The World Neurosurgery Global Champions Program: First-Year Experience of a Model Initiative for Reducing Disparities in Global Neurosurgical Literature.

OBJECTIVE: Most surgical journals are published in English, representing a challenge for researchers from non-Anglophone countries. We describe the implementation, workflow, outcomes, and lessons learned from the WORLD NEUROSURGERY Global Champions Program (GCP), a novel journal-specific English language editing program for articles rejected because of poor English grammar or usage. METHODS: The GCP was advertised via the journal website and social media. Applicants were selected to be a reviewer for the GCP if they demonstrated English proficiency on writing samples supplied in their application. The demographics of GCP members and characteristics and outcomes of articles edited by the GCP during its first year were reviewed. Surveys of GCP members and authors who used the service were conducted. RESULTS: Twenty-one individuals became part of the GCP, representing 8 countries and 16 languages apart from English. A total of 380 manuscripts were peer reviewed by the editor-in-chief, who determined these manuscripts to have potentially worthwhile content but needed to be rejected due to poor language. The authors of these manuscripts were informed of the existence of this language assistance program. Forty-nine articles (12.9%) were edited by the GCP in 41.6 ± 22.8 days. Of 40 articles resubmitted to WORLD NEUROSURGERY, 24 (60.0%) were accepted. GCP members and authors understood the purpose and workflow of the program and recognized improvements in article quality and the probability of acceptance through their participation. CONCLUSIONS: The WORLD NEUROSURGERY Global Champions Program mitigated a critical barrier to publication in an English language journal for authors from non-Anglophone countries. This program promotes research equity by providing a free, largely medical student and trainee operated, English language editing service. This model or a similar service can be replicated by other journals.

Pathology testing in non-trauma patients presenting to the emergency department with recurrent seizures.

OBJECTIVE: Excessive pathology testing is associated with ED congestion, increased healthcare costs and adverse patient health outcomes. This study aimed to determine the frequency, yield and influence of pathology tests among patients presenting to the ED with atraumatic recurrent seizures. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study conducted at a level 4 adult ED in Australia and included atraumatic patients presenting to ED with recurrent seizures over a 4-year period (2017-2020). The primary outcome was the frequency of pathology tests. Additionally, the proportion of abnormal pathology test results and the association between pathology tests and change in management were assessed. RESULTS: Of the 398 eligible presentations, 346 (86.9%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 83.3-89.9%) underwent at least one pathology test. In total 18.3% (n = 517) of pathology tests had an abnormal result which led to 15 changes in ED management among 12 presentations. Patients who had an abnormal pathology test result were more likely to undergo a change in antiepileptic drug management (odds ratio 2.08, 95% CI 1.23-3.65; P = 0.008). CONCLUSION: Most patients presenting to the ED with atraumatic recurrent seizures underwent pathology tests. Abnormalities were frequently detected but were uncommonly associated with change in management. Abnormal pathology test results were associated with changes in antiepileptic drug management although rarely led to acute changes in patient management. This study suggests that pathology tests may be excessively requested in this population.

A systematic review of systematic review methodology in plastic surgery journals.

INTRODUCTION: Systematic reviews (SR) and meta-analyses (MA) are described as the top level of evidence in clinical research and are commonplace in plastic surgery literature. Their quality is limited both by the reliability of primary studies and the method of aggregating data. This study analysed the overall quality of SR's in plastic surgery and identified influencing factors. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The paper critically appraised SR's published in three prominent plastic surgery journals between July 2019 and July 2020. Study selection and appraisal was performed in duplicate. Articles were assessed using A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR). RESULTS: Seventy-six studies were included. 52 (68%) were SR's only and 24 (32%) included meta-analysis (MA) as well. The most common subspecialty areas included breast, craniofacial and hand. 78% of studies followed the PRISMA guidelines. The median (min, max) AMSTAR score was 3.5 (0-7). SR's with MA had significantly higher AMSTAR scores (p<0.001) than SR's alone, with median scores of 5 and 3 respectively. Papers from China had significantly higher AMSTAR scores than the USA. Craniofacial SR's had significantly higher scores than all other subspecialty areas. Most SR's reviewed concluded that there is currently inadequate primary research to make a conclusion and recommended more research be carried out in that area. CONCLUSIONS: This systematicreview found overall that the quality of research methodology in Plastic Surgery SRs is low, and their conclusions of limited value. Surgeons should be familiar with SR and MA methodology, so they can exercise better judgement in applying findings to clinical practice.