The STROCSS 2024 guideline: strengthening the reporting of cohort, cross-sectional and case-control studies in surgery.

INTRODUCTION: First released in 2017, the STROCSS guidelines have become integral for promoting high-quality reporting of observational research in surgery. However, regular updates are essential to ensure they remain relevant and of value to surgeons. Building on the 2021 updates, we have developed the STROCSS 2024 guidelines. This timely revision aims to address residual reporting gaps, assimilate recent advances, and further strengthen observational study quality across all surgical disciplines. METHODS: A core steering committee compiled proposed changes to update the STROCSS 2021 guidelines based on identified gaps in prior iterations. An expert panel of surgical research leaders then evaluated the proposed changes for inclusion. A Delphi consensus exercise was used. Proposals that scored between 7-9 on a nine-point Likert agreement scale, by ≥70% of Delphi participants, were integrated into the STROCSS 2024 checklist. RESULTS: In total, 46 of 56 invited participants (82%) completed the Delphi survey and hence participated in the development of STROCSS 2024. All suggested amendments met the criteria for inclusion, indicating a high level of agreement among the Delphi group. All proposed items were therefore integrated into the final revised checklist. CONCLUSION: We present the updated STROCSS 2024 guidelines, which have been developed through expert consensus to further enhance the transparency and reporting quality of observational research in surgery.

Preferred Reporting Of Case Series in Surgery (PROCESS) 2023 guidelines.

INTRODUCTION: The Preferred Reporting Of CasE Series in Surgery (PROCESS) guidelines were developed in 2016 in order to improve the reporting quality of surgical case series. Since its inception, it has been updated twice, in 2018 and 2020, and has been cited over 1000 times. PROCESS guidelines have enjoyed great acceptance within the surgical research community. Our aim is to update the PROCESS guidelines in order to maintain its applicability in the field of surgical research. METHODS: A PROCESS 2023 steering group was created. By working in collaboration, members of this group came up with proposals to update the PROCESS 2020 guidelines. These proposals were presented to an expert panel of researchers, who in turn scrutinised these proposals and decided whether they should become part of PROCESS 2023 guidelines or not, through a Delphi consensus exercise. RESULTS: A total of 38 people participated in the development of PROCESS 2023 guidelines. The majority of items received a score between 7 and 9 from greater than 70% of the participants, indicating consensus with the proposed changes to those items. However, two items (3c and 6a) received a score between 7 and 9 from less than 70% of the participants, indicating a lack of consensus with the proposed changes to those items. Those items will remain unchanged. DISCUSSION: The updated PROCESS 2023 guidelines are presented with an aim to continue improving the reporting quality of case series in surgery.

The SCARE 2023 guideline: updating consensus Surgical CAse REport (SCARE) guidelines.

BACKGROUND: The Surgical CAse REport (SCARE) guidelines were first published in 2016 as a tool for surgeons to document and report their surgical cases in a standardised and comprehensive manner. However, with advances in technology and changes in the healthcare landscape, it is important to revise and update these guidelines to ensure they remain relevant and valuable for surgeons. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The updated guidelines were produced through a Delphi consensus exercise. Members of the SCARE 2020 guidelines Delphi group, editorial board members, and peer reviewers were invited to participate. Potential contributors were contacted by e-mail. An online survey was completed to indicate their agreement with the proposed changes to the guideline items. RESULTS: A total of 54 participants were invited to participate and 44 (81.5%) completed the survey. There was a high degree of agreement among reviewers, with 36 items (83.7%) meeting the threshold for inclusion. CONCLUSION: Through a completed Delphi consensus exercise we present the SCARE 2023 guidelines. This will provide surgeons with a comprehensive and up-to-date tool for documenting and reporting their surgical cases while highlighting the importance of patient-centred care.

Medical leadership training varies substantially between UK medical schools: Report of the leadership in undergraduate medical education national survey (LUMENS).

BACKGROUND: Doctors are increasingly expected to demonstrate medical leadership and management (MLM) skills. The Faculty of Medical Leadership and Management (FMLM) has published an indicative undergraduate curriculum to guide the development of MLM content at UK medical schools. METHOD: Students from 30 medical schools were surveyed to determine their understanding of MLM teaching at their school. Timetables for 21 schools were searched for MLM-related keywords. Student-reported teaching and timetabled teaching were coded according to predefined themes. Aggregated demographic and postgraduate performance data were obtained through collaboration with the Medical Student Investigators Collaborative (msico.org). RESULTS: Whilst 88% of medical students see MLM teaching as relevant, only 18% believe it is well integrated into their curriculum. MLM content represented ∼2% of timetabled teaching in each 5-year undergraduate medical course. Most of this teaching was dedicated to teamwork, performance/reflection and communication skills. There was minimal association between how much of a topic students believed they were taught, and how much they were actually taught. We found no association between the volume of MLM teaching and performance in postgraduate examinations, trainee career destinations or fitness to practice referrals. CONCLUSION: Our findings demonstrate limited and variable teaching of MLM content. Delivery was independent of broader teaching and assessment factors.

