What should urologists know about Pseudojournals and open access publishing? A narrative review of the literature.

Introduction: The majority of the open access publishing allows the researchers to publish their articles for a fee and at the same time enables the readers to access the research without paying the expensive journal subscription charges. Under the garb of open access publishing, predatory journals run a scam to dupe the researchers of money. This study was conducted to highlight the characteristics of pseudojournals and increase the awareness about their modus operandi. Methods: The email inboxes of 3 academic urologists (APS, AS, and KP) were searched for emails soliciting articles for open access journals. A list of all such journals was compiled. These journals were checked for metrics from the Journal Citation Reports and the Scimago Journal Rankings. All these journals were then cross-checked with the available whitelists and blacklists. Features pointing toward a pseudo journal were identified as red flag signs for these journals and were noted. A literature search was performed on open access publishing and predatory journals, and the salient points were noted. A checklist of red flag signs was compiled. Results: A total of 71 emails soliciting article submissions from 68 journals were received by the three urologists (APS, AS, KP). Of these, 54 were highly suggestive of being a pseudojournal, 5 journals were operating in the gray zone between genuine open access journals and outright predatory journals, and 9 were genuine open access journals. A total of 33 articles on predatory journals were reviewed after the literature search as per the PRISMA guidelines. The red flag signs identified along with the literature review were used to create the SAFEiMAP checklist, which can be used to identify predatory journals. Conclusion: Predatory journals have infiltrated the whitelists, and the indexing databases like PubMed and no blacklist is all-inclusive. Understanding the concept and the types of open access publishing gives the researchers a better idea on how to differentiate fake journals from the genuine ones. Using a checklist will help to identify the red flag signs of such journals and identify those journals that operate in the gray zone.

Comparing a new risk prediction model with prostate cancer risk calculator apps in a Taiwanese population.

PURPOSE: To develop a novel Taiwanese prostate cancer (PCa) risk model for predicting PCa, comparing its predictive performance with that of two well-established PCa risk calculator apps. METHODS: 1545 men undergoing prostate biopsies in a Taiwanese tertiary medical center between 2012 and 2019 were identified retrospectively. A five-fold cross-validated logistic regression risk model was created to calculate the probabilities of PCa and high-grade PCa (Gleason score â‰§ 7), to compare those of the Rotterdam and Coral apps. Discrimination was analyzed using the area under the receiver operator characteristic curve (AUC). Calibration was graphically evaluated with the goodness-of-fit test. Decision-curve analysis was performed for clinical utility. At different risk thresholds to biopsy, the proportion of biopsies saved versus low- and high-grade PCa missed were presented. RESULTS: Overall, 278/1309 (21.2%) patients were diagnosed with PCa, and 181 out of 278 (65.1%) patients had high-grade PCa. Both our model and the Rotterdam app demonstrated better discriminative ability than the Coral app for detection of PCa (AUC: 0.795 vs 0.792 vs 0.697, DeLong's method: P < 0.001) and high-grade PCa (AUC: 0.869 vs 0.873 vs 0.767, P < 0.001). Using a ≥ 10% risk threshold for high-grade PCa to biopsy, our model could save 67.2% of total biopsies; among these saved biopsies, only 3.4% high-grade PCa would be missed. CONCLUSION: Our new logistic regression model, similar to the Rotterdam app, outperformed the Coral app in the prediction of PCa and high-grade PCa. Additionally, our model could save unnecessary biopsies and avoid missing clinically significant PCa in the Taiwanese population.

Prostate Cancer Risk Calculator Apps in a Taiwanese Population Cohort: Validation Study.

