Posterior musculofascial reconstruction in robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy for the treatment of clinically localised prostate cancer: a Cochrane Review.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of posterior musculofascial reconstruction robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (PR-RALP) compared to no PR during standard RALP (S-RALP) for the treatment of clinically localised prostate cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We performed a systematic search with no restrictions including randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing variations of PR-RALP vs S-RALP for clinically localised prostate cancer. The quality of evidence was assessed on outcome basis according to Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Our search identified 13 records of eight unique RCTs, of which six were published studies, and two were abstract proceedings. There were 1085 randomised patients, of whom 963 completed the trials. All patients had either cT1c or cT2 or cT3a disease. RESULTS: A PR-RALP may improve urinary continence 1 week after catheter removal compared to no PR (risk ratio [RR] 1.25, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.90-1.73; I2 = 42%, five studies, 498 patients, low certainty of evidence [CoE]). A PR-RALP may have little to no effect on urinary continence 3 months after surgery compared to no PR (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.84-1.14; I2 = 67%, six studies, 842 patients, low CoE). A PR-RALP probably results in little to no difference in serious adverse events compared to no PR (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.29-1.92; I2 = 0%, six studies, 835 patients, moderate CoE). CONCLUSIONS: This review found evidence that PR-RALP may improve early continence 1 week after catheter removal but not thereafter. Meanwhile, adverse event rates are probably not impacted and positive surgical margin rates are likely similar. There was no difference in our subgroup analysis for all outcomes with anterior reconstruction technique when combined with PR vs only PR.

Scoping review: Diagnostic reasoning as a component of clinical reasoning in the U.S. primary care nurse practitioner education.

AIMS: Diagnostic Reasoning (DR) is an essential competency requiring mastery for safe, independent Nurse Practitioner (NP) practice, but little is known about DR content included in NP education programs. The aims of this study were to identify whether and how the concept of DR is addressed in NP education. DESIGN: We conducted a scoping review on DR-related content and teaching innovations in U.S. primary care NP education programs, with implications for NP education programs worldwide. Concepts and principles with global applicability include: conducting focused and hypothesis-directed histories and exams, generating the problem statement, formulating the differential diagnosis, appropriate and relevant diagnostic testing, determining the working diagnosis and developing evidence-based, patient-centred management plans. DATA SOURCES: N = 1115 articles retrieved from Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, and CINAHL for the period 2005-2021. Forty-one scholarly articles met inclusion/exclusion criteria. REVIEW METHODS: Data were extracted, synthesized and grouped by theoretical frameworks, content included, educational interventions and assessment measures. RESULTS: Most articles provided descriptions of approaches for teaching NP clinical or diagnostic reasoning. Ten papers directly referenced the current science and theory of DR. CONCLUSION: The US NP education literature addressing DR is limited and demonstrates a lack of shared conceptualizations of DR. Whilst numerous components of DR are identifiable in the literature, a robust teaching/learning scholarship for DR has not yet been established in the US NP education literature. IMPACT: Whilst primary care NP education programs are beginning to incorporate DR education into their curricula, little research has been conducted to demonstrate the effectiveness of educational outcomes. Increased integration of DR content into NP education is needed, including increased educational research on teaching DR competencies. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: No patient or public contribution was included in this review, as the public is generally not familiar with DR or its teaching approaches.

Retracted publications in pharmacy systematic reviews.

OBJECTIVE: Systematic reviews and other evidence syntheses, the pinnacle of the evidence pyramid, embody comprehensiveness and rigor; however, retracted data are being incorporated into these publications. This study examines the use of retracted publications in the field of pharmacy, describes characteristics of retracted publications cited by systematic reviews, and discusses factors associated with citation likelihood. METHODS: Using data from Retraction Watch, we identified retracted publications in the pharmacy field. We identified all articles citing these retracted publications in Web of Science and Scopus and limited results to systematic reviews. We classified the retraction reason, determined whether the citation occurred before or after retraction, and analyzed factors associated with the likelihood of systematic reviews citing a retracted publication. RESULTS: Of 1,396 retracted publications, 283 were cited 1,096 times in systematic reviews. Most (65.0%) (712/1096) citations occurred before retraction. Citations were most often to items retracted due to data falsification or manipulation (39.2%), followed by items retracted due to ethical misconduct including plagiarism (30.4%), or concerns about or errors in data or methods (26.2%). Compared to those not cited in systematic reviews, cited items were significantly more likely to be retracted due to data falsification and manipulation, were published in high impact factor journals, and had longer delays between publication and retraction. CONCLUSIONS: Further analysis of systematic reviews citing retracted publications is needed to determine the impact of flawed data. Librarians understand the nuances involved and can advocate for greater transparency around the retraction process and increase awareness of challenges posed by retractions.

Rigor and reproducibility instruction in academic medical libraries.

Background: Concerns over scientific reproducibility have grown in recent years, leading the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to require researchers to address these issues in research grant applications. Starting in 2020, training grants were required to provide a plan for educating trainees in rigor and reproducibility. Academic medical centers have responded with different solutions to fill this educational need. As experienced instructors with expertise in topics relating to reproducibility, librarians can play a prominent role in providing trainings, classes, and events to educate investigators and trainees, and bolstering reproducibility in their communities. Case Presentations: This special report summarizes efforts at five institutions to provide education in reproducibility to biomedical and life sciences researchers. Our goal is to expand awareness of the range of approaches in providing reproducibility services in libraries. Conclusions: Reproducibility education by medical librarians can take many forms. These specific programs in reproducibility education build upon libraries' existing collaborations, with funder mandates providing a major impetus. Collaborator needs shaped the exact type of educational or other reproducibility support and combined with each library's strengths to yield a diversity of offerings based on capacity and interest. As demand for and complexity of reproducibility education increases due to new institutional and funder mandates, reproducibility education will merit special attention.