PRISMA 2020 statement: What's new and the importance of reporting guidelines.

The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, first published in 2009 [1], was developed in an attempt to increase the clarity, transparency, quality and value of these reports [2]. The 27-item checklist and four-phase flow diagram have become the hallmark of academic rigour in the publication of systematic reviews and meta-analyses, having been cited by over 60,000 papers [3]. These are frequently endorsed by journals in their 'Instructions to Authors' [4]. Developments in the methodology and terminology used when conducting systematic reviews [5], alongside the identification of limitations responsible for poor adherence, such as the use of ambiguous wording [6], have warranted an update to the PRISMA statement. The PRISMA 2020 statement, therefore, is intended to reflect this recent evolution in the identification, selection, appraisal and synthesis of research [7]. Here, we present an interpretive analysis of the updated statement, with a view towards encouraging its adoption by both journals and authors in the pursuit of advancing evidence-based medicine.

Impact of the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic on scientific research and implications for clinical academic training - A review.

A pneumonia outbreak of unknown aetiology emerged in Wuhan, China in December 2019. The causative organism was identified on 7th January 2020 as a novel coronavirus (nCoV or 2019-nCoV), later renamed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). The resulting coronavirus disease (COVID-19) has infected over 88 million individuals, resulted in over 1.9 million deaths, and has led to an unprecedented impact on research activities worldwide. Extraordinary challenges have also been imposed on medical and surgical trainees following redeployment to full-time clinical duties. Moreover, the introduction of travel restrictions and strict lockdown measures have forced the closure of many institutions and laboratories working on research unrelated to the pandemic. The lockdown has similarly stifled supply chains and slowed research and development endeavours, whilst research charities have endured significant financial strains that have since reshaped the allocation and availability of funds. However, worldwide scientific adaptation to the COVID-19 pandemic has been observed through unprecedented levels of international collaboration alongside the uprise of remote telecommunication platforms. Although the long-term consequence of the COVID-19 pandemic on research and academic training is difficult to ascertain, the current crises will inevitably shape working and teaching patterns for years to come. To this end, we provide a comprehensive and critical evaluation of the impact of COVID-19 on scientific research and funding, as well as academic medical and surgical training.

Preparing for COVID-19 exit strategies.

The COVID-19 pandemic has affected 20 million people worldwide with over 732,000 deaths and trillions of dollars of lost economic productivity. It has put many countries into lockdown to contain the virus and save lives. As COVID-19 cases in some countries start to plateau and societies work hard to 'flatten the curve', leaders are being asked to formulate plans for safe and staged 'exit strategies' to reopen society. Each country will decide on their own exit strategy but many plans are considering similar vital healthcare principles including the maintenance of social distancing to prevent ongoing community transmission, testing capacity, protection of the healthcare systems and the health of their care workers. This review aims to provide an overview of essential factors that plans for exit strategy should consider and their effect on the societies' social and healthcare life.

The SCARE 2020 Guideline: Updating Consensus Surgical CAse REport (SCARE) Guidelines.

INTRODUCTION: The SCARE Guidelines were first published in 2016 and were last updated in 2018. They provide a structure for reporting surgical case reports and are used and endorsed by authors, journal editors and reviewers, in order to increase robustness and transparency in reporting surgical cases. They must be kept up to date in order to drive forwards reporting quality. As such, we have updated these guidelines via a DELPHI consensus exercise. METHODS: The updated guidelines were produced via a DELPHI consensus exercise. Members were invited from the previous DELPHI group, as well as editorial board members and peer reviewers of the International Journal of Surgery Case Reports. The expert group completed an online survey to indicate their agreement with proposed changes to the checklist items. RESULTS: A total of 54 surgical experts agreed to participate and 53 (98%) completed the survey. The responses and suggested modifications were incorporated into the new 2020 guideline. There was a high degree of agreement amongst the SCARE Group, with all modified SCARE items receiving over 70% scores 7-9. CONCLUSION: A DELPHI consensus exercise was completed and an updated and improved SCARE Checklist is now presented.

