HLA and Nasal Polyposis Susceptibility: A Meta-analysis of Worldwide Studies.

OBJECTIVES: Nasal polyposis (NP) is a common and recurrent condition of the sinonasal cavity which has significant impact on patients' quality of life. NP pathophysiology involves a complex interplay of genetic, environmental, and immunological factors. Several studies have explored the association between human leukocyte antigen (HLA) class II alleles and NP, but the results have been conflicting. The aim of this meta-analysis is to investigate the association between HLA class II alleles, specifically HLA-DQA1, HLA-DQB1, and HLA-DRB1and NP risk. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted using electronic databases, including PubMed, Google Scholar, and Cochrane Library, to identify studies investigating the association between HLA class II alleles and NP. Eligible studies were identified by specific inclusion and exclusion criteria. The odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were used to assess the association between HLA class II alleles and NP risk. A random-effects model was used to calculate the pooled OR and corresponding 95% CI, and a study required a heterogeneity assessment value I2 < 25% to be considered for analysis. STUDY DESIGN: Meta-analysis. RESULTS: A total of four studies were included in this meta-analysis, involving a total of 258 NP alleles and 802 control alleles. The analysis indicated that DQA1*0201 (OR = 3.08, 95% CI [1.70, 5.59]) and DRB1*7 (OR = 2.04, 95% CI [1.14, 3.66]) were significantly associated with increased risk of NP. The analysis of the NP risk alleles DQA1*0201 and DRB1*7 had an I2 < 0% representing low heterogeneity. Sensitivity analysis with LFK indices showed minor asymmetry in either allele. CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis provides evidence that the HLA-DQA1*0201 and HLA-DRB1*7 alleles are risk factors for the development of NP. These findings could contribute to a better understanding of the genetic predisposition of NP and may have implications for the development of novel approaches for the prevention and treatment of this condition.

Retracted Publications in Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery: What Mistakes Are Being Made?

Objectives: Retraction of publications is critical to maintaining scientific integrity, yet there is a lack of research on its occurrence in Otolaryngology. This study investigates characteristics, trends, and reasons for retraction of publications in otolaryngology journals. Study Design: Bibliometric analysis. Setting: PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science. Methods: A PubMed search for publications retracted during 1990 to 2022 from the top 60 journals with the subject "Otorhinolaryngology" using Scopus' CiteScore was performed. Publications were excluded if they were not in English, had missing information or did not have available abstracts or full-text. Publication and retraction dates, journal, country of origin, citation counts, journal impact factor (JIF), topic, and reason for retraction were recorded. Pearson correlation coefficients were calculated to identify potential associations in the data. Results: Fifty-three publications were included. The 2020s had the highest number of retractions per year (4.33), with publications being retracted on average, 35 months after initial publication. The most common retracted topic and country of origin were head and neck (26.4%) and China (17.0%), respectively. Most publications were retracted because of plagiarism or duplicate publication (52.8%). Mean citation count was 6.92 ± 8.32 and mean JIF was 2.80 ± 1.35. Citation count was positively associated with months until retraction (r = .432, P = .001). There was no significant correlation between months to retraction and JIF (r = .022, P = .878). Conclusion: The most cited reasons for retraction were plagiarism and duplicate publication. An understanding of the reasons for retraction can better position journals to enforce more meticulous review standards and reduce such publications from being published. Level of Evidence: Level 4.