Retzius-sparing versus standard robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy for the treatment of clinically localized prostate cancer.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of Retzius-sparing (RS) robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP) compared to standard RALP for the treatment of clinically localized prostate cancer. METHODS: We performed a systematic search of multiple databases and the grey literature with no restrictions on the language of publication or publication status, up until June 2020. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing RS-RALP with standard RALP. We performed a meta-analysis using a random-effect model. The quality of evidence was assessed on an outcome basis according to the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. RESULTS: Our search identified six records of five unique RCTs, of which two were published studies, one was in press, and two were abstract proceedings. There were 571 randomized participants, of whom 502 completed the trials. The mean age of participants was 64.6 years and the mean prostate-specific antigen level was 6.9 ng/mL. Approximately 54.2% of participants had cT1c disease, 38.6% had cT2a-b disease, and 7.1% had cT2c disease. RS-RALP probably improves continence within 1 week after catheter removal (risk ratio [RR] 1.74, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.41-2.14; I2 = 0%; studies = 4; participants = 410; moderate-certainty evidence). Assuming 335 per 1000 men undergoing standard RALP are continent at this time point, this corresponds to 248 more men per 1000 (137 more to 382 more) reporting continence recovery. RS-RALP may increase continence at 3 months after surgery compared to standard RALP (RR 1.33, 95% CI 1.06-1.68; I2 = 86%; studies = 5; participants = 526; low-certainty evidence). Assuming 750 per 1000 men undergoing standard RALP are continent at this time point, this corresponds to 224 more men per 1000 (41 more to 462 more) reporting continence recovery. We are very uncertain about the effects of RS-RALP on serious adverse events compared to standard RALP (RR 1.40, 95% CI 0.47-4.17; studies = 2; participants = 230; very low-certainty evidence). CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this review indicate that RS-RALP may result in better continence outcomes than standard RALP up to 6 months after surgery. Continence outcomes at 12 months may be similar. The disadvantages of RS-RALP may be higher positive surgical margin rates. We are very uncertain about the effect on biochemical recurrence-free survival and potency outcomes. Longer-term oncological and functional outcomes are lacking, and no preplanned subgroup analyses could be performed to explore the observed heterogeneity. Surgeons should discuss these trade-offs and the limitations of the evidence with their patients when considering this approach.

Posterior musculofascial reconstruction in robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy for the treatment of clinically localized prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: Delayed recovery of urinary continence is a major adverse effect of robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP) in men undergoing prostate cancer treatment. To address this issue, a number of surgical techniques have been designed to reconstruct the posterior aspect of the rhabdosphincter, which is responsible for urinary continence after removal of the prostate; however, it is unclear how well they work.  OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of posterior musculofascial reconstruction RALP compared to no posterior reconstruction during RALP for the treatment of clinically localized prostate cancer. SEARCH METHODS: We performed a comprehensive search of the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, three other databases, trials registries, other sources of the grey literature, and conference proceedings, up to 12 March 2021. We applied no restrictions on publication language or status. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in which participants were randomized to undergo variations of posterior musculofascial reconstruction RALP versus no posterior reconstruction during RALP for clinically localized prostate cancer. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently classified studies and abstracted data from the included studies. Primary outcomes were: urinary continence recovery within one week after catheter removal, at three months after surgery, and serious adverse events. Secondary outcomes were: urinary continence recovery at six and twelve months after surgery, potency recovery twelve months after surgery, positive surgical margins (PSM), and biochemical recurrence-free survival (BCRFS). We performed statistical analyses using a random-effects model. We rated the certainty of evidence (CoE) according to the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: Our search identified 13 records of eight unique RCTs, of which six were published studies and two were abstract proceedings. We included 1085 randomized participants, of whom 963 completed the trials (88.8%). All participants had either cT1c or cT2 or cT3a disease, with a mean prostate-specific antigen level of 8.15 ng/mL. Primary outcomes Posterior reconstruction RALP (PR-RALP) may improve urinary continence one week after catheter removal compared to no posterior reconstruction during RALP (risk ratio (RR) 1.25, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.90 to 1.73; I2 = 42%; studies = 5, participants = 498; low CoE) although the CI also includes the possibility of no effect. Assuming 335 per 1000 men undergoing standard RALP are continent at this time point, this corresponds to 84 more men per 1000 (33 fewer to 244 more) reporting urinary continence recovery.  Posterior reconstruction may have little to no effect on urinary continence three months after surgery compared to no posterior reconstruction during RALP (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.14; I2 = 67%; studies = 6, participants = 842; low CoE). Assuming 701 per 1000 men undergoing standard RALP are continent at this time point, this corresponds to 14 fewer men per 1000 (112 fewer to 98 more) reporting urinary continence after three months. PR-RALP probably results in little to no difference in serious adverse events compared to no posterior reconstruction during RALP (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.29 to 1.92; I2 = 0%; studies = 6, participants = 835; moderate CoE). Assuming 25 per 1000 men undergoing standard RALP experience a serious adverse event at this time point, this corresponds to six fewer men per 1000 (17 fewer to 23 more) reporting serious adverse events.  Secondary outcomes PR-RALP may result in little to no difference in recovery of continence 12 months after surgery compared to no posterior reconstruction during RALP (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.07; I2 = 25%; studies = 3, participants = 602; low CoE). Assuming 918 per 1000 men undergoing standard RALP are continent at this time point, this corresponds to 18 more men per 1000 (18 fewer to 64 more) reporting urinary continence recovery.  We are very uncertain about the effects of PR-RALP on recovery of potency 12 months after surgery compared to no posterior reconstruction during RALP (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.26; I2 = 3%; studies = 2, participants = 308; very low CoE). Assuming 433 per 1000 men undergoing standard RALP are potent at this time point, this corresponds to nine more men per 1000 (78 fewer to 113 more) reporting potency recovery.  PR-RALP may result in little to no difference in positive surgical margins compared to no posterior reconstruction during RALP (RR 1.24, 95% CI 0.65 to 2.33; I2 = 50%; studies = 3, participants = 517; low CoE). Assuming 130 per 1000 men undergoing standard RALP have a positive surgical margin, this corresponds to 31 more men per 1000 (46 fewer to 173 more) reporting positive surgical margins.  PR-RALP may result in little to no difference in biochemical recurrence compared to no posterior reconstruction during RALP (RR 1.36, 95% CI 0.74 to 2.52; I2 = 0%; studies = 2, participants = 468; low CoE). Assuming 70 per 1000 men undergoing standard RALP have experienced biochemical recurrence at this time point, this corresponds to 25 more men per 1000 (18 fewer to 107 more) reporting biochemical recurrence.  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review found evidence that PR-RALP may improve early continence one week after catheter removal but not thereafter. Meanwhile, adverse event rates are probably not impacted and surgical margins rates are likely similar. This review was unable to determine if or how these findings may be impacted by the person's age, nerve-sparing status, or clinical stage. Study limitations, imprecision, and inconsistency lowered the certainty of evidence for the outcomes assessed.

