An Unusual Trigger of Grover's Disease (GD).

Grover's disease (GD) is a rare skin condition that presents as a pruritic, erythematous papular, or papulovesicular rash. We report a unique case of GD triggered by honeybee stings. An 80-year-old Caucasian male presented with a pruritic papulovesicular rash on his trunk and arms after being stung by honeybees. He had a history of honeybee venom allergy and developed immediate erythema at the sting sites, which progressed over two days. His laboratory tests were unremarkable, including a complete blood count and comprehensive metabolic profile. Despite using oral antihistamines, emollients, and topical steroids, his rash continued to progress onto his neck, face, scalp, and back. A skin biopsy of the rash revealed suprabasilar and intraspinous acantholysis with focal corps ronds and upper dermis lymphocytic infiltrate -- the histopathologic finding of GD. He had failed first-line treatment for GD. However, after five months and significant morbidity, he was successfully treated with systemic steroids, high-potency topical steroids, emollients, and antihistamines for extensive and prolonged GD. This case report highlights honeybee venom as a possible trigger of GD and discusses a potential immune-mediated etiopathogenesis, which can be used to guide further research and management of this rare disease.

An Intra-Operatively Diagnosed Case of Hemorrhagic Cholecystitis in a 43-year-old Patient: Case Report.

BACKGROUND Hemorrhagic cholecystitis is an uncommon occurrence in the setting of gallbladder pathology. It is a rare complication of acute cholecystitis that may have a misleading presentation and workup, making it challenging to diagnose pre-operatively. CASE REPORT We report the case of a 43-year-old female who presented for severe epigastric pain with nausea and vomiting and whose imaging was in favor of acute cholecystitis. The patient was scheduled for laparoscopic cholecystectomy, during which she was found to have hemorrhagic cholecystitis, later confirmed by pathology. CONCLUSIONS Hemorrhagic cholecystitis is an uncommon diagnosis in patients presenting with abdominal pain. The case discussed hereafter was found to have hemorrhagic cholecystitis intra-operatively. Urgent cholecystectomy is crucial in the setting of hemorrhagic cholecystitis due to its possible fatality. This case emphasizes the importance of thinking of hemorrhagic cholecystitis in a patient presenting for what appears to be a severe acute cholecystitis.

A methodological survey identified eight proposed frameworks for the adaptation of health related guidelines.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to identify and describe published frameworks for adaptation of clinical, public health, and health services guidelines. METHODS: We included reports describing methods of adaptation of guidelines in sufficient detail to allow its reproducibility. We searched Medline and EMBASE databases. We also searched personal files, as well manuals and handbooks of organizations and professional societies that proposed methods of adaptation and adoption of guidelines. We followed standard systematic review methodology. RESULTS: Our search captured 12,021 citations, out of which we identified eight proposed methods of guidelines adaptation: ADAPTE, Adapted ADAPTE, Alberta Ambassador Program adaptation phase, GRADE-ADOLOPMENT, MAGIC, RAPADAPTE, Royal College of Nursing (RCN), and Systematic Guideline Review (SGR). The ADAPTE framework consists of a 24-step process to adapt guidelines to a local context taking into consideration the needs, priorities, legislation, policies, and resources. The Alexandria Center for Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines updated one of ADAPTE's tools, modified three tools, and added three new ones. In addition, they proposed optionally using three other tools. The Alberta Ambassador Program adaptation phase consists of 11 steps and focused on adapting good-quality guidelines for nonspecific low back pain into local context. GRADE-ADOLOPMENT is an eight-step process based on the GRADE Working Group's Evidence to Decision frameworks and applied in 22 guidelines in the context of national guideline development program. The MAGIC research program developed a five-step adaptation process, informed by ADAPTE and the GRADE approach in the context of adapting thrombosis guidelines. The RAPADAPTE framework consists of 12 steps based on ADAPTE and using synthesized evidence databases, retrospectively derived from the experience of producing a high-quality guideline for the treatment of breast cancer with limited resources in Costa Rica. The RCN outlines five key steps strategy for adaptation of guidelines to the local context. The SGR method consists of nine steps and takes into consideration both methodological gaps and context-specific normative issues in source guidelines. We identified through searching personal files two abandoned methods. CONCLUSION: We identified and described eight proposed frameworks for the adaptation of health-related guidelines. There is a need to evaluate these different frameworks to assess rigor, efficiency, and transparency of their proposed processes.

