Factors associated with successful publication for systematic review protocol registration: an analysis of 397 registered protocols.

BACKGROUND: Meta-analyses are on top of the evidence-based medicine pyramid, yet many of them are not completed after they are begun. Many factors impacting the publication of meta-analysis works have been discussed, and their association with publication likelihood has been investigated. These factors include the type of systematic review, journal metrics, h-index of the corresponding author, country of the corresponding author, funding sources, and duration of publication. In our current review, we aim to investigate these various factors and their impact on the likelihood of publication. A comprehensive review of 397 registered protocols retrieved from five databases was performed to investigate the different factors that might affect the likelihood of publication. These factors include the type of systematic review, journal metrics, h-index of the corresponding author, country of the corresponding author, funding sources, and duration of publication. RESULTS: We found that corresponding authors in developed countries and English-speaking countries had higher likelihoods of publication: 206/320 (p = 0.018) and 158/236 (p = 0.006), respectively. Factors affecting publications are the countries of corresponding author (p = 0.033), whether they are from developed countries (OR: 1.9, 95% CI: 1.2-3.1, p = 0.016), from English-speaking countries (OR: 1.8, 95% CI: 1.2-2.7, p = 0.005), update status of the protocol (OR: 1.6, 95% CI: 1.0-2.6, p = 0.033), and external funding (OR: 1.7, 95% CI: 1.1-2.7, p = 0.025). Multivariable regression retains three variables as significant predictors for the publication of a systematic review: whether it is the corresponding author from developed countries (p = 0.013), update status of the protocol (p = 0.014), and external funding (p = 0.047). CONCLUSION: Being on top of the evidence hierarchy, systematic review and meta-analysis are the keys to informed clinical decision-making. Updating protocol status and external funding are significant influences on their publications. More attentions should be paid to the methodological quality of this type of publication.

Treatment for vestibular schwannoma: Systematic review and single arm meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Vestibular schwannoma is a benign tumor in the schwannoma cells of the 8th cranial nerve. It causes symptoms like tinnitus, vertigo and end up with loss of hearing so the appropriate treatment is very important. There are many treatment techniques including conservative, surgery and radiosurgery. We aimed to systematically review and single arm meta-analysis the different treatment techniques of vestibular schwannoma. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search using thirteen databases including PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science was performed. All clinical trials about treatment vestibular schwannoma were included and single arm meta-analyzed. We assessed the risk of bias using ROBIN-I's tool and scale of Council Australia's Cancer Guidelines Wiki. The protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42018089784) and has been updated on 17 April 2019. RESULTS: A total of 35 clinical trials studies were included in the final analysis. The pooled proportion of stable hearing capability in patients receiving gamma knife radiosurgery (GKRS) was 64% (95% CI: 52%-74%). GKRS favored increased hearing capability 10% (95% CI: 7%-16%). Regarding tumor size, GKRS is the most protective method 53% (95% CI: 37%-69%). Complications occurred most commonly in single fractional linac stereotactic radiosurgery (SFSRT) 37% (95% CI: 12%-72%). CONCLUSION: Our analysis suggested gamma knife radiosurgery could be the most ideal treatment for vestibular schwannoma based on stabilizing hearing capability, increasing hearing capability, decreasing tumor size and complications.

Adult multisystem inflammatory syndrome in a patient who recovered from COVID-19 postvaccination.

Multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children has become a recognised syndrome, whereas a parallel syndrome in adults, multisystem inflammatory syndrome in adults (MIS-A), has not been well defined. Most cases occur several weeks following confirmed or suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection, but none have been reported in association with SARS-CoV-2 vaccines. Here we describe the case of a 22-year-old man, who received the inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccine 6 weeks following a mild COVID-19 infection. He presented after his second dose of the vaccine with a clinical picture of a multisystem inflammatory syndrome-like illness. Additionally, there was laboratory evidence of acute inflammation. The patient's condition markedly improved after initiation of steroids. Whether the vaccine augmented an already-primed immunity from the infection and contributed to the occurrence of MIS-A is difficult to prove. Understanding the pathogenesis of this condition will shed light on this question and entail major implications on treatment and prevention.

Valvular involvement in granulomatosis with polyangiitis: Case report and systematic review of literature.

BACKGROUND: Granulomatosis with polyangiitis (GPA) is a systemic inflammatory condition; however, patients with GPA rarely experience endocardial valve lesions. METHODS: We report a GPA case with tricuspid valve destruction together with a systematic review to highlight the characteristics of all previously reported GPA cases with valvular involvement. RESULTS: Among 36 cases included, the aortic valve was involved in 15 (41.7%) cases while the mitral valve was involved in 9 (25%) subjects. Combined lesion of both aortic and mitral valves was reported in 9 (25%) patients. CONCLUSION: We recommend routine echocardiography examination to rule out any cardiac valve lesion once GPA is suspected.