A parotid abscess out of control resulting in craniocervical necrotising fasciitis in the context of diabetes mellitus-a case report and review of the literature.

Background: Necrotising fasciitis is an aggressive life-threatening infective process rarely making an appearance in the head and neck region and its development secondary to parotid abscess is exceptionally rare and scarcely reported in the literature. This case report serves to guide otolaryngologists with respect to its recognition and offers an alternative approach to craniocervical necrotising fasciitis with multiple neck explorations, use of antimicrobial impregnated packing enabling delayed reconstruction with lower morbidity. Case Description: A 76-year-old female with a body mass index of 36.2 kg/m2 and a 30-year history of poorly controlled type 2 diabetes mellitus (HbA1c 91 mmol/moL), presented to the outpatient otolaryngology clinic with right sided parotid mass with minimal erythema, hyperglycaemia (19.2 mmol/L) and no cranial neuropathies. However, the aggressive nature of the parotid abscess triggered by group A streptococcus and Staphylococcus epidermidis led to sepsis and extensive non-odontogenic necrotising fasciitis involving the lateral neck mandating multiple surgical debridement and neck explorations, prolonged intravenous antibiotics with interval definitive reconstruction. A cervicofacial rotational sternocleidomastoid flap was utilised to conceal the defect with patient experiencing a remarkable recovery. The patient's immunosuppressive state from poorly controlled diabetes mellitus and multi-lineage cytopenia is likely to have contributed to a prolonged recovery. Conclusions: This case report highlights the significance of repeat explorations and the need to give time for tissue healing as it unlocks options for reconstruction and reduce overall patient morbidity. Bismuth iodoform paraffin paste packing is a valuable tool with this case demonstrating its use an antiseptic and haemostatic agent in necrotising fasciitis and its ability to create an atmosphere to enable tissue healing minimising need for large-scale reconstructions. The absence of crepitus should not discourage the treating clinician from suspecting necrotising fasciitis of the neck. To limit successive cases, early prevention through aggressive control of predisposing systemic conditions including diabetes mellitus is needed. Moreover, when aggressive infections arise, the clinician should investigate for contributing systemic conditions.

Lemierre's Syndrome Secondary to Shoulder Hematoma Complicated by COVID-19: A Case Report.

This case report illustrates a unique presentation of Lemierre's syndrome precipitated by Fusobacterium necrophorum. This case report describes a 20-year-old patient who developed Lemierre's syndrome secondary to a shoulder hematoma and neck abscess with multiple systemic complications in the absence of tonsillitis or oropharyngeal infection. Two weeks prior to presentation, the patient sustained a right shoulder injury and contracted COVID-19. Due to his Lemierre's syndrome, he developed right internal jugular vein and subclavian vein thrombosis, septic lung emboli, right sided Horner's syndrome, disseminated intravascular coagulation, pelvic collection, septic arthritis of pubic symphysis and osteomyelitis of the right pubic bone, and proximal left femoral shaft. The patient received non-operative and operative management to manage his Lemierre's syndrome including surgical drainage, antibiotics, and anticoagulation; he was discharged following an extended hospital stay. This case report highlights a rare presentation of Lemierre's syndrome secondary to a shoulder hematoma in a COVID-19 positive patient, and its potential systemic and life-threatening complications. Its importance is highly relevant in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. Further studies are warranted to explore the effect of preceding COVID-19 infections on the microbiological profile in Lemierre's syndrome.

Assessing the compliance of systematic review articles published in leading dermatology journals with the PRISMA statement guidelines: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Reporting quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses is of critical importance in dermatology because of their key role in informing health care decisions. OBJECTIVE: To assess the compliance of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in leading dermatology journals with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement guidelines. METHODS: This review was carried out in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. Included studies were reviews published across 6 years in the top 4 highest-impact-factor dermatology journals of 2017. Records and full texts were screened independently. Data analysis was conducted with univariate multivariable linear regression. The primary outcome was to assess the compliance of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in leading dermatology journals with the PRISMA statement. RESULTS: A total of 166 studies were included and mean PRISMA compliance across all articles was 73%. Compliance significantly improved over time (ß = .016; P = <.001). The worst reported checklist item was item 5 (reporting on protocol existence), with a compliance of 15% of articles. CONCLUSION: PRISMA compliance within leading dermatology journals could be improved; however, it is steadily improving.