The efficacy of mobile health interventions used to manage acute or chronic pain: A systematic review.

Chronic pain is a significant health issue that affects approximately 50 million adults in the United States. Traditional interventions are not always an effective treatment strategy for pain control. However, the wide adoption of smartphones and the rapid growth of health information technologies over the past decade have created opportunities to use mobile health (mHealth) applications (apps) for pain tracking and self-management. In this PRISMA-compliant systematic review, we assessed the current U.S.-based research on pain-related mHealth apps to describe the app components and determine the efficacy of these interventions for persons with acute or chronic pain. We conducted a comprehensive search of five databases based on methodological guidelines from the Joanna Briggs Institute. We included articles reporting original data on mHealth interventions with pain intensity as a primary or secondary outcome and excluded articles that utilized multimodal interventions. Of the original 4959 articles, only five studies met the eligibility criteria. Most of the interventions included feasibility or pilot studies, and all studies were published between 2015 and 2018. Two of the five studies used visual analog scales. Only two of the studies reported statistically significant pain intensity outcomes, and considerable heterogeneity between the studies limited our ability to generalize findings or conduct a meta-analysis. Research investigating the components and efficacy of pain-related mHealth apps as interventions is an emerging field. To better understand the potential clinical benefits of mHealth apps designed to manage pain, further research is needed.

Retzius-sparing versus standard robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy for the treatment of clinically localized prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: Robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP) is widely used to surgically treat clinically localized prostate cancer. It is typically performed using an approach (standard RALP) that mimics open retropubic prostatectomy by dissecting the so-called space of Retzius anterior to the bladder. An alternative, Retzius-sparing (or posterior approach) RALP (RS-RALP) has been described, which is reported to have better continence outcomes but may be associated with a higher risk of incomplete resection and positive surgical margins (PSM). OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of RS-RALP compared to standard RALP for the treatment of clinically localized prostate cancer. SEARCH METHODS: We performed a comprehensive search of the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, three other databases, trials registries, other sources of the grey literature, and conference proceedings, up to June 2020. We applied no restrictions on publication language or status. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included trials where participants were randomized to RS-RALP or standard RALP for clinically localized prostate cancer. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently classified and abstracted data from the included studies. Primary outcomes were: urinary continence recovery within one week after catheter removal, at three months after surgery, and serious adverse events. Secondary outcomes were: urinary continence recovery six and 12 months after surgery, potency recovery 12 months after surgery, positive surgical margins (PSM), biochemical recurrence-free survival (BCRFS), and urinary and sexual function quality of life. We performed statistical analyses using a random-effects model. We rated the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: Our search identified six records of five unique randomized controlled trials, of which two were published studies, one was in press, and two were abstract proceedings. There were 571 randomized participants, of whom 502 completed the trials. Mean age of participants was 64.6 years and mean prostate-specific antigen was 6.9 ng/mL. About 54.2% of participants had cT1c disease, 38.6% had cT2a-b disease, and 7.1 % had cT2c disease. Primary outcomes RS-RALP probably improves continence within one week after catheter removal (risk ratio (RR) 1.74, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.41 to 2.14; I2 = 0%; studies = 4; participants = 410; moderate-certainty evidence). Assuming 335 per 1000 men undergoing standard RALP are continent at this time point, this corresponds to 248 more men per 1000 (137 more to 382 more) reporting continence recovery. RS-RALP may increase continence at three months after surgery compared to standard RALP (RR 1.33, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.68; I2 = 86%; studies = 5; participants = 526; low-certainty evidence). Assuming 750 per 1000 men undergoing standard RALP are continent at this time point, this corresponds to 224 more men per 1000 (41 more to 462 more) reporting continence recovery. We are very uncertain about the effects of RS-RALP on serious adverse events compared to standard RALP (RR 1.40, 95% CI 0.47 to 4.17; studies = 2; participants = 230; very low-certainty evidence). Secondary outcomes There is probably little to no difference in continence recovery at 12 months after surgery (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.04; I2 = 0%; studies = 2; participants = 222; moderate-certainty evidence). Assuming 982 per 1000 men undergoing standard RALP are continent at this time point, this corresponds to 10 more men per 1000 (29 fewer to 39 more) reporting continence recovery.  We are very uncertain about the effect of RS-RALP on potency recovery 12 months after surgery (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.80; studies = 1; participants = 55; very low-certainty evidence).  RS-RALP may increase PSMs (RR 1.95, 95% CI 1.19 to 3.20; I2 = 0%; studies = 3; participants = 308; low-certainty evidence) indicating a higher risk for prostate cancer recurrence. Assuming 129 per 1000 men undergoing standard RALP have positive margins, this corresponds to 123 more men per 1000 (25 more to 284 more) with PSMs. We are very uncertain about the effect of RS-RALP on BCRFS compared to standard RALP (hazard ratio (HR) 0.45, 95% CI 0.13 to 1.60; I2 = 32%; studies = 2; participants = 218; very low-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Findings of this review indicate that RS-RALP may result in better continence outcomes than standard RALP up to six months after surgery. Continence outcomes at 12 months may be similar. Downsides of RS-RALP may be higher positive margin rates. We are very uncertain about the effect on BCRFS and potency outcomes. Longer-term oncologic and functional outcomes are lacking, and no preplanned subgroup analyses could be performed to explore the observed heterogeneity. Surgeons should discuss these trade-offs and the limitations of the evidence with their patients when considering this approach.

