Pain associated with psoriasis: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Pain is a major factor in the psychosocial impact of psoriasis. There is a paucity of qualitative reports of dermatologists' views on psoriasis-related pain. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to explore the views of dermatologists on the presence and importance of pain associated with psoriasis. METHODS: This qualitative study, based on semi-structured interviews, included dermatologists from different cities working in the hospital and private sector in Croatia between May and July, 2022. We collected demographic and occupational data on participants and information about their experiences and attitudes toward psoriasis-related pain. Data were analysed by applying interpretative descriptive and thematic analysis using the 4-stage method for systematic text condensation. RESULTS: We included 19 dermatologists, all women, aged 38 (range: 31 to 63 years). Most dermatologists acknowledged the presence of pain in patients with psoriasis. They indicated that they sometimes do not sufficiently address this pain in daily practice. Some indicated that pain was a neglected symptom in psoriasis, while for others it was not crucial. Most indicated that it is necessary to focus more on psoriasis-related pain in clinical practice, to disambiguate between skin pain and joint pain in psoriatic conditions, and to better educate family physicians about psoriasis-related pain. They emphasized the importance of considering pain during psoriatic patient assessment and management. Further research on psoriasis-related pain was suggested. CONCLUSIONS: More emphasis is needed on psoriasis-related pain for effective management of psoriasis, informing decision-making in the context of patient-centric care and improving the quality of life in patients with psoriasis.

Creating an online educational intervention to improve knowledge about systematic reviews among healthcare workers: mixed-methods pilot study.

BACKGROUND: Lack of knowledge about systematic reviews (SRs) could prevent individual healthcare workers (HCWs) from using SRs as a source of information in their clinical practice or discourage them from participating in such research. In this study, we aimed to explore in-depth the opinion of a sample of HCWs about the newly created online educational intervention designed to improve knowledge about SRs. METHODS: We created a brief online educational intervention on SRs, consisting of 11 textual modules. We evaluated it among practicing HCWs who graduated from a university-level health sciences program using a mixed-methods pilot study that consisted of pre- and post-intervention questionnaires and qualitative evaluation via semi-structured interviews. We assessed participants' knowledge about SR methodology before and after the intervention, and compared the responses. We sought their opinions about the characteristics of SRs. Also, the participants were presented with four scientific abstracts, where they were asked to distinguish whether those abstracts presented summaries of a systematic or a non-systematic review. RESULTS: Twelve participants took part in the study. In the pilot study, the participants' knowledge about SRs was improved after the intervention compared to the baseline. Participants provided positive feedback regarding the educational intervention. Suggestions to improve the educational intervention were to provide more details about the forest plot, add more digital content or images, provide more details about the methodological steps of an SR, add descriptions about practical applications of SRs and provide links to additional educational materials. The participants suggested that HCWs could be motivated to take part in such an education if it is offered as continuing medical education (CME) course or credit for academic/career advancement. CONCLUSION: HCWs provided positive feedback about the newly designed online educational intervention on SRs; they considered it an appropriate tool for learning about SRs and resulted in increased knowledge about SRs. In addition, participants gave suggestions for improving education, which can be used to tailor the education for end-users. In future studies, it would be useful to examine the effectiveness of the modified educational intervention on increasing knowledge in a larger sample and in the form of a randomized controlled trial.

Web-Based Educational Intervention to Improve Knowledge of Systematic Reviews Among Health Science Professionals: Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Lack of knowledge of systematic reviews (SRs) could prevent individual health care professionals from using SRs as a source of information in their clinical practice or discourage them from participating in such research. OBJECTIVE: In this randomized controlled trial, we evaluated the effect of a short web-based educational intervention on short-term knowledge of SRs. METHODS: Eligible participants were 871 Master's students of university health sciences studies in Croatia; 589 (67.6%) students who agreed to participate in the trial were randomized using a computer program into 2 groups. Intervention group A (294/589, 49.9%) received a short web-based educational intervention about SR methodology, and intervention group B (295/589, 50.1%) was presented with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) checklist. The participants' knowledge of SRs was assessed before and after the intervention. The participants could not be blinded because of the nature of the intervention. The primary outcome was the difference in the percentage of correct answers about SR methodology per participant between the groups after the intervention, expressed as relative risk and 95% CI. RESULTS: Results from 162 and 165 participants in the educational intervention and PRISMA checklist groups, respectively, were available for analysis. Most of them (educational intervention group: 130/162, 80.2%; PRISMA checklist group: 131/165, 79.4%) were employed as health care professionals in addition to being health sciences students. After the intervention, the educational intervention group had 23% (relative risk percentage) more correct answers in the postintervention questionnaire than the PRISMA checklist group (relative risk=1.23, 95% CI 1.17-1.29). CONCLUSIONS: A short web-based educational intervention about SRs is an effective tool for short-term improvement of knowledge of SRs among health care studies students, most of whom were also employed as health care professionals. Further studies are needed to explore the long-term effects of the tested education. TRIAL REGISTRATION: OSF Registries 10.17605/OSF.IO/RYMVC; https://osf.io/rymvc.

