Women's health claims in modern magazines: information accuracy and the role of experts.

This paper aimed to examine the quality of obstetric and gynecological advice provided to women in a sample of women's magazines, and determine whether the inclusion of expert sources affected the quality of advice. A retrospective content analysis of popular Canadian magazines from January 2019 to 2020 was conducted. An adaptation of the Media Doctor Australia rating tool was used to assess the quality of reporting. Criteria included source, evidence base, benefits presented meaningfully, potential harms mentioned, no evidence of fear-based rhetoric, availability, and cost. Seventy-seven claims were rated, exhibiting a wide variation in quality, evidence base, and inclusion of expert sources. Approximately 55 of 77 health claims cited a medical professional source. A majority of health claims (71%, 54/77) were supported by robust evidence or generally in line with recommendations. The quality of the claims was low and varied widely across magazines. There was no significant association between expert sources and health claim quality. The prevalence of expert sources does not impact the quality of each article, though may increase the reader's confidence in the claim. The overall prevalence of low quality or incomplete information found in this study suggests that women may not be receiving adequate health information from magazine content.

Higher Mortality in Women After Coronary Artery Bypass: Meta-analysis and Bias Analysis of Confounding.

BACKGROUND: Some studies suggest that the observed higher mortality in women compared with men after coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) is due to confounding. Our meta-analysis aimed to (1) summarize the effect of sex on mortality after CABG and (2) identify whether unmeasured confounding likely explains the apparent higher mortality in women. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL databases for studies examining sex and 30-day mortality after CABG. We used random-effects meta-analysis to estimate the summary odds ratio (OR) of mortality in women versus men using (1) unadjusted study results and (2) adjusted study results. Available confounders data from included studies were identified. Using the OR of measured confounders and the risk of death to inform unmeasured confounding effects, we performed bias analysis simulation to correct potential unmeasured confounding in the summary OR. RESULTS: From 7,138 retrieved studies, 112 were included (N = 5,008,262 patients); 25 studies reported adjusted OR (N = 770,450 patients). Overall 30-day mortality was 4.9% in women versus 3.3% in men. The unadjusted summary OR (1.81; 95% confidence interval, 1.72-1.91) and adjusted summary OR (1.40, 95% confidence interval, 1.35-1.45) demonstrated women had an increased risk for 30-day mortality compared with men. Simulations correcting for unmeasured confounding mostly ranged from 1.05 to 1.80, which supports a higher risk for death in women after CABG. CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this review suggest that confounding is unlikely to account for the increased risk for mortality in women after CABG and that biological factors have a causal effect.

Neurological outcomes after traumatic cardiopulmonary arrest: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Despite appropriate care, most patients do not survive traumatic cardiac arrest, and many survivors suffer from permanent neurological disability. The prevalence of non-dismal neurological outcomes remains unclear. OBJECTIVES: The aim of the current review is to summarize and assess the quality of reporting of the neurological outcomes in traumatic cardiac arrest survivors. DATA SOURCES: A systematic review of Embase, Medline, PubMed, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), and ProQuest databases was performed from inception of the database to July 2020. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Observational cohort studies that reported neurological outcomes of patients surviving traumatic cardiac arrest were included. PARTICIPANTS AND INTERVENTIONS: Patients who were resuscitated following traumatic cardiac arrest. STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS: The quality of the included studies was assessed using ROBINS-I (Risk of Bias in Non-Randomized Studies - of Interventions) for observational studies. RESULTS: From 4295 retrieved studies, 40 were included (n=23 644 patients). The survival rate was 9.2% (n=2168 patients). Neurological status was primarily assessed at discharge. Overall, 45.8% of the survivors had good or moderate neurological recovery, 29.0% had severe neurological disability or suffered a vegetative state, and 25.2% had missing neurological outcomes. Seventeen studies qualitatively described neurological outcomes based on patient disposition and 23 studies used standardized outcome scales. 28 studies had a serious risk of bias and 12 had moderate risk of bias. LIMITATIONS: The existing literature is characterized by inadequate outcome reporting and a high risk of bias, which limit our ability to prognosticate in this patient population. CONCLUSIONS OR IMPLICATIONS OF KEY FINDINGS: Good and moderate neurological recoveries are frequently reported in patients who survive traumatic cardiac arrest. Prospective studies focused on quality of survivorship in traumatic arrest are urgently needed. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Systematic review, level IV. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020198482.

Scientific Impact and Clinical Influence: Identifying Landmark Studies in Burns.

Although many reviews describe significant advances in burn care, no studies have yet examined why these papers had such profound impact. Our objective was to identify the most highly cited, as well as the most clinically influential studies in burns, and describe their characteristics, to inform future research in the field. Web of Science was searched using keywords related to burns to identify the 100 most-cited burns papers. Study design, year and journal of publication, and subject of the paper were recorded. A mixed-methods approach was used to identify papers in burn research leading to change in clinical practice. Characteristics of these papers were compared with identify any factors predictive of future citations or clinical influence. The 100 highly cited papers were cited between 159 and 907 times. There was no correlation between total citations and journal impact factor, year of publication, or subject area. Level of evidence did not predict future citations or influence, but may be influenced by evolving research standards. Of 23 clinically influential studies, 6 were not among 100 most-cited. Using papers only from the 100 most-cited list was not sufficient to identify leading researchers in burns. Citation analysis is a beneficial, however not alone sufficient to identify landmark papers, particularly for multidisciplinary fields such as burns.