The continued citation of retracted publications in dentistry.

OBJECTIVE: Publications are retracted for many reasons, but the continued use and citation of retracted publications presents a problem for future research. This study investigated retractions in the dental literature to understand the characteristics of retracted publications, the reasons for their retractions, and the nature and context of their citations after retraction. METHODS: In September 2018, the authors identified retracted dentistry publications using the Retraction Watch database. Citations to those publications were retrieved from Scopus and Web of Science. Characteristics of retracted publications and their citations were collected, including study design, reasons for retraction, and nature of citation (positive, negative, or neutral). We used chi-square tests to determine if there were notable differences between retracted publications that were cited following retraction and those that were not, and if there were relationships between the nature of the citation, the study design of the original publication, and its reason for retraction. RESULTS: Of the 136 retracted publications, 84 were cited after retraction. When restricted to English language, 81 retracted publications received citations from 685 publications. Only 5.4% of the citations noted the retracted status of the original publication, while 25.3% of citations were neutral and 69.3% were positive. Animal studies were more likely to be uncited after retraction, while in vitro studies and randomized controlled trials were more likely to be cited. Retracted publications that were cited negatively were more likely to have been retracted due to scientific distortion than those that were cited positively or neutrally. Retracted publications that were cited negatively were also more likely to be observational studies than those cited positively or neutrally. CONCLUSION: Retracted publications in dentistry are continually cited positively following their retraction, regardless of their study designs or reasons for retraction. This indicates that the continued citation of retracted publications in this field cannot be isolated to certain research methods or misconduct but is, instead, a more widespread issue.

Exploring interprofessional collaboration and attitudes of health sciences librarians.

OBJECTIVE: This study assessed health sciences librarians' attitudes toward interprofessional collaboration using the Interdisciplinary Education Perception Scale (IEPS) and gathered information on their involvement with interprofessional activities. METHODS: The authors sent a survey to librarians in the Medical Library Association's (MLA's) Interprofessional Education Special Interest Group and Research Section consisting of the IEPS and questions about their prior and current experiences with interprofessional practice and education (IPE). We compared mean IEPS scores between each MLA group and several other demographic factors to assess differences in attitudes. We also compared librarians' IEPS scores with those of previously published health professional students' IEPS scores and thematically analyzed two open-ended questions. RESULTS: Health sciences librarians' scores on the IEPS indicated positive attitudes toward IPE. There were no statistically significant differences between any group. Health sciences librarians' mean IEPS score was similar to the mean score of health professions students from a prior study. The most commonly reported interprofessional activity was teaching or facilitating learning activities for health professions students; fewer served on committees or engaged in non-curricular activities such as grand rounds and book clubs. CONCLUSION: Health sciences librarians in this study reported positive attitudes toward IPE, in line with the majority of other previously studied health professionals. Years of experience, previous health professional careers, and experience supporting IPE as a librarian had little bearing on the responses to the survey. This suggests that health sciences librarians have positive attitudes toward IPE, regardless of whether they directly support IPE programs or participate in interprofessional activities.

Ureteral stent versus no ureteral stent for ureteroscopy in the management of renal and ureteral calculi.

