An audit of bilious vomiting in term neonates referred for pediatric surgical assessment: can we reduce unnecessary transfers?

BACKGROUND: Between 20% and 50% neonates with bilious vomiting are diagnosed with surgical pathology. Distinguishing neonates requiring surgery remains challenging. Our aim was to conduct an audit of term neonates with bilious vomiting referred for assessment to identify characteristics of this cohort and management. Secondary aims were to identify factors predictive of surgical pathology. METHODS: Infants <28 days referred for bilious vomiting from 2011 to 2015 were identified through cross-referencing multiple patient databases. Data obtained included clinical features, laboratory, radiological investigations and management. The sensitivity and specificity of tests were calculated and regression analyses were conducted to identify predictors of surgical pathology. RESULTS: 351 eligible neonates were referred [46% female; mean gestation 39 + 6 weeks (SD 9.2 days); mean birthweight 3469 g (SD 558 g)]. Laboratory results were available for 68.7% patients, 88.9% underwent X-ray and 96.6% contrast studies. 11.7% had a surgical diagnosis [malrotation 4.6% (1.7% with volvulus)]. No single test available in peripheral centers could exclude a surgical diagnosis. In regression analyses, age > 72 h, presence of abdominal distension, raised CRP and abnormal X-ray were statistically significant predictors of surgical pathology, while only the former two were predictive of time-critical surgical pathology. CONCLUSION: 11.7% neonates had surgical pathology, fewer than in previous studies. Only contrast fluoroscopy could exclude surgical pathology and therefore prevent transfer. A more sensitive, widely available test would be required to reduce unnecessary neonatal transfers. TYPE OF STUDY: Prognosis study. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.

A systematic review of the quality of conduct and reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in paediatric surgery.

OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to evaluate quality of conduct and reporting of published systematic reviews and meta-analyses in paediatric surgery. We also aimed to identify characteristics predictive of review quality. BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews summarise evidence by combining sources, but are potentially prone to bias. To counter this, the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) was published to aid in reporting. Similarly, the Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) measurement tool was designed to appraise methodology. The paediatric surgical literature has seen an increasing number of reviews over the past decade, but quality has not been evaluated. METHODS: Adhering to PRISMA guidelines, we performed a systematic review with a priori design to identify systematic reviews and meta-analyses of interventions in paediatric surgery. From 01/2010 to 06/2016, we searched: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane, Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, Web of Science, Google Scholar, reference lists and journals. Two reviewers independently selected studies and extracted data. We assessed conduct and reporting using AMSTAR and PRISMA. Scores were calculated as the sum of reported items. We also extracted author, journal and article characteristics, and used them in exploratory analysis to determine which variables predict quality. RESULTS: 112 articles fulfilled eligibility criteria (53 systematic reviews; 59 meta-analyses). Overall, 68% AMSTAR and 56.8% PRISMA items were reported adequately. Poorest scores were identified with regards a priori design, inclusion of structured summaries, including the grey literature, citing excluded articles and evaluating bias. 13 reviews were pre-registered and 6 in PRISMA-endorsing journals. The following predicted quality in univariate analysis:, word count, Cochrane review, journal h-index, impact factor, journal endorses PRISMA, PRISMA adherence suggested in author guidance, article mentions PRISMA, review includes comparison of interventions and review registration. The latter three variables were significant in multivariate regression. CONCLUSIONS: There are gaps in the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews in paediatric surgery. More endorsement by journals of the PRISMA guideline may improve review quality, and the dissemination of reliable evidence to paediatric clinicians.

A meta-analysis of the risk of boys with isolated cryptorchidism developing testicular cancer in later life.

BACKGROUND: Significant variability exists for the relative risk (RR) of testicular malignancy in isolated cryptorchidism. OBJECTIVE: To perform a meta-analysis to clarify the true magnitude of this risk, allowing clinicians to better counsel patients and their families. SETTING: Secondary research conducted by undergraduate researchers, clinical academics and a clinical statistician. DESIGN, DATA SOURCES, AND METHODS: A search of the English literature was performed for studies relating to testicular cancer and cryptorchidism, published between 1 January 1980 and 31 December 2010, using Embase and Medline databases. 735 papers were identified and analysed by four authors independently in accordance with our inclusion and exclusion criteria. Studies reporting an association between cryptorchidism and subsequent development of testicular malignancy were included. Genetic syndromes or other conditions which predisposed to the development of cryptorchidism were excluded. Pooled estimates and 95% CIs for the RRs were calculated. RESULTS: Nine case-control studies and three cohort studies were selected. The case-control studies included 2281 cases and 4811 controls. Cohort studies included 2 177 941 boys, with a total of 345 boys developing testicular cancer (total length of follow-up was 58 270 679 person-years). The pooled RR was 2.90 (95% CI 2.21 to 3.82) with significant heterogeneity (p<0.00001; I(2)=89%). CONCLUSION: Boys with isolated cryptorchidism are three times more likely to develop testicular cancer. The limitations of this study must be acknowledged, in particular, possible publication bias and the lack of high-quality evidence focusing on the risk of malignancy in boys with isolated cryptorchidism.