RESUMO
Background: Lyme carditis (LC) complete heart block (CHB) is typically treated with i.v. antibiotics without requiring permanent pacing. In patients with high degree atrioventricular (AV) block, suspicious index in Lyme carditis (SILC) scoring is highly sensitive for diagnosing LC. Case summary: We present a case of CHB where a permanent pacemaker (PPM) was implanted prior to LC diagnosis. Suspicious index in Lyme carditis score was 2 at the time of exam, indicating a low risk for LC. However, per further discussion at follow-up, his score was retroactively increased to an intermediate risk of 4 and Lyme titres returned positive. An outpatient oral antibiotic regimen was given, and 2 months later, the patient had <0.1% V-pacing on interrogation with a subsequent unremarkable event monitor. The pacemaker was removed after considerations ensuring full conduction recovery. The patient is doing well at follow-up > 1 year. Discussion: Lyme carditis spontaneous resolution of CHB is common. Once safe extraction parameters have been established, it is appropriate to engage patients without ongoing pacer requirements about explantation of their PPM. For CHB patients without clear aetiology, SILC scoring may be a predictive measure to help prevent unnecessary PPM placement in the future.
RESUMO
The study of Neurofibromatosis 1 (NF1) is progressing rapidly. This study aimed to identify historical trends in publications focusing on NF1, to find the top 100 most cited publications on this topic, and to evaluate their level of evidence. This study identifies historical trends in publication regarding NF1 with the aim of providing readers useful information about the areas of research being performed, an educational guide to facilitate novice researchers in conducting effective evidence-based medical research, and unique insight into developments and trends of NF 1 research. This study also evaluates the evidence of highly cited papers on NF1. A search of all databases and journals accessible within Elsevier's Scopus was performed on June 27th, 2020, using combinations of the Boolean queries "Neurofibromatosis 1," "Von Recklinghausen," and "NF1," which yielded 13,599 documents. The top 100 most-cited papers were identified, analyzed, and evaluated for level of evidence. Evidence was assessed using the GRADE guidelines. The top 100 most-cited articles span years 1963-2010 and are published in 50 different journals. The average number of citations per publication was 366.5 (range 189-1527). The most cited article is "Neurofibromatosis: Conference Statement" (Stumpf et al., 1988). In this study, the top 100 most-cited works in NF1 are identified, characterized, and analyzed. This study will serve as a historical point of reference for future research, a jumping point for those unfamiliar with the topic, and an educational foundation for future NF1 specialists and researchers.
RESUMO
OBJECTIVE: Abstracts act as short, efficient sources of new information. This intentional brevity potentially diminishes scientific reliability of described findings. The authors' objective was to 1) determine the proportion of abstracts submitted to the American Association of Neurological Surgeons (AANS) annual meeting that subsequently are published in peer-reviewed journals, 2) assess AANS abstract publications for publication bias, and 3) assess AANS abstract publications for differing results. METHODS: The authors screened all abstracts from the annual 2012 AANS meeting and identified their corresponding full-text publication, if applicable, by searching PubMed/MEDLINE. The abstract and subsequent publication were analyzed for result type (positive or negative) and differences in results. RESULTS: Overall, 49.3% of abstracts were published as papers. Many (18.1%) of these published papers differed in message from their original abstract. Publication bias exists, with positive abstracts being 40% more likely to be published than negative abstracts. The top journals in which the full-text articles were published were Journal of Neurosurgery (13.1%), Neurosurgery (7.3%), and World Neurosurgery (5.4%). CONCLUSIONS: Here, the authors demonstrate that alone, abstracts are not reliable sources of information. Many abstracts ultimately remain unpublished; therefore, they do not attain a level of scientific scrutiny that merits alteration of clinical care. Furthermore, many that are published have differing results or conclusions. In addition, positive publication bias exists, as positive abstracts are more likely to be published than negative abstracts.