BACKGROUND: Ureteroscopy combined with laser stone fragmentation and basketing is a common approach for managing renal and ureteral stones. This procedure is associated with some degree of ureteral trauma. Ureteral trauma may lead to swelling, ureteral obstruction, and flank pain and may require subsequent interventions such as hospital admission or secondary ureteral stent placement. To prevent such issues, urologists often place temporary ureteral stents prophylactically, but the value of doing so remains unclear. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of postoperative ureteral stent placement after uncomplicated ureteroscopy. SEARCH METHODS: We performed a comprehensive search using multiple databases (the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, Google Scholar, and Web of Science), trials registries, other sources of grey literature, and conference proceedings, up to 01 February 2019. We applied no restrictions on publication language or status. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included trials in which researchers randomised participants undergoing uncomplicated ureteroscopy to placement of a ureteral stent versus no ureteral stent. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently classified studies and abstracted data from the included studies. We performed statistical analyses using a random-effects model. We rated the certainty of evidence (CoE) according to the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: Primary outcomesStenting may slightly reduce the number of unplanned return visits (16 trials with 1970 participants; very low CoE), but we are very uncertain of this finding.Pain on the day of surgery as measured on a visual analogue scale (scale 0 to 10; higher values reflect more pain) is probably similar (mean difference (MD) 0.32 higher, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.13 lower to 0.78 higher; 4 trials with 346 participants; moderate CoE). Pain on postoperative days 1 to 3 may show little to no difference (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.25 higher, 95% CI 0.32 lower to 0.82 higher; 8 trials with 683 participants; low CoE). On postoperative days 4 to 30, stented participants may experience more pain (8 trials with 903 participants; very low CoE), but we are very uncertain of this finding.Stenting may result in little to no difference in the need for secondary interventions (risk ratio (RR) 1.15, 95% CI 0.39 to 3.33; 10 studies with 1435 participants; low CoE); this corresponds to three more interventions per 1000 participants (95% CI 13 fewer to 48 more).Secondary outcomesStenting may reduce the need for narcotics (7 trials with 830 participants; very low CoE), but we are very uncertain of this finding.Rates of urinary tract infection (UTI) up to 90 days are probably not substantially different (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.51; 10 trials with 1207 participants; moderate CoE); this corresponds to three fewer infections per 1000 participants (95% CI 23 fewer to 29 more).Ureteral stricture rates up to 90 days may be slightly reduced (14 trials with 1625 participants; very low CoE), but we are very uncertain of this finding.Rates of hospital admission may be slightly reduced (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.32 to 1.55; 13 studies with 1647 participants; low CoE). This corresponds to 15 fewer admissions per 1000 participants (95% CI 33 fewer to 27 more). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Findings of this review illustrate the trade-offs of risks and benefits faced by urologists and their patients when it comes to decision-making about stent placement after uncomplicated ureteroscopy for stone disease. We noted that both desirable and undesirable effects were small in absolute terms, with findings based mostly on low and very low CoE. The main issues reducing our confidence in research findings were study limitations (mostly risk of performance and detection bias) and imprecision. We were unable to conduct any of the preplanned subgroup analyses, in particular those based on stone size, stone location, and use of ureteral dilation, which may be important effect modifiers. Given the importance of this question, higher-quality and sufficiently large trials are needed to better inform decision-making.

Implementing and assessing a service to demonstrate public impact of faculty research in news and policy sources.

BACKGROUND: As the need to demonstrate research impact increases, faculty are looking for new ways to show funders, departments, and institutions that their work is making a difference. While traditional metrics such as citation counts can tell one part of this story, these metrics are focused on the academic sphere and often miss the wide-ranging public impact that research can have in areas such as the news or policy documents. CASE PRESENTATION: This case report describes how one library piloted and established the Policy & News Media Impact Service, where librarians generate reports for faculty members of the University of Minnesota Academic Health Center that tracks citations of their research in governmental and organizational policies as well as local, national, and international news media. Workflows of, resources used in, and faculty feedback on the service are described. CONCLUSIONS: This Policy & News Media Impact Service pilot was successful and resulted in the establishment of a permanent service that is available to all departments in the Academic Health Center. Faculty feedback indicated that the service was valuable in demonstrating the public impact of their research.

Desmopressin for treating nocturia in men.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of desmopressin as compared to other interventions in the treatment of nocturia in men. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a comprehensive search using multiple databases and abstract proceedings with no restrictions on the language of publication or publication status, up until August 2017. We included randomised or quasi-randomised trials. Inclusion criteria were men with nocturia defined as one or more voids per night. Two review authors independently examined full-text reports, identified relevant studies, assessed the eligibility of studies for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. We performed statistical analyses using a random-effects model and assessed the quality of the evidence (QoE) according to Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). RESULTS: We included 14 studies with 2 966 randomised men across five comparisons (we did not include one comparison [desmopressin vs behaviour modification] in the abstract due to a lack of data with regard to primary outcomes). Desmopressin vs placebo: based on short-term follow-up (≤3 months), desmopressin may have a similar effect on the number of nocturnal voids (mean difference [MD] -0.46, 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.94 to 0.01; low QoE). We are uncertain about the effect of desmopressin on major adverse events (risk ratio [RR] 0.97, 95% CI: 0.10-9.03; very low QoE). For intermediate-term follow-up (3-12 months), desmopressin may reduce the number of nocturnal voids in an appreciable number of men (MD -0.85, 95% CI: -1.17 to -0.53; low QoE). Desmopressin may result in little or no difference in major adverse events (RR 3.05, 95% CI: 0.13-73.39; low QoE). We found no evidence on quality of life. Desmopressin vs α-blocker (AB): based on short-term follow-up, desmopressin likely has a similar effect on the number of nocturnal voids (MD 0.30, 95% CI: -0.20 to 0.80; moderate QoE) and quality of life (MD 0.00, 95% CI: -0.35 to 0.35; moderate QoE). There were no major adverse events in either study group. Desmopressin plus AB vs AB alone: based on short-term follow-up, combined therapy likely results in a small, unimportant reduction in the number of nocturnal voids (MD -0.47, 95% CI: -0.73 to -0.21; moderate QoE) and quality of life (MD -0.29, 95% CI: -0.51 to -0.07; moderate QoE). The risk of major adverse events may be similar (RR 0.30, 95% CI: 0.01-7.32; low QoE). Desmopressin plus AB vs AB plus an anticholinergic: based on short-term follow-up, combined therapy likely results in little or no difference in the number of nocturnal voids (MD -0.43, 95% CI: -0.97 to 0.11; moderate QoE). We found no evidence on quality of life. There were no major adverse events in either study group. CONCLUSIONS: Desmopressin may reduce the number of nocturnal voids compared to placebo up to 12 months of follow-up without increase in major adverse events. The effect on the number of nocturnal voids is likely similar to that of ABs with very infrequent major adverse events. There appears to be no added benefit in the combined use of an AB or an anticholinergic with desmopressin.

