication for abstracts submitted to the annual scientific conference of the German Society of Orthodontics (DGKFO). METHODS: For all 288 abstracts presented in 2014 and 2015 we recorded presentation format, number and gender of authors, study design and university affiliation. Subsequent publication as a peer-reviewed full-text article was researched over a period of more than three years. RESULTS: A total of 88 abstracts (30.6 %) were published in full-text after a mean time span of 1.2±1.6 years after the respective conference. In multivariate logistic regression, secondary studies (OR 9.27 [1.51-57.04]; p=0.016), a higher number of authors (OR 1.21 [1.02-1.43]; p=0.030), a higher percentage of female authors (OR 1.01 [1.00-1.03]; p=0.036) but male gender of the first author (OR 2.10 [1.11-3.98]; p=0.023) resulted in a higher probability of getting published as a journal paper. CONCLUSION: Our investigation shows that secondary studies, a higher number of authors, a higher percentage of women among the authors and male first authors are predictive factors of publication. After more than three years, only about one third of the abstracts presented at the DGKFO annual scientific conference have been published as a full-text journal article, meaning that a huge part of knowledge remains unshared.