BACKGROUND: Mobile health apps have emerged as useful tools for patients and clinicians alike, sharing health information or assisting in clinical decision-making. Prostate cancer (PCa) risk calculator mobile apps have been introduced to assess risks of PCa and high-grade PCa (Gleason score ≥7). The Rotterdam Prostate Cancer Risk Calculator and Coral-Prostate Cancer Nomogram Calculator apps were developed from the 2 most-studied PCa risk calculators, the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) and the North American Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial (PCPT) risk calculators, respectively. A systematic review has indicated that the Rotterdam and Coral apps perform best during the prebiopsy stage. However, the epidemiology of PCa varies among different populations, and therefore, the applicability of these apps in a Taiwanese population needs to be evaluated. This study is the first to validate the PCa risk calculator apps with both biopsy and prostatectomy cohorts in Taiwan. OBJECTIVE: The study's objective is to validate the PCa risk calculator apps using a Taiwanese cohort of patients. Additionally, we aim to utilize postprostatectomy pathology outcomes to assess the accuracy of both apps with regard to high-grade PCa. METHODS: All male patients who had undergone transrectal ultrasound prostate biopsies in a single Taiwanese tertiary medical center from 2012 to 2018 were identified retrospectively. The probabilities of PCa and high-grade PCa were calculated utilizing the Rotterdam and Coral apps, and compared with biopsy and prostatectomy results. Calibration was graphically evaluated with the Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test. Discrimination was analyzed utilizing the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). Decision curve analysis was performed for clinical utility. RESULTS: Of 1134 patients, 246 (21.7%) were diagnosed with PCa; of these 246 patients, 155 (63%) had high-grade PCa, according to the biopsy results. After confirmation with prostatectomy pathological outcomes, 47.2% (25/53) of patients were upgraded to high-grade PCa, and 1.2% (1/84) of patients were downgraded to low-grade PCa. Only the Rotterdam app demonstrated good calibration for detecting high-grade PCa in the biopsy cohort. The discriminative ability for both PCa (AUC: 0.779 vs 0.687; DeLong's method: P<.001) and high-grade PCa (AUC: 0.862 vs 0.758; P<.001) was significantly better for the Rotterdam app. In the prostatectomy cohort, there was no significant difference between both apps (AUC: 0.857 vs 0.777; P=.128). CONCLUSIONS: The Rotterdam and Coral apps can be applied to the Taiwanese cohort with accuracy. The Rotterdam app outperformed the Coral app in the prediction of PCa and high-grade PCa. Despite the small size of the prostatectomy cohort, both apps, to some extent, demonstrated the predictive capacity for true high-grade PCa, confirmed by the whole prostate specimen. Following our external validation, the Rotterdam app might be a good alternative to help detect PCa and high-grade PCa for Taiwanese men.

A Systematic Review on Guidelines and Recommendations for Urology Standard of Care During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

CONTEXT: The first case of the new coronavirus, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV2), was identified in Wuhan, China, in late 2019. Since then, the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak was reclassified as a pandemic, and health systems around the world have faced an unprecedented challenge. OBJECTIVE: To summarize guidelines and recommendations on the urology standard of care during the COVID-19 pandemic. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: Guidelines and recommendations published between November 2019 and April 17, 2020 were retrieved using MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL. This was supplemented by searching the web pages of international urology societies. Our inclusion criteria were guidelines, recommendations, or best practice statements by international urology organizations and reference centers about urological care in different phases of the COVID-19 pandemic. Our systematic review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement. Of 366 titles identified, 15 guidelines met our criteria. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Of the 15 guidelines, 14 addressed emergency situations and 12 reported on assessment of elective uro-oncology procedures. There was consensus on postponing radical prostatectomy except for high-risk prostate cancer, and delaying treatment for low-grade bladder cancer, small renal masses up to T2, and stage I seminoma. According to nine guidelines that addressed endourology, obstructed or infected kidneys should be decompressed, whereas nonobstructing stones and stent removal should be rescheduled. Five guidelines/recommendations discussed laparoscopic and robotic surgery, while the remaining recommendations focused on outpatient procedures and consultations. All recommendations represented expert opinions, with three specifically endorsed by professional societies. Only the European Association of Urology guidelines provided evidence-based levels of evidence (mostly level 3 evidence). CONCLUSIONS: To make informed decisions during the COVID-19 pandemic, there are multiple national and international guidelines and recommendations for urologists to prioritize the provision of care. Differences among the guidelines were minimal. PATIENT SUMMARY: We performed a systematic review of published recommendations on urological practice during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, which provide guidance on prioritizing the timing for different types of urological care.