Penile rehabilitation for postprostatectomy erectile dysfunction.

BACKGROUND: Despite efforts to preserve the neurovascular bundles with nerve-sparing surgery, erectile dysfunction remains common following radical prostatectomy. Postoperative penile rehabilitation seeks to restore erectile function but results have been conflicting. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effects of penile rehabilitation strategies in restoring erectile function following radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer. SEARCH METHODS: We performed a comprehensive search of multiple databases (CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase), the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, clinical trial registries (ClinicalTrials.gov, International Clinical Trials Registry Platform) and a grey literature repository (Grey Literature Report) from their inception through to 3 January 2018. We also searched the reference lists of other relevant publications and abstract proceedings. We applied no language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised or quasi-randomised trials with a parallel or cross-over design. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. Two review authors independently screened the literature, extracted data, assessed risk of bias and rated quality of evidence according to GRADE on a per-outcome basis. Primary outcomes were self-reported potency, erectile function measured by validated questionnaires (with potency defined as an International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF-EF) score of 19 or greater and or an IIEF-5 of score of 17 or greater) and serious adverse events. For all quality of life assessments on a continuous scale, higher values indicated better quality of life. MAIN RESULTS: We included eight randomised controlled trials with 1699 participants across three comparisons. This abstract focuses on the primary outcomes of this review only.Scheduled phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors (PDE5I) versus placebo or no treatmentScheduled PDE5I may have little or no effect on short-term (up to 12 months) self-reported potency (risk ratio (RR) 1.13, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.91 to1.41; very low quality evidence), which corresponds to 47 more men with self-reported potency per 1000 (95% CI 33 fewer to 149 more) and short-term erectile function as assessed by a validated instrument (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.55; very low quality evidence), which corresponds to 28 more men per 1000 (95% CI 50 fewer to 138 more), but we are very uncertain of both of these findings. Scheduled PDE5I may result in fewer serious adverse events compared to placebo (RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.94; low quality evidence), though this does not appear biologically plausible and may represent a chance finding. We are also very uncertain of this finding. We found no long-term (longer than 12 months) data for any of the three primary outcomes.Scheduled PDE5I versus on-demand PDE5I Daily PDE5I appears to result in little to no difference in both short-term and long-term (greater than 12 months) self-reported potency (short term: RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.53; long term: RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.67; both very low quality evidence); this corresponds to nine fewer men with self-reported short-term potency per 1000 (95% CI 119 fewer to 166 more) and zero fewer men with self-reported long-term potency per 1000 (95% CI 153 fewer to 257 more). We are very uncertain of these findings. Daily PDE5I appears to result in little to no difference in short-term and long-term erectile function (short term: RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.55; long term; RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.14; both very-low quality evidence), which corresponds to zero men with short-term erectile dysfunction per 1000 (95% CI 80 fewer to 125 more) and 119 fewer men with long-term erectile dysfunction per 1000 (95% CI 239 fewer to 64 more). We are very uncertain of these findings. Scheduled PDE5I may result in little or no effects on short-term adverse events (RR 0.69 95% CI 0.12 to 4.04; very low quality evidence), which corresponds to seven fewer men with short-term serious adverse events (95% CI 18 fewer to 64 more), but we are very uncertain of these findings. We found no long-term data for serious adverse events.Scheduled PDE5I versus scheduled intraurethral prostaglandin E1At short-term follow-up, daily PDE5I may result in little or no effect on self-reported potency (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.79, to 1.52; very low quality evidence), which corresponds to 46 more men per 1000 (95% CI 97 fewer to 241 more). Daily PDE5I may result in a small improvement of erectile function (RR 1.64, 95% CI 0.84 to 3.20; very low quality evidence), which corresponds to 92 more men per 1000 (95% CI 23 fewer to 318 more) but we are very uncertain of both these findings. We found no long-term (longer than 12 months) data for any of the three primary outcomes.We found no evidence for any other comparisons and were unable to perform any of the preplanned subgroup analyses based on nerve-sparing approach, age or baseline erectile function. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Based on mostly very-low and some low-quality evidence, penile rehabilitation strategies consisting of scheduled PDE5I use following radical prostatectomy may not promote self-reported potency and erectile function any more than on demand use.

