Causation in different scientific disciplines: A comparison of standards in occupational medicine and particle physics.

Occupational medical research involves the collection and analysis of data to draw conclusions about the causes and prevention of workplace injuries and diseases. However, there has been criticism that some studies lack rigour in determining causation. This article examines the similarities and differences between occupational medical research and particle physics in terms of their approach to hypothesis testing, statistical methods, and confounder control. The article also explores the use of criteria such as the Bradford Hill criteria to determine causation in occupational medical research. While particle physics is often viewed as a highly rigorous science, occupational medical research also employs rigorous scientific methods to ensure findings are accurate and reliable. However, there is room for improvement in determining causation in occupational medical research, particularly in the use of criteria such as the Bradford Hill criteria to guide the development of more robust studies. It is essential for occupational medical research to adhere to rigorous scientific methods to deliver findings that can help reduce workplace injuries and diseases. The use of criteria such as the Bradford Hill criteria can ensure that the conclusions drawn. Med Pr Work Health Saf. 2023;74(4):333-9.

Step 3: Critically Appraising Evidence: Case-Control Studies.

Critical appraisal of the evidence is the Step 3 in the evidence-based practice (EBP) process. This column, the fourth in a multipart series to describe the critical appraisal process, focuses on the critical appraisal of a case-control study.

Categories of Evidence and Methods in Surgical Decision-Making.

Surgical decision-making is a continuum of judgments that take place during the preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative periods. The fundamental, and most challenging, step is determining whether a patient will benefit from an intervention given the dynamic interplay of diagnostic, temporal, environmental, patient-centric, and surgeon-centric factors. The myriad combinations of these considerations generate a wide spectrum of reasonable therapeutic approaches within the standards of care. Although surgeons may seek evidenced-based practices to support their decision-making, threats to the validity of evidence and appropriate application of evidence may influence implementation. Furthermore, a surgeon's conscious and unconscious biases may additionally determine individual practice.

Step 3: Critically Appraising Evidence: Systematic Review or Metasynthesis of Qualitative Studies.

Critical appraisal of the evidence is the third step in the evidence-based practice (EBP) process. Many questions in nursing cannot be answered using quantitative methods. We often desire a better understanding of people's lived experiences. In the NICU, these questions may be related to the experiences of families or staff. Qualitative research can provide a deeper understanding of lived experiences. This column, the fifth in a multipart series describing the critical appraisal process focuses on the critical appraisal of a systematic review of qualitative studies.

Has anything changed in Evidence-Based Medicine?

The Evidence-Based Medicine (EBM) movement, undoubtably one of the most successful movements in medicine, questions dogma and "clinical authority" and combines the "best available evidence" with clinical expertise and patient values in order to provide the best care for the individual patient. Although since its inception in the 1990s its strong theoretical foundations remain unaltered, a lot has changed in its practical implementation due to the electronic explosion of information and the unprecedented COVID-19 crisis. The purpose of this article is to succinctly provide the reader with an update on the major changes in EBM, including the important most recent ones that were "fast-tracked" due to the COVID-19 challenge.

Recent Levels of Evidence in Otolaryngology Journals.

OBJECTIVE: The development of evidence-based medicine has contributed to improved patient outcomes. This study aims to identify the trends in levels of evidence in otolaryngology journals over time, as represented by the 4 most widely circulated peer-reviewed otolaryngology journals. METHODS: A review of all articles from 2007, 2010, 2013, 2016, and 2019, in 4 major otolaryngology journals. Data points included journal source, year of publication, country of origin, first author sex, and subspecialty category within otolaryngology. Level of evidence was determined based on the study's primary research question and was graded on a scale of 1 (strongest) to 4 (weakest) based on the Oxford Centre of Evidence-based Medicine - Levels of Evidence guideline. Comparison of levels of evidence was performed using Kruskal-Wallis analysis of variance for ordinal data. RESULTS: About 4297 articles were identified over 12 years. The number of research articles remained consistent over the 12 years of this study. Clinical research increased from 78.6% to 85.1%. Female first authorship increased from 20.3% in 2007 to 31.0% in 2019. Of 3558 articles that constituted clinical research from 2007 to 2019, level 1 studies increased from 0.9% to 3.6%, with level 4 studies remaining stable at an overall rate of 60.3%. Randomized controlled trials remained stable at 4.6% of all studies. Systematic reviews increased from 3.2% to 8.4%. CONCLUSION: This article provides an update on the levels of evidence to allow for an honest self-assessment of otolaryngology as a scientific field.

