A Cross-Sectional Study on Inequity and Unmet Needs in Conducting Systematic Reviews (SRMA) and Meta-Analysis Among Medical Students and Junior Doctors.

Background: Systematic reviews and meta-analyses allow a transparent, rigorous, and replicable analysis to summarize the results of multiple related studies and are considered top of the evidence-based medicine study hierarchy. The COVID-19 pandemic has shed light on the unmet educational needs of students worldwide, notably those from underprivileged backgrounds. This cross-sectional study aimed to ascertain students' and junior doctors' attitudes on their current knowledge, confidence and preparedness of appraising and conducting systematic reviews and meta-analysis internationally. Methods: A free online webinar was held in May 2021 by the senior author and a pre-event questionnaire was distributed. Responses collected were used for analysis anonymously to ascertain students' knowledge, experience, and confidence in preparing a systematic review and meta-analysis using a 1-5 Likert scale using IBM SPSS 26.0. Associations were examined using Chi-square and crosstabs analysis. Results: Out of 2004 responses from 104 countries included in the analysis, the majority of delegates were from lower middle-income countries and were not familiar with the PRISMA checklist (59.2% and 81.1% respectively of the total number of participants). The majority had never attended any formal training (83%) and felt their medical institute gave them minimal advice (72.5%) in preparing systematic reviews. Among those who had attended formal training, the proportion was significantly higher in those belonging to high and upper middle-income countries combined (20.3%) than lower and lower-middle-income countries combined (15%). Conclusion: This study highlights gaps that need addressing to enhance the knowledge of medical students and junior doctors performing systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Clear disparities are found in country income and the level of education. Future large-scale studies are needed to understand the rationale of working on online research projects and the opportunities available to medical students and junior doctors that may lead to medical curriculum changes.

Prospective assessment of a critical appraisal teaching programme on medical students' confidence and performance in appraising medical literature.

BACKGROUND: Previous research has demonstrated that medical students have insufficient knowledge of critical appraisal, a fundamental aspect of evidence-based medicine. We aimed to enhance medical students' critical appraisal skills using an innovative mixed-methods programme. METHODS: We designed a 2-day, mixed-methods, national teaching programme, including an interactive lecture and workshop, quiz and viva-style examination. Course efficacy was assessed using pre- and post-course confidence questionnaires and a quiz adapted from the validated Berlin Questionnaire. Data were analysed primarily using Wilcoxon Signed Ranks test. RESULTS: Fifty-nine participants from 17 medical schools completed the programme. Pre- and post-course scores demonstrated significant improvement in confidence (median score 5 vs 8; p < 0.001) and quiz performance (median score 9 vs 13; p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Our study demonstrates the efficacy of a novel mixed-methods programme in teaching medical students about critical appraisal. Implementation of our approach within the undergraduate curriculum should enhance the uptake of these fundamental skills.

A Meta-analysis of Clinical, Patient-Reported Outcomes and Cost of DIEP versus Implant-based Breast Reconstruction.

INTRODUCTION: Comparative data on clinical outcomes and cost of deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) and implant-based reconstruction (IBR) are limited. We conducted a Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis-compliant systematic review and meta-analysis to compare clinical, patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and cost. METHODS: The protocol was published a priori on PROSPERO (CRD42017072557). EMBASE, MEDLINE, Google Scholar, Cochrane Controlled Register of Trials, Science Citation Index, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched from January 1994 to August 2018. Two independent reviewers evaluated the articles for inclusion. Study quality was assessed using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation, and risk of bias (RoB) was assessed using Cochrane's RoB in Nonrandomized Studies of Interventions tool. RESULTS: Out of 6,381 articles screened, 16 were included [unilateral 782 DIEPs, 376 implants; mean age 49 years, follow-up (months): DIEP 29.9; IBR 35.5]. Mean flap loss and fat necrosis rates were 3.97% (SD 4.90) and 9.67% (SD 17.0), respectively. There was no difference in mean length of stay {standard mean difference 0.63 [confidence interval (CI) -9.17 to 10.43]; P =0.90}. The number of reoperations for complications was significantly lower in DIEP versus IBR [SMD -0.29 (CI -0.48 to -0.09); P < 0.01]. There were no randomized controlled trials. Study quality was low with high RoB. One study reported $11,941/Quality-adjusted Life Year incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for DIEP, with higher breast Quality-adjusted Life Year (DIEP 19.5; IBR 17.7) using Breast Questionnaire; 3 studies evaluated cost, favoring DIEP. Two comparative studies evaluating PROs favored DIEP. CONCLUSIONS: DIEP reconstruction maybe more cost-effective and yield superior PROs. However, poor-quality, bias-ridden studies limit the findings. Adequate reporting of core outcome measures is required to minimize reporting bias and facilitate evidence synthesis. Prospective, multicenter, cohort studies using robust patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) tools, evaluating cost-effectiveness and contributing to national/international registries, will facilitate national-level policy and shared decision-making.

In hot water: The impact of burn injuries from hot water bottles - Experience of a UK burns unit and review of the literature.