The PROCESS 2020 Guideline: Updating Consensus Preferred Reporting Of CasESeries in Surgery (PROCESS) Guidelines.

INTRODUCTION: The PROCESS Guidelines were first published in 2016 and were last updated in 2018. They provide a structure for reporting surgical case series in order to increase reporting robustness and transparency, and are used and endorsed by authors, journal editors and reviewers alike. In order to drive forwards reporting quality, they must be kept up to date. As such, we have updated these guidelines via a DELPHI consensus exercise. METHODS: The updated guidelines were produced via a DELPHI consensus exercise. Members from the previous DELPHI group were again invited, alongside editorial board members and peer reviewers of the International Journal of Surgery and the International Journal of Surgery Case Reports. An online survey was completed by this expert group to indicate their agreement with proposed changes to the checklist items. RESULTS: A total of 53 surgical experts agreed to participate and 49 (92%) completed the survey. The responses and suggested modifications were incorporated into the previous 2018 guidelines. There was a high degree of agreement amongst the PROCESS Group, with all but one of the PROCESS items receiving over 70% of scores ranging 7-9. CONCLUSION: A DELPHI consensus exercise was completed and an updated and improved PROCESS Checklist is now presented.

Health policy and leadership models during the COVID-19 pandemic: A review.

On March 11, 2020, the spread of the SARS-CoV-2 virus was declared a pandemic by the World Health Organization (WHO). Approximately 19.3 million people have now been infected and over 700,000 have died. This global public health crisis has since cascaded into a series of challenges for leaders around the world, threatening both the health and economy of populations. This paper attempts to compartmentalise leadership aspects, allowing a closer examination of published reports and the analysis of current outcomes, thus enabling the authors to formulate a number of evidence-based recommendations on the de-escalation of restrictions.

Impact of the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic on surgical practice - Part 2 (surgical prioritisation).

The Coronavirus (COVID-19) Pandemic represents a once in a century challenge to human healthcare with over 4.5 million cases and over 300,000 deaths thus far. Surgical practice has been significantly impacted with all specialties writing guidelines for how to manage during this crisis. All specialties have had to triage the urgency of their daily surgical procedures and consider non-surgical management options where possible. The Pandemic has had ramifications for ways of working, surgical techniques, open vs minimally invasive, theatre workflow, patient and staff safety, training and education. With guidelines specific to each specialty being implemented and followed, surgeons should be able to continue to provide safe and effective care to their patients during the COVID-19 pandemic. In this comprehensive and up to date review we assess changes to working practices through the lens of each surgical specialty.

Impact of the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic on surgical practice - Part 1.

The Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic has resulted in over 4.5 million confirmed cases and over 300,000 deaths. The impact of COVID-19 on surgical practice is widespread, ranging from workforce and staffing issues, procedural prioritisation, viral transmission risk intraoperatively, changes to perioperative practice and ways of working alongside the impact on surgical education and training. Whilst there has been a growing literature base describing the early clinical course of COVID-19 and on aspects of critical care related to treating these patients, there has been a dearth of evidence on how this pandemic will affect surgical practice. This paper seeks to review the current evidence and offers recommendations for changes to surgical practice to minimise the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The socio-economic implications of the coronavirus pandemic (COVID-19): A review.

The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in over 4.3 million confirmed cases and over 290,000 deaths globally. It has also sparked fears of an impending economic crisis and recession. Social distancing, self-isolation and travel restrictions have lead to a reduced workforce across all economic sectors and caused many jobs to be lost. Schools have closed down, and the need for commodities and manufactured products has decreased. In contrast, the need for medical supplies has significantly increased. The food sector is also facing increased demand due to panic-buying and stockpiling of food products. In response to this global outbreak, we summarise the socio-economic effects of COVID-19 on individual aspects of the world economy.

World Health Organization declares global emergency: A review of the 2019 novel coronavirus (COVID-19).

An unprecedented outbreak of pneumonia of unknown aetiology in Wuhan City, Hubei province in China emerged in December 2019. A novel coronavirus was identified as the causative agent and was subsequently termed COVID-19 by the World Health Organization (WHO). Considered a relative of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) and Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS), COVID-19 is caused by a betacoronavirus named SARS-CoV-2 that affects the lower respiratory tract and manifests as pneumonia in humans. Despite rigorous global containment and quarantine efforts, the incidence of COVID-19 continues to rise, with 90,870 laboratory-confirmed cases and over 3,000 deaths worldwide. In response to this global outbreak, we summarise the current state of knowledge surrounding COVID-19.