The Quality of Otolaryngology- Head and Neck Surgery Literature over the Last Decade.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the changes in the quality of the Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery (OTOHNS) literature over the last decade, and compare it to other surgical-based fields. METHODS: Based on impact factors, the top eight clinical U.S. OTOHNS journals were selected, and articles were analyzed from 2020 (Oto 2020) and compared to 2010 (Oto 2010). This was done similarly for Neurosurgery, Orthopedic, Ophthalmology, and General Surgery journals in 2020 (non-Oto). To limit bias and account for random variability, the first 10 research articles from each journal in each group were included. Data regarding the study type, level of evidence, use of confidence intervals, and funding source were collected. RESULTS: Based on an a priori power analysis, 160 articles were analyzed for Oto 2010 and Oto 2020. Compared to Oto 2020, Oto 2010 had more level 1 and 2 evidence (12 vs. 4; p = 0.032) and less reporting of confidence intervals (10 vs. 32; p < 0.001). Comparing the top 160 articles from 2020 from Non-Oto and OTOHNS (Oto), Non-Oto had more level 1 and 2 evidence (19 vs. 6; p = 0.0047), more randomized controlled trials (8 vs. 1; p = 0.016), and less reporting of confidence intervals (42 vs. 58; p = 0.009). CONCLUSION: High quality studies remain relatively scarce in the OTOHNS literature. Although reporting of confidence intervals has improved over the last decade, aggregate levels of evidence and extramurally funded studies lag behind other surgical-based fields. Better study design will provide stronger evidence basis, in hopes of improving clinical care. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: N/A Laryngoscope, 133:1853-1856, 2023.

Critically Appraising Evidence, Step 3: Quantitative Evidence-Quasi-Experimental or Nonrandomized Experimental Studies.

Critical appraisal of the evidence is the third step in the evidence-based practice process. This column, the third in a multipart series to describe the critical appraisal process, focuses on critical appraisal of quasi-experimental or nonrandomized experimental studies.

Step 3, Critically Appraising Evidence: Quantitative Evidence-Randomized Controlled Trials.

Critical appraisal of the evidence is the third step in the evidence-based practice process. This column, the third in a multipart series to describe the critical appraisal process, focuses on critical appraisal of randomized control trials.

No Recommendation Is (at Least Presently) the Best Recommendation: An Updating Quality Appraisal of Recommendations on Screening for Scoliosis.

Recommendations addressing screening for scoliosis differ substantially. Systematically developed guidelines are confronted by consensus and opinion-based statements. This paper elaborates on the issue of the standards of development and reporting of current guidelines and recommendation statements, as well as on the methodological quality of the corresponding evidence syntheses. The SORT classification and the AMSTAR 2 tool were used for those purposes, respectively. Publications included in the analysis differed substantially in terms of their methodological quality. Based on the SORT and AMSTAR 2 scores, the 2018 US PSTF recommendation statement and systematic review on screening for scoliosis are trustworthy and high-quality sources of evidence and aid for decision making. The recommendation statement on insufficient evidence to formulate any recommendations is, paradoxically, very informative. Significantly, updated opinion-based position statements supporting screening for scoliosis acknowledged the importance of research evidence as a basis for recommendation formulation and are more cautious and balanced than formerly. Expert opinions, not built on properly presented analyses of evidence, are at odds with evidence-based practice. Nonetheless, contemporary principles of screening programs, especially those addressing people's values and preferences, and the possible harms of screening, remain underrepresented in both research and recommendations addressing screening for scoliosis.

Step 3, Critically Appraising Evidence: Quantitative Evidence-Systematic Reviews or Meta-Analyses.

Critical appraisal of the evidence is the third step in the evidence-based practice process. This column, the second in a multipart series to describe the critical appraisal process, focuses on critical appraisal of systematic reviews or meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials.

The profile of orthopaedic sports medicine publishing in South Africa.

