Publication Delay of Systematic Reviews in Dentistry: Findings, Implications, and Potential Solutions.

Clinicians, researchers, and policymakers often rely on the available scientific evidence to make strategic decisions. Systematic reviews (SRs) occupy an influential position in the hierarchy of scientific evidence. The findings of wellconducted SRs may provide valuable information to answer specific research questions1,2 and identify existing gaps for future research.3 Therefore, it is of supreme importance that SRs are published promptly, reducing as much as possible the time elapsed between the last date of the search for primary studies and the actual publication date. A study published in 2014 assessed the publication delay of SRs in orthodontics, revealing that the median time interval from the last search to publication was more than 1 year (13.2 months).4 Delays in the publication of SRs or original research articles may depend on author-related factors (eg, timing of resubmission after receiving feedback from reviewers) or journal-related factors (eg, time taken to process a submission).5-7 Regardless of the reasons, clinical recommendations and translation of SR findings may be affected by publication delay. We assessed the extent of publication delay of systematic reviews in dentistry with the purpose of addressing its implications and presenting potential solutions.

Climate change and the prevention of cardiovascular disease.

Climate change is a worsening global crisis that will continue negatively impacting population health and well-being unless adaptation and mitigation interventions are rapidly implemented. Climate change-related cardiovascular disease is mediated by air pollution, increased ambient temperatures, vector-borne disease and mental health disorders. Climate change-related cardiovascular disease can be modulated by climate change adaptation; however, this process could result in significant health inequity because persons and populations of lower socioeconomic status have fewer adaptation options. Clear scientific evidence for climate change and its impact on human health have not yet resulted in the national and international impetus and policies necessary to slow climate change. As respected members of society who regularly communicate scientific evidence to patients, clinicians are well-positioned to advocate on the importance of addressing climate change. This narrative review summarizes the links between climate change and cardiovascular health, proposes actionable items clinicians and other healthcare providers can execute both in their personal life and as an advocate of climate policies, and encourages communication of the health impacts of climate change when counseling patients. Our aim is to inspire the reader to invest more time in communicating the most crucial public health issue of the 21st century to their patients.

Identifying Variability in Mental Models Within and Between Disciplines Caring for the Cardiac Surgical Patient.

BACKGROUND: The cardiac operating room is a complex environment requiring efficient and effective communication between multiple disciplines. The objectives of this study were to identify and rank critical time points during the perioperative care of cardiac surgical patients, and to assess variability in responses, as a correlate of a shared mental model, regarding the importance of these time points between and within disciplines. METHODS: Using Delphi technique methodology, panelists from 3 institutions were tasked with developing a list of critical time points, which were subsequently assigned to pause point (PP) categories. Panelists then rated these PPs on a 100-point visual analog scale. Descriptive statistics were expressed as percentages, medians, and interquartile ranges (IQRs). We defined low response variability between panelists as an IQR ≤ 20, moderate response variability as an IQR > 20 and ≤ 40, and high response variability as an IQR > 40. RESULTS: Panelists identified a total of 12 PPs. The PPs identified by the highest number of panelists were (1) before surgical incision, (2) before aortic cannulation, (3) before cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) initiation, (4) before CPB separation, and (5) at time of transfer of care from operating room (OR) to intensive care unit (ICU) staff. There was low variability among panelists' ratings of the PP "before surgical incision," moderate response variability for the PPs "before separation from CPB," "before transfer from OR table to bed," and "at time of transfer of care from OR to ICU staff," and high response variability for the remaining 8 PPs. In addition, the perceived importance of each of these PPs varies between disciplines and between institutions. CONCLUSIONS: Cardiac surgical providers recognize distinct critical time points during cardiac surgery. However, there is a high degree of variability within and between disciplines as to the importance of these times, suggesting an absence of a shared mental model among disciplines caring for cardiac surgical patients during the perioperative period. A lack of a shared mental model could be one of the factors contributing to preventable errors in cardiac operating rooms.