INTRODUCTION: Hot water bottles (HWBs) are a common domestic item in the UK. Their use is associated with burns injuries, either by contact for prolonged periods with the skin, or through the HWB leaking or bursting. METHODS: We used electronic health records to retrospectively review HWB related burns treated by the Burns Service at Chelsea and Westminster Hospital between January 2017-March 2018. We analysed the mechanism of injury, size and depth of burn, method of treatment and costs associated with HWB burns in our centre. RESULTS: 80 patients sustained HWB burns during this period, with a similar incidence of contact burns (41/80, 51.3%) and scalds (38/80, 47.5%), with one steam burn. The commonest area burnt was the lower limb (40/80, 50%). Most burns had a TBSA of 1% or smaller (50/80, 62.5%). 30 patients had full thickness burns, with 37 in total received operative management. We estimate that the total cost for managing this cohort of patients was over £68,634. CONCLUSIONS: There are a significant proportion of patients presenting with HWB burns that could be prevented, with significant impact on patient morbidity and resource burden on the NHS. Targeted public awareness campaigns are needed to ameliorate these injuries.

The impact of mobile technology on teamwork and communication in hospitals: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: Effective communication is critical to the safe delivery of care but is characterized by outdated technologies. Mobile technology has the potential to transform communication and teamwork but the evidence is currently uncertain. The objective of this systematic review was to summarize the quality and breadth of evidence for the impact of mobile technologies on communication and teamwork in hospitals. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Electronic databases (MEDLINE, PsycINFO, EMBASE, CINAHL Plus, HMIC, Cochrane Library, and National Institute of Health Research Health Technology Assessment) were searched for English language publications reporting communication- or teamwork-related outcomes from mobile technologies in the hospital setting between 2007 and 2017. RESULTS: We identified 38 publications originating from 30 studies. Only 11% were of high quality and none met best practice guidelines for mobile-technology-based trials. The studies reported a heterogenous range of quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-methods outcomes. There is a lack of high-quality evidence, but nonetheless mobile technology can lead to improvements in workflow, strengthen the quality and efficiency of communication, and enhance accessibility and interteam relationships. DISCUSSION: This review describes the potential benefits that mobile technology can deliver and that mobile technology is ubiquitous among healthcare professionals. Crucially, it highlights the paucity of high-quality evidence for its effectiveness and identifies common barriers to widespread uptake. Limitations include the limited number of participants and a wide variability in methods and reported outcomes. CONCLUSION: Evidence suggests that mobile technology has the potential to significantly improve communication and teamwork in hospital provided key organizational, technological, and security challenges are tackled and better evidence delivered.

Protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis on the clinical outcomes and cost of deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flap versus implants for breast reconstruction.

BACKGROUND: Mastectomy in the context of breast malignancy can have a profoundly negative impact on a woman's self-image, impairing personal, sexual and social relationships. The deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flap and implants are the two commonest reconstructive modalities that can potentially overcome this psychological trauma. The comparative data on clinical outcomes and costs of the two modalities is limited. We aim to synthesise the current evidence on DIEP versus implants to establish which is the superior technique for breast reconstruction, in terms of clinical outcomes and cost-effectiveness. METHODS: A comprehensive search will be undertaken of EMBASE, MEDLINE, Google Scholar, CENTRAL and Science citation index databases (1994 up to August 2017) to identify studies relevant for the review. Primary human studies evaluating clinical outcomes and cost of DIEP and implant-based reconstruction in context of breast malignancy will be included. Primary outcomes will be patient satisfaction and cosmetic outcome from patient-reported outcome measures (scores from validated tools, e.g. BREAST-Q tool), complications and cost-analysis. The secondary outcomes will be duration of surgery, number of surgical revisions, length of stay, availability of procedures and total number of clinic visits. DISCUSSION: This will be the first systematic review and meta-analysis in available literature comparing the clinical outcomes and cost-effectiveness of DIEP and implants for breast reconstruction. This review is expected to guide worldwide clinical practice for breast reconstruction. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42017072557 .

Protocol for a systematic review of the efficacy of fat grafting and platelet-rich plasma for wound healing.

BACKGROUND: The use of fat grafting as a reconstructive surgical option is becoming much more common. Adipose-derived stem cells found in fat grafts are believed to facilitate wound healing via differentiation into fibroblasts and keratinocytes and the release of pro-healing growth factors. Several small studies have shown a positive effect of fat grafting in healing of wounds of a variety of aetiologies. When fat is combined with autologous platelet-rich plasma (PRP), there may be enhanced healing effects. This may be due to the pro-angiogenic and anti-inflammatory effects of PRP. We aim to synthesise the current evidence on combination fat grafting and PRP for wound healing to establish the efficacy of this technique. METHODS/DESIGN: We will conduct a comprehensive literature search in the MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, Science Citation Index, and Google Scholar databases (up to July 2017) to identify studies on fat grafting and PRP for wound healing. All primary studies and systematic reviews of these studies will be included, except case reports and case series with fewer than three patients, to evaluate the outcome of fat grafting and PRP on wound healing either on its own or when compared to other studies. Primary outcome measures are expected to be the proportion of total wounds healed at 12 weeks and the average wound healing time (time for 100% re-epithelialisation). Expected secondary outcome measures are the proportion of wounds achieving 50% wound healing, the type of wound benefitting most from fat grafting, economic evaluation, health-related quality of life, and adverse events. Subgroup analysis will be performed for the proportions of wounds healed based on wound aetiology. DISCUSSION: This review will provide robust evidence of the efficacy of fat grafting and PRP for wound healing. This is an emerging technique, and this review is expected to guide clinical practice and ongoing research aimed at improving wound care. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42016049881.