Background: The South African Journal of Sports Medicine (SAJSM) and the South African Orthopaedic Journal (SAOJ) are two open access, peer-reviewed journals which provide ongoing education to the sports medicine community. Objectives: The purpose of this review was to appraise articles with a sports orthopaedic focus published in SAJSM and SAOJ. A secondary aim was to evaluate trends regarding the focus of the articles, levels of evidence, authors' affiliations, and country of origin. Methods: An electronic search of the SAJSM from 1982 to 2021 and SAOJ from 2008 to 2021 was conducted to identify relevant articles. The eligibility of the articles was determined according to the following inclusion criteria: SAJSM articles with reference to musculoskeletal anatomy and/or an injury in any sport, and SAOJ articles focusing specifically on sports, sports teams and low-velocity traumatic injuries in sports people. Results: This study included specific sports orthopaedic articles in SAJSM (n=161) and SAOJ (n=41). The articles originated from 67 institutions in 19 countries. In SAJSM, the majority of articles were published by local authors (n=44, 61%). There was a non-significant difference in the proportion of articles from local and international institutions in SAOJ. In SAJSM, the sports covered most frequently included rugby, cricket, running and soccer, whereas in SAOJ most articles referred to low-velocity injuries. With regard to trend analysis, a significant decline in articles with Level V evidence published by SAJSM was observed (p<0.001). Similarly, articles with Level V evidence published by SAOJ showed a decline, although it was non-significant. Conclusion: The focus of SAJSM in particular is relevant to sports played, injury patterns and the healthcare resources for sports people in South Africa. The level of evidence published by SAJSM has improved significantly over time.

Transmission of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) from pre and asymptomatic infected individuals: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: The role of SARS-Cov-2-infected persons who develop symptoms after testing (presymptomatics) or not at all (asymptomatics) in the pandemic spread is unknown. OBJECTIVES: To determine infectiousness and probable contribution of asymptomatic persons (at the time of testing) to pandemic SARS-CoV-2 spread. DATA SOURCES: LitCovid, medRxiv, Google Scholar, and WHO Covid-19 databases (to 31 March 2021) and references in included studies. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Studies with a proven or hypothesized transmission chain based either on serial PCR cycle threshold readings and/or viral culture and/or gene sequencing, with adequate follow-up. PARTICIPANTS: People exposed to SARS-CoV-2 within 2-14 days to index asymptomatic (at time of observation) infected individuals. INTERVENTIONS: Reliability of symptom and signs was assessed within contemporary knowledge; transmission likelihood was assessed using adapted causality criteria. METHODS: Systematic review. We contacted all included studies' corresponding authors requesting further details. RESULTS: We included 18 studies from a diverse setting with substantial methodological variation (this field lacks standardized methodology). At initial testing, prevalence of asymptomatic cases was 12.5-100%. Of these, 6-100% were later determined to be presymptomatic, this proportion varying according to setting, methods of case ascertainment and population. Nursing/care home facilities reported high rates of presymptomatic: 50-100% (n = 3 studies). Fourteen studies were classified as high risk of, and four studies as at moderate risk of symptom ascertainment bias. High-risk studies may be less likely to distinguish between presymptomatic and asymptomatic cases. Six asymptomatic studies and four presymptomatic studies reported culturing infectious virus; data were too sparse to determine infectiousness duration. Three studies provided evidence of possible and three of probable/likely asymptomatic transmission; five studies provided possible and two probable/likely presymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 transmission. CONCLUSION: High-quality studies provide probable evidence of SARS-CoV-2 transmission from presymptomatic and asymptomatic individuals, with highly variable estimated transmission rates.

Step 3: Critically Appraising Evidence.

Critical appraisal of the evidence is the third step in the evidence-based practice process. This column, the first in a multipart series to describe the critical appraisal process, defines and provides examples of the levels of evidence and tools to begin the appraisal process using a rapid critical appraisal technique.

Recommendations and Associated Levels of Evidence for Statin Use in Primary Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease: A Comparison at Population Level of the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology/Multisociety, US Preventive Services Task Force, Department of Veterans Affairs/Department of Defense, Canadian Cardiovascular Society, and European Society of Cardiology/European Atherosclerosis Society Clinical Practice Guidelines.