Vestibular neuronitis in a vestibular schwannoma patient.

This is a unique presentation of an acute vestibular syndrome (AVS) caused by vestibular neuronitis (VN) of a vestibular nerve (CNVIII) already affected by vestibular schwannoma (VS). A 48-year-old patient, formerly diagnosed with an intracanalicular VS, presented with AVS. The patient underwent clinical and neurotological examination including video Head Impulse Test and a 4-hour delayed-enhanced 3D-FLAIR MRI using intravenous gadolinium. Clinical and neurotological findings were consistent with VN of the CNVIII formerly diagnosed with VS. A 4-hour delayed-enhanced 3D-FLAIR MRI showed significant enhancement of the labyrinth also indicating VN of the same nerve affected by VS. Pragmatic corticosteroid therapy and vestibular exercises were applied resulting in satisfactory recovery of the patient. As vestibular symptoms are common in VS patients, investigating another cause of dizziness and vertigo in VS patients can be marginalized. Nevertheless, VS presenting as AVS is very unusual. VN should not be overlooked as a possible cause of acute vertigo in a patient previously diagnosed with VS.

Definition of a systematic review used in overviews of systematic reviews, meta-epidemiological studies and textbooks.

BACKGROUND: A standard or consensus definition of a systematic review does not exist. Therefore, if there is no definition about a systematic review in secondary studies that analyse them or the definition is too broad, inappropriate studies might be included in such evidence synthesis. The aim of this study was to analyse the definition of a systematic review (SR) in health care literature, elements of the definitions that are used and to propose a starting point for an explicit and non-ambiguous SR definition. METHODS: We included overviews of systematic reviews (OSRs), meta-epidemiological studies and epidemiology textbooks. We extracted the definitions of SRs, as well as the inclusion and exclusion criteria that could indicate which definition of a SR the authors used. We extracted individual elements of SR definitions, categorised and quantified them. RESULTS: Among the 535 analysed sources of information, 188 (35%) provided a definition of a SR. The most commonly used reference points for the definitions of SRs were Cochrane and the PRISMA statement. We found 188 different elements of SR definitions and divided them into 14 categories. The highest number of SR definition elements was found in categories related to searching (N = 51), analysis/synthesis (N = 23), overall methods (N = 22), quality/bias/appraisal/validity (N = 22) and aim/question (N = 13). The same five categories were also the most commonly used combination of categories in the SR definitions. CONCLUSION: Currently used definitions of SRs are vague and ambiguous, often using terms such as clear, explicit and systematic, without further elaboration. In this manuscript we propose a more specific definition of a systematic review, with the ultimate aim of motivating the research community to establish a clear and unambiguous definition of this type of research.

Attitudes of editors of core clinical journals about whether systematic reviews are original research: a mixed-methods study.