Why apply for an intercalated research degree?

Intercalated degrees are commonly undertaken as part of the medical undergraduate course. In this article, we discuss the advantages and disadvantages of intercalation, along with alternatives that could be considered.

How to study effectively.

The ability to study effectively is an essential part of completing a medical degree. To cope with the vast amount of information and skills needed to be acquired, it is necessary develop effective study techniques. In this article we outline the various methods students can use to excel in upcoming examinations.

Support for reporting guidelines in surgical journals needs improvement: A systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: Evidence-based medicine works best if the evidence is reported well. Past studies have shown reporting quality to be lacking in the field of surgery. Reporting guidelines are an important tool for authors to optimize the reporting of their research. The objective of this study was to analyse the frequency and strength of recommendation for such reporting guidelines within surgical journals. METHODS: A systematic review of the 198 journals within the Journal Citation Report 2014 (surgery category) published by Thomson Reuters was undertaken. The online guide for authors for each journal was screened by two independent groups and results compared. Data regarding the presence and strength of recommendation to use reporting guidelines was extracted. RESULTS: 193 journals were included (as five appeared twice having changed their name). These had a median impact factor of 1.526 (range 0.047-8.327), with a median of 145 articles published per journal (range 29-659), with 34,036 articles published in total over the two-year window 2012-2013. The majority (62%) of surgical journals made no mention of reporting guidelines within their guidelines for authors. Of the 73 (38%) that did mention them, only 14% (10/73) required the use of all relevant reporting guidelines. The most frequently mentioned reporting guideline was CONSORT (46 journals). CONCLUSIONS: The mention of reporting guidelines within the guide for authors of surgical journals needs improvement. Authors, reviewers and editors should work to ensure that research is reported in line with the relevant reporting guidelines. Journals should consider hard-wiring adherence to them.

Preferred reporting of case series in surgery; the PROCESS guidelines.

INTRODUCTION: Case series have been a long held tradition within the surgical literature and are still frequently published. Reporting guidelines can improve transparency and reporting quality. No guideline exists for reporting case series, and our recent systematic review highlights the fact that key data are being missed from such reports. Our objective was to develop reporting guidelines for surgical case series. METHODS: A Delphi consensus exercise was conducted to determine items to include in the reporting guideline. Items included those identified from a previous systematic review on case series and those included in the SCARE Guidelines for case reports. The Delphi questionnaire was administered via Google Forms and conducted using standard Delphi methodology. Surgeons and others with expertise in the reporting of case series were invited to participate. In round one, participants voted to define case series and also what elements should be included in them. In round two, participants voted on what items to include in the PROCESS guideline using a nine-point Likert scale to assess agreement as proposed by the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) working group. RESULTS: In round one, there was a 49% (29/59) response rate. Following adjustment of the guideline with incorporation of recommended changes, round two commenced and there was an 81% (48/59) response rate. All but one of the items were approved by the participants and Likert scores 7-9 were awarded by >70% of respondents. The final guideline consists of an eight item checklist. CONCLUSION: We present the PROCESS Guideline, consisting of an eight item checklist that will improve the reporting quality of surgical case series. We encourage authors, reviewers, editors, journals, publishers and the wider surgical and scholarly community to adopt these.

The SCARE Statement: Consensus-based surgical case report guidelines.

