Conflict of interest and funding in health communication on social media: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: To synthesise the available evidence on the reporting of conflicts of interest (COI) by individuals posting health messages on social media, and on the reporting of funding sources of studies cited in health messages on social media. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE (OVID) (2005-March 2022), Embase (2005-March 2022) and Google Scholar (2005-August 2022), supplemented with a review of reference lists and forward citation tracking. DESIGN: Reviewers selected eligible studies and abstracted data in duplicate and independently. We appraised the quality of the included studies using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. We summarised the results in both narrative and tabular formats. We followed the PRISMA 2020 checklist for reporting our study. RESULTS: Of a total of 16 645 retrieved citations, we included 17 eligible studies. The frequency of reporting of conflicts of interest varied between 0% and 60%, but it was mostly low. In addition, a significant proportion, ranging between 15% and 80%, of healthcare professionals using social media have financial relationships with industry. However, three studies assessed the proportion of conflicts of interest of physicians identified through Open Payment Database but not reported by the authors. It was found that 98.7-100% of these relationships with industry are not reported when communicating health-related information. Also, two studies showed that there is evidence of a potential association between COI and the content of posting. No data was found on the reporting of funding sources of studies cited in health messages on social media. CONCLUSIONS: While a significant proportion of healthcare professionals using social media have financial relationships with industry, lack of reporting on COI and undisclosed COI are common. We did not find studies on the reporting of funding sources of studies cited in health messages on social media. TRIAL REGISTRATION: dx.doi.org/10.17504/protocols.io.5jyl8jj4rg2w/v1.

Conflict of interest in the peer review process: A survey of peer review reports.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the extent to which peer reviewers and journals editors address study funding and authors' conflicts of interests (COI). Also, we aimed to assess the extent to which peer reviewers and journals editors reported and commented on their own or each other's COI. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: We conducted a systematic survey of original studies published in open access peer reviewed journals that publish their peer review reports. Using REDCap, we collected data in duplicate and independently from journals' websites and articles' peer review reports. RESULTS: We included a sample of original studies (N = 144) and a second one of randomized clinical trials (N = 115) RCTs. In both samples, and for the majority of studies, reviewers reported absence of COI (70% and 66%), while substantive percentages of reviewers did not report on COI (28% and 30%) and only small percentages reported any COI (2% and 4%). For both samples, none of the editors whose names were publicly posted reported on COI. The percentages of peer reviewers commenting on the study funding, authors' COI, editors' COI, or their own COI ranged between 0 and 2% in either one of the two samples. 25% and 7% of editors respectively in the two samples commented on study funding, while none commented on authors' COI, peer reviewers' COI, or their own COI. The percentages of authors commenting in their response letters on the study funding, peer reviewers' COI, editors' COI, or their own COI ranged between 0 and 3% in either one of the two samples. CONCLUSION: The percentages of peer reviewers and journals editors who addressed study funding and authors' COI and were extremely low. In addition, peer reviewers and journal editors rarely reported their own COI, or commented on their own or on each other's COI.

Low molecular weight heparin in COVID-19: benefits and concerns.

Since its emergence, the COVID-19 pandemic had a dramatic impact on the public health worldwide and it scarred the medical, economical, and social determinants of health. Even after the significant vaccination advances, the disease of SARS-CoV-2 can manifest in severe presentations with life-threatening thromboembolic and multi-organ complications leading to notable morbidity and mortality. Clinicians and researchers are on continuous pursuit of investigating different approaches in the attempt to prevent the infection and minimize its severity. Although the COVID-19's pathophysiology remains relatively unclear, it is well established now that coagulopathy, systemic thrombotic propensity, and a robust immunoinflammatory response are some of the most important determinants of its morbidity and mortality. Accordingly, research efforts have focused on addressing the inflammatory and hematological cascades using available agents to avoid thromboembolic events. Several studies and investigators have emphasized the importance of Low molecular weight heparin (LMWH), namely, Lovenox, in addressing these sequelae of the COVID-19 disease, either prophylactically or therapeutically. This review explores the benefits and concerns of employing LMWH, a widely used anticoagulant, in COVID-19 disease. It delves into Enoxaparin as a molecule, along with its pharmacology, mechanism of action, and clinical uses. It also reviews the current high-quality clinical evidence that highlight the role of enoxaparin in SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Predictors of surgical site infection following reconstructive flap surgery: A multi-institutional analysis of 37,177 patients.