A qualitative analysis of the information science needs of public health researchers in an academic setting.

OBJECTIVES: The University of Minnesota (UMN) Health Sciences Libraries conducted a needs assessment of public health researchers as part of a multi-institutional study led by Ithaka S+R. The aims of the study were to capture the evolving needs, opportunities, and challenges of public health researchers in the current environment and provide actionable recommendations. This paper reports on the data collected at the UMN site. METHODS: Participants (n=24) were recruited through convenience sampling. One-on-one interviews, held November 2016 to January 2017, were audio-recorded. Qualitative analyses were conducted using NVivo 11 Pro and were based on the principles of grounded theory. RESULTS: The data revealed that a broad range of skill levels among participants (e.g., literature searching) and areas of misunderstanding (e.g., current publishing landscape, open access options). Overall, data management was an afterthought. Few participants were fully aware of the breadth of librarian knowledge and skill sets, although many did express a desire for further skill development in information science. CONCLUSIONS: Libraries can engage more public health researchers by utilizing targeted and individualized marketing regarding services. We can promote open science by educating researchers on publication realities and enhancing our data visualization skills. Libraries might take an institution-wide leadership role on matters of data management and data policy compliance. Finally, as team science emerges as a research priority, we can offer our networking expertise. These support services may reduce the stresses that public health researchers feel in the current research environment.

Desmopressin for treating nocturia in men.

BACKGROUND: Nocturia is the bothersome symptom of awakening one or more times per night to void. Desmopressin is a commonly used medication for treating nocturia. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of desmopressin as compared to other interventions in the treatment of nocturia in men. SEARCH METHODS: We performed a comprehensive search of medical literature with no restrictions on the language of publication or publication status. The date of the latest search of all databases was August 2017. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized or quasi-randomized trials. Inclusion criteria were men with nocturia defined as one or more voids per night. Trials of children, adults with primary or secondary enuresis or underlying distinct disorders were excluded. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently classified studies and abstracted data from the included studies. We performed statistical analyses using a random-effects model and interpreted data according to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. MAIN RESULTS: We included 14 studies with 2966 randomized men across five comparisons. Desmopressin versus placebo: based on short-term follow-up (up to three months), desmopressin may have a similar effect on the number of nocturnal voids (mean difference (MD) -0.46, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.94 to 0.01; low-quality evidence). We are uncertain about the effect of desmopressin on major adverse events at short-term follow-up (risk ratio (RR) 0.97, 95% CI 0.10 to 9.03; very low-quality evidence). For intermediate-term follow-up (three to 12 months), desmopressin may reduce the number of nocturnal voids in an appreciable number of participants (MD -0.85, 95% CI -1.17 to -0.53; low-quality evidence). Desmopressin may result in little or no difference in major adverse events at intermediate-term follow-up (RR 3.05, 95% CI 0.13 to 73.39; low-quality evidence). We found no evidence on quality of life. Subgroup analyses suggest a larger effect with oral, higher-dose formulations of desmopressin and in men with documented nocturnal polyuria. Desmopressin versus behavior modification: there were no data regarding the effect on the number of nocturnal voids, quality of life, or major adverse events. Desmopressin versus alpha-blocker: based on short-term follow-up, desmopressin likely has a similar effect on the number of nocturnal voids (MD 0.30, 95% CI -0.20 to 0.80; moderate-quality evidence) and quality of life (MD 0.00, 95% CI -0.35 to 0.35; moderate-quality evidence). There were no major adverse events in either study group. Desmopressin plus alpha-blocker versus alpha-blocker alone: based on short-term follow-up, combination therapy likely results in a small, unimportant reduction in the number of nocturnal voids (MD -0.47, 95% CI -0.73 to -0.21; moderate-quality evidence) and quality of life (MD -0.29, 95% CI -0.51 to -0.07; moderate-quality evidence). The risk of major adverse events may be similar (RR 0.30, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.32; low-quality evidence). Desmopressin plus alpha-blocker versus alpha-blocker plus an anticholinergic: based on short-term follow-up, combination therapy likely results in little or no difference in the number of nocturnal voids (MD -0.43, 95% CI -0.97 to 0.11; moderate-quality evidence). We found no evidence on quality of life. There were no major adverse events in either study group. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Desmopressin may reduce the number of nocturnal voids in an appreciable number of participants compared to placebo in intermediate-term (three to 12 months) follow-up without increase in major adverse events. We found no evidence to compare its effects to behavior modification. The effect on the number of nocturnal voids is likely similar to that of alpha-blockers short-term with very infrequent major adverse events. There appears to be no added benefit in the combined use of desmopressin with an alpha-blocker or an anticholinergic. The findings of this review were limited by short-term follow-up, study limitations, and imprecision.

Measuring the health literacy of the Upper Midwest.