BACKGROUND: Despite using identical evidence to support practice guidelines for lipid-lowering treatment in primary prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD), it is unclear to what extent the 2018 American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology/Multisociety, 2016 US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF), 2020 Department of Veterans Affairs/Department of Defense, 2021 Canadian Cardiovascular Society, and 2019 European Society of Cardiology/European Atherosclerosis Society guidelines differ in grading and assigning levels of evidence and classes of recommendations (LOE/class) at a population level. METHODS: We included 7262 participants, aged 45 to 75 years, without history of CVD from the prospective population-based Rotterdam Study. Per guideline, proportions of the population recommended statin therapy by LOE/class, sensitivity and specificity for CVD events, and numbers needed to treat at 10 years were calculated. RESULTS: Mean age was 61.1 (SD 6.9) years; 58.2% were women. American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology/Multisociety, USPSTF, Department of Veterans Affairs/Department of Defense, Canadian Cardiovascular Society, and European Society of Cardiology/European Atherosclerosis Society strongly recommended statin initiation in respective 59.4%, 40.2%, 45.2%, 73.7%, and 42.1% of the eligible population based on high-quality evidence. Sensitivity for CVD events for treatment recommendations supported with strong LOE/class was 86.3% for American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology/Multisociety (IA or IB), 69.4% for USPSTF (USPSTF-B), 74.5% for Department of Veterans Affairs/Department of Defense (strong for), 93.3% for Canadian Cardiovascular Society (strong), and 66.6% for European Society of Cardiology/European Atherosclerosis Society (IA). Specificity was highest for the USPSTF at 45.3% and lowest for European Society of Cardiology/European Atherosclerosis Society at 10.0%. Estimated numbers needed to treat at 10 years for those with the strongest LOE/class were ranging from 20 to 26 for moderate-intensity and 12 to 16 for high-intensity statins. CONCLUSIONS: Sensitivity, specificity, and numbers needed to treat at 10 years for assigned LOE/class varied greatly among 5 CVD prevention guidelines. The level of variability seems to be driven by differences in how the evidence is graded and translated into LOE/class underlying the treatment recommendations by different professional societies. Efforts towards harmonizing evidence grading systems for clinical guidelines in primary prevention of CVD may reduce ambiguity and reinforce updated evidence-based recommendations.

A systematic review and recommendations on the use of plasma EBV DNA for nasopharyngeal carcinoma.

INTRODUCTION: Nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) is an endemic malignancy in Southeast Asia, particularly Southern China. The classical non-keratinising cell type is almost unanimously associated with latent Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) infection. Circulating plasma EBV DNA can be a useful biomarker in various clinical aspects, but comprehensive recommendations and international guidelines are still lacking. We conducted a systematic review of all original articles on the clinical application of plasma EBV DNA for NPC; we further evaluated its strengths and limitations for consideration as standard recommendations. METHODS: The search terms 'nasopharyngeal OR nasopharynx', and 'plasma EBV DNA OR cell-free EBV OR cfEBV' were used to identify full-length articles published up to December 2020 in the English literature. Three authors independently reviewed the article titles, removed duplicates and reviewed the remaining articles for eligibility. RESULTS: A total of 81 articles met the eligibility criteria. Based on the levels of evidence and grades of recommendation assessed, it is worth considering the inclusion of plasma EBV DNA in screening, pre-treatment work-up for enhancing prognostication and tailoring of treatment strategy, monitoring during radical treatment, post-treatment surveillance for early detection of relapse, and monitoring during salvage treatment for recurrent or metastatic NPC. One major limitation is the methodology of measurement requiring harmonisation for consistent comparability. CONCLUSIONS: The current comprehensive review supports the inclusion of plasma EBV DNA in international guidelines in the clinical aspects listed, but methodological issues must be resolved before global application.

Predictive value of spinal bone anomalies for spinal cord abnormalities in patients with anorectal malformations.

AIM: To evaluate the correlation between sacral/vertebral anomalies and spinal cord anomalies (SCA) on MRI, in patients with anorectal malformation (ARM). METHODS: Patients with ARM consecutively treated between January 1999 and August 2019 were included. Radiological imaging of sacrum and spine were retrospectively analyzed and correlated to the presence of SCA at MRI. Fisher's exact test and X2 test were used as appropriate; p<0.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: 348 patients with ARM were enrolled in the study, 147 presented SCA at MRI. 144 patients showed spinal bone anomalies, isolated vertebral and sacral anomalies were found in 17,6% and 35% respectively. Higher level of ARM was associated with a significant higher prevalence of sacral and vertebral anomalies. A significant correlation was found between the "level" of ARM and the presence of SCA (p<0.05). Sacral anomalies were significantly correlated with the presence of SCA at MRI (p<0.05). SCA were found in 70% of patients with vertebral anomalies (VA) and in 76% of patients with sacral anomalies. The presence of multiple malformations (vertebral and sacral anomalies) are strictly related to the presence of SCA. However, the absence of spinal bone anomalies does not exclude the presence of SCA. SD was the most represented type of SCA (n=94/147), of those 96% had fatty filum. Neurological or neurourological symptoms were detected in 11,5% patients (n=17) with SCA and required neurosurgical intervention. CONCLUSIONS: Our data confirm the strong relation between sacral or vertebral anomalies and SCA. However, in our series also patients without sacral/vertebral anomalies had SCA at MRI. Our results suggest that, despite the presence or absence of spinal anomalies, spinal cord MRI should be performed in all children with ARM, to allow a correct multidisciplinary follow-up and treatment. In fact, most patients with spinal bone and SCA are asymptomatic, but could develop clinical manifestations during their growth.