OBJECTIVES: In 2009, not all journal editors considered systematic reviews (SRs) to be original research studies, and not all PubMed Core Clinical Journals published SRs. The aim of this study was to conduct a new analysis about editors' opinion regarding SRs as original research. DESIGN: We conducted a survey and qualitative interview study of journal editors. PARTICIPANTS: All editors listed as editor-in chief of 118 PubMed Core Clinical Journals. METHODS: We contacted editors via email and asked them whether they considered SRs original research, whether they published SRs in the journal and, if yes, in which section. We searched PubMed for any SRs (or meta-analyses) published in the included journals in 2017; if we did not find any, we hand-searched these journals. Editors were invited to participate in a follow-up qualitative interview study. RESULTS: We received responses from 73 editors representing 72 (62%) journals. Fifty-two (80%) editors considered SRs original research, either for any type of SR (65%) or only for SRs with a meta-analysis (15%) and almost all (91%) of editors published SRs. Compared with the results of the 2009 study of Core Clinical Journals, a similar proportion of editors considered SRs to be original studies (71%), accepted SRs as original on certain condition such as presence of meta-analysis (14%) or published SRs (94%). Interviews with editors showed that they used various criteria to decide whether a SR is original research, including methodology, reproducibility, originality of idea and level of novelty. CONCLUSION: The majority of editors of core clinical journals consider that SRs are original research. Among editors, there was no uniform approach to defining what makes a SR, or any study, original. This indicates that the concepts of originality of SRs and research are evolving and that this would be a relevant topic for further discussion.

Assessment of reporting quality of abstracts of systematic reviews with meta-analysis using PRISMA-A and discordance in assessments between raters without prior experience.

BACKGROUND: Reporting quality of systematic reviews' (SRs) abstracts is important because this is often the only information about a study that readers have. The aim of this study was to assess adherence of SR abstracts in the field of anesthesiology with the reporting checklist PRISMA extension for Abstracts (PRISMA-A) and to analyze to what extent will the use of PRISMA-A yield concordant ratings in two raters without prior experience with the checklist. METHODS: We analyzed reporting quality of SRs with meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials of interventions published in the field of anesthesiology from 2012 to 2016 by using 12-item PRISMA-A checklist. After calibration exercise, two authors without prior experience with PRISMA-A scored the abstracts. Primary outcome was median adherence to PRISMA-A checklist. Secondary outcome was adherence to individual items of the checklist. We analyzed whether there was improvement in reporting of SR abstracts over time. Additionally, we analyzed discrepancies between the two raters in scoring individual PRISMA-A items. RESULTS: Our search yielded 318 results, of which we included 244 SRs. Median adherence to PRISMA-A checklist was 42% (5 items of 12). The majority of analyzed SR abstracts (N = 148, 61%) had a total adherence score under 50%, and not a single one had adherence above 75%. Adherence to individual items was very variable, ranging from 0% for reporting SR funding, to 97% for interpreting SR findings. Overall adherence to PRISMA-A did not change over the analyzed 5 years before and after publication of PRISMA-A in 2013. Even after calibration exercise, discrepancies between the two raters were found in 275 (9.3%) out of 2928 analyzed PRISMA-A items. Cohen's Kappa was 0.807. In the item about the description of effect there were discrepancies in 59% of the abstracts between the raters. CONCLUSION: Reporting quality of systematic review abstracts in the field of anesthesiology is suboptimal, and did not improve after publication of PRISMA-A checklist in 2013. We need stricter adherence to reporting checklists by authors, editors and peer-reviewers, and interventions that will help those stakeholders to improve reporting of systematic reviews. Some items of PRISMA-A checklist are difficult to score.

PENETRATING ORBITOCRANIAL INJURY.

- A case of a 37-year-old female patient is presented. The patient was admitted to the Surgical Emergency Unit after accidental fall on a metal rod when she had sustained stab injury of the right orbit with penetration into the right frontal brain lobe. Multi-slice computed tomography (MSCT) showed penetrating injury and fracture of the right orbital roof without eyeball damage and endocranial impressed bone fragments into the right frontal brain lobe. Urgent surgical intervention was performed by a maxillofacial surgeon and neurosurgeon, including reposition of bone fragments of the orbital roof and cranioplasty. Reconstruction of Tenon's capsule of the right eyeball was performed by an ophthalmologist. From the intraoperative wound swab of the orbit, Bacillus cereus was isolated, therefore the patient was administered ciprofloxacin and rifampicin as recommended by an infectious disease (ID) specialist. Follow up brain MSCT at 15 days and magnetic resonance imaging of the brain at 25 days showed brain edema in the right frontal area and signs of local brain abscess. Intravenous administration of the ciprofloxacin and metronidazole antibiotics with corticosteroids for edema suppression were ordered by the ID physician. Fourteen weeks after this therapy, brain MSCT showed complete abscess regression and no neurologic deficit with only mild psychomotor changes.