OBJECTIVES: Health literacy-the ability to obtain, process, and understand basic health information-is a major determinant of an individual's overall health and health care utilization. In this project, the authors examined predictors of health literacy levels, including numeracy and graphic literacy, among an adult population in the Upper Midwest. METHODS: The research was conducted at the Minnesota State Fair. Three previously validated scales were used to assess health literacy: Newest Vital Sign, the General Health Numeracy Test, and questions from Galesic and Garcia-Retamero's Graph Literacy Scale. Demographic information-such as age, educational attainment, zip code, and other potential predictors and modifiers-was collected. Multivariate linear regression was conducted to examine the independent effects of educational attainment, race, ethnicity, gender, and rural or urban location on overall health literacy and scores on each of the individual instruments. RESULTS: A total of 353 Upper Midwest residents completed the survey, with the majority being white, college-educated, and from an urban area. Having a graduate or professional degree or being under the age of 21 were associated with increased health literacy scores, while having a high school diploma or some high school education, being Asian American, or being American Indian/Alaska Native were associated with lower health literacy scores. CONCLUSION: Advanced health literacy skills, including the ability to calculate and compare information, were problematic even in well-educated populations. Understanding numerical and graphical information was found to be particularly difficult, and more research is needed to understand these deficits and how best to address them.

Identification of retracted publications and completeness of retraction notices in public health.

OBJECTIVES: Retraction is intended to be a mechanism to correct the published body of knowledge when necessary due to fraudulent, fatally flawed, or ethically unacceptable publications. However, the success of this mechanism requires that retracted publications be consistently identified as such and that retraction notices contain sufficient information to understand what is being retracted and why. Our study investigated how clearly and consistently retracted publications in public health are being presented to researchers. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: This is a cross-sectional study, using 441 retracted research publications in the field of public health. Records were retrieved for each of these publications from 11 resources, while retraction notices were retrieved from publisher websites and full-text aggregators. The identification of the retracted status of the publication was assessed using criteria from the Committee on Publication Ethics and the National Library of Medicine. The completeness of the associated retraction notices was assessed using criteria from Committee on Publication Ethics and Retraction Watch. RESULTS: Two thousand eight hundred forty-one records for retracted publications were retrieved, of which less than half indicated that the article had been retracted. Less than 5% of publications were identified as retracted through all resources through which they were available. Within single resources, if and how retracted publications were identified varied. Retraction notices were frequently incomplete, with no notices meeting all the criteria. CONCLUSIONS: The observed inconsistencies and incomplete notices pose a threat to the integrity of scientific publishing and highlight the need to better align with existing best practices to ensure more effective and transparent dissemination of information on retractions.

The relationship between methodological quality and the use of retracted publications in evidence syntheses.

BACKGROUND: Evidence syntheses cite retracted publications. However, citation is not necessarily endorsement, as authors may be criticizing or refuting its findings. We investigated the sentiment of these citations-whether they were critical or supportive-and associations with the methodological quality of the evidence synthesis, reason for the retraction, and time between publication and retraction. METHODS: Using a sample of 286 evidence syntheses containing 324 citations to retracted publications in the field of pharmacy, we used AMSTAR-2 to assess methodological quality. We used scite.ai and a human screener to determine citation sentiment. We conducted a Pearson's chi-square test to assess associations between citation sentiment, methodological quality, and reason for retraction, and one-way ANOVAs to investigate association between time, methodological quality, and citation sentiment. RESULTS: Almost 70% of the evidence syntheses in our sample were of critically low quality. We found that these critically low-quality evidence syntheses were more associated with positive statements while high-quality evidence syntheses were more associated with negative citation of retracted publications. In our sample of 324 citations, 20.4% of citations to retracted publications noted that the publication had been retracted. CONCLUSION: The association between high-quality evidence syntheses and recognition of a publication's retracted status may indicate that best practices are sufficient. However, the volume of critically low-quality evidence syntheses ultimately perpetuates the citation of retracted publications with no indication of their retracted status. Strengthening journal requirements around the quality of evidence syntheses may lessen the inappropriate citation of retracted publications.

What Postoperative Nutritional Interventions Lead to Better Outcomes in Fragility Hip Fractures? A Systematic Review.

Background: Fragility hip fracture patients are often malnourished. Nutrition supplementation may help, but it is unclear if supplementation is impactful when considering outcomes. A systematic review of literature examining perioperative nutrition status for older adults experiencing a hip fracture was performed. Methods: We searched Medline, CAB Abstracts and Embase (Ovid); Cochrane Library (Wiley); PubMed; Scopus; Global Index Medicus; Web of Science Core Collection; SPORTDiscus (EBSCO); and clinical trial registries ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO ICTRP from inception to April 2021, incorporating terminology related to nutritional interventions, fragility fractures, and postoperative outcomes. Two investigators reviewed citations for inclusion, extracted nutrition intervention criteria, and categorized hip fragility outcomes. Results: Of 1792 citations, 90 articles underwent full-text screening, and 14 articles were included in the final sample. We identified nutritional interventions and 4 outcomes of interest. 8 studies (n = 649) demonstrated a mean difference of .78 days (CI .34-1.21) in length of stay (LOS) between the nutritional intervention and control groups. Rehabilitation ward stays were discussed in 2 studies demonstrating a non-statistically significant difference. 7 studies (n = 341) reported mortality rates; when pooled there was no statistically significant difference. 5 studies showed data for postoperative infections and 4 studies reported on postoperative urinary tract infections. Pooling of data found a statistically significant result (Relative Risk: .49 [.32, .75], P = .001) with low heterogeneity (I2 = 27%). 4 studies reported urinary tract infections (n = 140) in the intervention group and (n = 121) in the control group with a non-statistically significant result. Grip strength was only reported in two studies but pooling of the data was non-statistically significant. Conclusions: This systematic review highlighted the lack of consensus regarding the type of nutrition interventions available and impact on outcomes of interest including mortality, length of stay, infections, and grip strength for fragility hip fractures in older adults.