INTRODUCTION: Case reports have been a long held tradition within the surgical literature. Reporting guidelines can improve transparency and reporting quality. However, recent consensus-based guidelines for case reports (CARE) are not surgically focused. Our objective was to develop surgical case report guidelines. METHODS: The CARE statement was used as the basis for a Delphi consensus. The Delphi questionnaire was administered via Google Forms and conducted using standard Delphi methodology. A multidisciplinary group of surgeons and others with expertise in the reporting of case reports were invited to participate. In round one, participants stated how each item of the CARE statement should be changed and what additional items were needed. Revised and additional items from round one were put forward into a further round, where participants voted on the extent of their agreement with each item, using a nine-point Likert scale, as proposed by the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) working group. RESULTS: In round one, there was a 64% (38/59) response rate. Following adjustment of the guideline with the incorporation of recommended changes, round two commenced and there was an 83% (49/59) response rate. All but one of the items were approved by the participants, with Likert scores 7-9 awarded by >70% of respondents. The final guideline consists of a 14-item checklist. CONCLUSION: We present the SCARE Guideline, consisting of a 14-item checklist that will improve the reporting quality of surgical case reports.

How to approach supervisors for research opportunities.

In this article, we use our experiences to provide tips for contacting potential supervisors, what to expect from them and how to approach them for research opportunities. With appropriate planning, you will be surprised by the number of prestigious academics who would be willing for you to join their research group, and to get you involved in a research project.

Nipple sparing versus skin sparing mastectomy: a systematic review protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Breast cancer has a lifetime incidence of one in eight women. Over the past three decades there has been a move towards breast conservation and a focus on aesthetic outcomes while maintaining oncological safety. For some patients, mastectomy is the preferred option. There is growing interest in the potential use of nipple sparing mastectomy (NSM). However, oncological safety remains unproven, and the benefits and indications have not been clearly identified. The objective of this systematic review will be to determine the safety and efficacy of NSM as compared with skin sparing mastectomy (SSM). METHODS AND ANALYSIS: All original comparative studies including; randomised controlled trials, cohort studies and case-control studies involving women undergoing either NSM or SSM for breast cancer will be included. Outcomes are primary-relating to oncological outcomes and secondary-relating to clinical, aesthetic, patient reported and quality of life outcomes. A comprehensive electronic literature search, designed by a search specialist, will be undertaken. Grey literature searches will also be conducted. Eligibility assessment will occur in two stages; title and abstract screening and then full text assessment. Each step will be conducted by two trained teams acting independently. Data will then be extracted and stored in a database with standardised extraction fields to facilitate easy and consistent data entry. Data analysis will be undertaken to explore the relationship between NSM or SSM and preselected outcomes, heterogeneity will be assessed using the Cochrane tests. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This systematic review requires no ethical approval. It will be published in a peer-reviewed journal. It will also be presented at national and international conferences. Updates of the review will be conducted to inform and guide healthcare practice and policy.

Re: "Did you write a protocol before starting your project?".

We read the article "did you write a protocol before starting your project?" by Bando et al. In this letter, we express our opinion regarding the importance of writing protocols prior to starting projects.

A protocol for the development of reporting criteria for surgical case reports: The SCARE statement.

INTRODUCTION: Case reports have specific relevance within the surgical literature. The Case Report Guidelines (CARE) were developed in 2013 to provide a framework to support accuracy in the publication of case reports. As such, they have been adopted by multiple journals. However, they are not tailored to surgery. The objective of this research is to conduct a Delphi consensus exercise amongst experienced case report reviewers and editors to develop the Surgical CAse REport (SCARE) Guidelines. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The CARE statement will be used as the basis for this Delphi consensus exercise. The Delphi questionnaire will be administered via SurveyMonkey and conducted using standard Delphi Methodology. Surgeons and others with significant experience in reviewing case reports will be invited to participate. There is no pre-determined number of Delphi rounds, although the expectation is that at least three will be needed. Initially, interested parties will be invited to contribute further items for consideration. Then, in each subsequent round, the participants will rate the importance of reporting each outcome on a nine-point Likert scale as proposed by the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) working group. This process will also be used to agree standard definitions for the outcomes. DISSEMINATION: This work will be disseminated through publication and will be presented at national and international meetings. The findings will be disseminated to interested parties, and journals will be encouraged to endorse the reporting guideline.