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.

Outcome measures reported following feminizing genital gender affirmation surgery for transgender women and gender diverse individuals: A systematic review.

Background: Feminizing genital gender affirmation surgery (fgGAS) may be an essential adjunct in the care of some transgender women and gender diverse individuals with gender incongruence. However, the comparison of different techniques of fgGAS may be confounded by variable outcome reporting and the use of inconsistent outcomes in the literature. This systematic review provides the most in-depth examination of fgGAS studies to date, and summarizes all reported outcomes, definitions, and the times when outcomes were assessed following these surgical interventions. Aims/Methods: This work intends to quantify the levels of outcome variability and definition heterogeneity in this expanding field and provides guidance on outcome reporting for future study authors. Candidate studies for this systematic review were sourced via an electronic, multi-database literature search. All primary, clinical research studies of fgGAS were included with no date limits. Paired collaborators screened each study for inclusion and performed data extraction to document the outcomes, definitions, and times of outcome assessment following fgGAS. Results: After screening 1225 studies, 93 studies proceeded to data extraction, representing 7681 patients. 2621 separate individual outcomes were reported, 857 (32.7%) were defined, and the time of outcome assessment was given for 1856 outcomes (70.8%) but relied on nonspecific ranges of follow-up dates. "Attainment of orgasm", "Neovaginal stenosis", and "Neovaginal depth/length" were among the most commonly reported outcomes. Profound heterogeneity existed in the definitions used for these and for all outcomes reported in general. Discussion: The results demonstrate a need for clear outcomes, agreed definitions, and times of outcome assessment following fgGAS in transgender women and gender diverse individuals. The adoption of a consistent set of outcomes and definitions reported by all future studies of fgGAS (a Core Outcome Set) will aid in improving treatment comparisons in this patient group. This review is the first step in that process.

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.

STROCSS 2021: Strengthening the reporting of cohort, cross-sectional and case-control studies in surgery.

INTRODUCTION: Strengthening The Reporting Of Cohort Studies in Surgery (STROCSS) guidelines were developed in 2017 in order to improve the reporting quality of observational studies in surgery and updated in 2019. In order to maintain relevance and continue upholding good reporting quality among observational studies in surgery, we aimed to update STROCSS 2019 guidelines. METHODS: A STROCSS 2021 steering group was formed to come up with proposals to update STROCSS 2019 guidelines. An expert panel of researchers assessed these proposals and judged whether they should become part of STROCSS 2021 guidelines or not, through a Delphi consensus exercise. RESULTS: 42 people (89%) completed the DELPHI survey and hence participated in the development of STROCSS 2021 guidelines. All items received a score between 7 and 9 by greater than 70% of the participants, indicating a high level of agreement among the DELPHI group members with the proposed changes to all the items. CONCLUSION: We present updated STROCSS 2021 guidelines to ensure ongoing good reporting quality among observational studies in surgery.

STROCSS 2021: Strengthening the reporting of cohort, cross-sectional and case-control studies in surgery.

INTRODUCTION: Strengthening The Reporting Of Cohort Studies in Surgery (STROCSS) guidelines were developed in 2017 in order to improve the reporting quality of observational studies in surgery and updated in 2019. In order to maintain relevance and continue upholding good reporting quality among observational studies in surgery, we aimed to update STROCSS 2019 guidelines. METHODS: A STROCSS 2021 steering group was formed to come up with proposals to update STROCSS 2019 guidelines. An expert panel of researchers assessed these proposals and judged whether they should become part of STROCSS 2021 guidelines or not, through a Delphi consensus exercise. RESULTS: 42 people (89%) completed the DELPHI survey and hence participated in the development of STROCSS 2021 guidelines. All items received a score between 7 and 9 by greater than 70% of the participants, indicating a high level of agreement among the DELPHI group members with the proposed changes to all the items. CONCLUSION: We present updated STROCSS 2021 guidelines to ensure ongoing good reporting quality among observational studies in surgery.

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.

Assessing the compliance of systematic review articles published in leading dermatology journals with the PRISMA statement guidelines: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Reporting quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses is of critical importance in dermatology because of their key role in informing health care decisions. OBJECTIVE: To assess the compliance of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in leading dermatology journals with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement guidelines. METHODS: This review was carried out in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. Included studies were reviews published across 6 years in the top 4 highest-impact-factor dermatology journals of 2017. Records and full texts were screened independently. Data analysis was conducted with univariate multivariable linear regression. The primary outcome was to assess the compliance of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in leading dermatology journals with the PRISMA statement. RESULTS: A total of 166 studies were included and mean PRISMA compliance across all articles was 73%. Compliance significantly improved over time (ß = .016; P = <.001). The worst reported checklist item was item 5 (reporting on protocol existence), with a compliance of 15% of articles. CONCLUSION: PRISMA compliance within leading dermatology journals could be improved; however, it is steadily improving.

STROCSS 2019 Guideline: Strengthening the reporting of cohort studies in surgery.

INTRODUCTION: The STROCSS guideline was developed in 2017 to improve the reporting quality of observational studies in surgery. Building on its impact and usefulness, we sought to update the guidelines two years after its publication. METHODS: A steering group was formed to review the existing guideline and propose amendments to the 17-item checklist. A Delphi consensus exercise was utilised to determine agreement across a list of proposed modifications to the STROCSS 2017 guideline. An expert panel of 46 surgeons were invited to assess the proposed updates via Google Forms. RESULTS: The response rate was 91% (n = 42/46). High agreement was reached across all the items and the guideline was finalised in the first round. The checklist maintained 17-items, with modifications primarily considered to improve content and readability. CONCLUSIONS: The STROCSS 2019 guideline is hereby presented as a considered update to improve reporting of cohort, cross-sectional and case-control studies in surgery.