Purpose: Rates of surgical site infection (SSI) following reconstructive flap surgeries (RFS) vary according to flap recipient site, potentially leading to flap failure. This is the largest study to determine predictors of SSI following RFS across recipient sites. Methods: The National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database was queried for patients undergoing any flap procedure from years 2005 to 2020. RFS involving grafts, skin flaps, or flaps with unknown recipient site were excluded. Patients were stratified according to recipient site: breast, trunk, head and neck (H&N), upper and lower extremities (UE&LE). The primary outcome was the incidence of SSI within 30 days following surgery. Descriptive statistics were calculated. Bivariate analysis and multivariate logistic regression were performed to determine predictors of SSI following RFS. Results: 37,177 patients underwent RFS, of whom 7.5% (n = 2,776) developed SSI. A significantly greater proportion of patients who underwent LE (n = 318, 10.7%) and trunk (n = 1,091, 10.4%) reconstruction developed SSI compared to those who underwent breast (n = 1,201, 6.3%), UE (n = 32, 4.4%), and H&N (n = 100, 4.2%) reconstruction (p < .001). Longer operating times were significant predictors of SSI following RFS across all sites. The strongest predictors of SSI were presence of open wound following trunk and H&N reconstruction [adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.82 (1.57-2.11) and 1.75 (1.57-1.95)], disseminated cancer following LE reconstruction [aOR (CI) 3.58 (2.324-5.53)], and history of cardiovascular accident or stroke following breast reconstruction [aOR (CI) 16.97 (2.72-105.82)]. Conclusion: Longer operating time was a significant predictor of SSI regardless of reconstruction site. Reducing operating times through proper surgical planning might help mitigate the risk of SSI following RFS. Our findings should be used to guide patient selection, counseling, and surgical planning prior to RFS.

The use of steroids in treating chylothorax following cardiac surgery in children: a unique perspective.

BACKGROUND: Chylothorax is the accumulation of chyle fluid in the pleural space. The incidence of chylothorax is quite common post-cardiac surgeries in pediatrics especially in Fontan procedures. Although several treatment lines are known for the management of chylothorax, steroids were scarcely reported as a treatment option. We present a unique case of a 4-year-old child who underwent Fontan procedure and suffered a long-term consequence of chylothorax. The chylothorax only fully resolved after introducing corticosteroids as part of her management. METHODS: A literature review about management of chylothorax post-cardiac surgery in children using Ovid Medline (19462021), PubMed, and google scholar was performed. CONCLUSION: Conservative management without additional surgical intervention is adequate in most patients. Additionally, somatostatin can be used with variable success rate. However, a few cases mentioned using steroids in such cases. More research and reporting on the use of steroids in the treatment of chylothorax post-cardiac surgeries in children is needed to prove its effectivity. In this article, we describe a case of chylothorax post-Fontan procedure that supports the use of steroids.

Aspirin in COVID-19: Pros and Cons.

Since its emergence, the COVID-19 pandemic has been ravaging the medical and economic sectors even with the significant vaccination advances. In severe presentations, the disease of SARS-CoV-2 can manifest with life-threatening thromboembolic and multi-organ repercussions provoking notable morbidity and mortality. The pathogenesis of such burdensome forms has been under extensive investigation and is attributed to a state of immune dysfunction and hyperinflammation. In light of these extraordinary circumstances, research efforts have focused on investigating and repurposing previously available agents that target the inflammatory and hematological cascades. Aspirin, due to its well-known properties and multiple molecular targets, and ought to its extensive clinical use, has been perceived as a potential therapeutic agent for COVID-19. Aspirin acts at multiple cellular targets to achieve its anti-inflammatory and anti-platelet effects. Although initial promising clinical data describing aspirin role in COVID-19 has appeared, evidence supporting its use remains fragile and premature. This review explores the notion of repurposing aspirin in COVID-19 infection. It delves into aspirin as a molecule, along with its pharmacology and clinical applications. It also reviews the current high-quality clinical evidence highlighting the role of aspirin in SARS-CoV-2 infection.