Authors of clinical trials reported individual and financial conflicts of interest more frequently than institutional and nonfinancial ones: a methodological survey.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Conflicts of interest (COIs) are increasingly recognized as important to disclose and manage in health research. The objective of this study was to assess the reporting of both financial and nonfinancial COI by authors of randomized controlled trials published in a representative sample of clinical journals. METHODS: We searched Ovid Medline and included a random sample of 200 randomized controlled trials published in 2015 in one of the 119 Core Clinical Journals. We classified COI using a comprehensive framework that includes the following: individual COIs (financial, professional, scholarly, advocatory, personal) and institutional COIs (financial, professional, scholarly, and advocatory). We conducted descriptive and regression analyses. RESULTS: Of the 200 randomized controlled trials, 188 (94%) reported authors' COI disclosures that were available in the main document (92%) and as International Committee of Medical Journal Editors forms accessible online (12%). Of the 188 trials, 57% had at least one author reporting at least one COI; in all these trials, at least one author reported financial COI. Institutional COIs (11%) and nonfinancial COIs (4%) were less commonly reported. References to COI disclosure statements for editors (1%) and medical writers (0%) were seldom present. Regression analyses showed positive associations between reporting individual financial COI and higher journal impact factor (odds ratio [OR] = 1.06, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.02-1.10), larger number of authors (OR = 1.10, 95% CI 1.02-1.20), affiliation with an institution from a high-income country (OR = 16.75, 95% CI 3.38-82.87), and trials reporting on pharmacological interventions (OR = 2.28, 95% CI 1.13-4.62). CONCLUSION: More than half of published randomized controlled trials report that at least one author has a COI. Trial authors report financial COIs more often than nonfinancial COIs and individual COIs more frequently than institutional COIs.

Characteristics of funding of clinical trials: cross-sectional survey and proposed guidance.

OBJECTIVES: To provide a detailed and current characterisation of funding of a representative sample clinical trials. We also aimed to develop guidance for standardised reporting of funding information. METHODS: We addressed the extent to which clinical trials published in 2015 in any of the 119 Core Clinical Journals included a statement on the funding source (eg, whether a not-for-profit organisation was supported by a private-for-profit organisation), type of funding, amount and role of funder. We used a stepwise approach to develop a guidance and an instrument for standardised reporting of funding information. RESULTS: Of 200 trials, 178 (89%) included a funding statement, of which 171 (96%) reported being funded. Funding statements in the 171 funded trials indicated the source in 100%, amount in 1% and roles of funders in 50%. The most frequent sources were governmental (58%) and private-for-profit (40%). Of 54 funding statements in which the source was a not-for-profit organisation, we found evidence of undisclosed support of those from private-for-profit organisation(s) in 26 (48%). The most frequently reported roles of funders in the 171 funded trials related to study design (42%) and data analysis, interpretation or management (41%). Of 139 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) addressing pharmacological or surgical interventions, 29 (21%) reported information on the supplier of the medication or device. The proposed guidance addresses both the funding information that RCTs should report and the reporting process. Attached to the guidance is a fillable PDF document for use as an instrument for standardised reporting of funding information. CONCLUSION: Although the majority of RCTs report funding, there is considerable variability in the reporting of funding source, amount and roles of funders. A standardised approach to reporting of funding information would address these limitations. Future research should explore the implications of funding by not-for-profit organisations that are supported by for-profit organisations.

Methods used in adaptation of health-related guidelines: A systematic survey.

BACKGROUND: Adaptation refers to the systematic approach for considering the endorsement or modification of recommendations produced in one setting for application in another as an alternative to de novo development. OBJECTIVE: To describe and assess the methods used for adapting health-related guidelines published in peer-reviewed journals, and to assess the quality of the resulting adapted guidelines. METHODS: We searched Medline and Embase up to June 2015. We assessed the method of adaptation, and the quality of included guidelines. RESULTS: Seventy-two papers were eligible. Most adapted guidelines and their source guidelines were published by professional societies (71% and 68% respectively), and in high-income countries (83% and 85% respectively). Of the 57 adapted guidelines that reported any detail about adaptation method, 34 (60%) did not use a published adaptation method. The number (and percentage) of adapted guidelines fulfilling each of the ADAPTE steps ranged between 2 (4%) and 57 (100%). The quality of adapted guidelines was highest for the "scope and purpose" domain and lowest for the "editorial independence" domain (respective mean percentages of the maximum possible scores were 93% and 43%). The mean score for "rigor of development" was 57%. CONCLUSION: Most adapted guidelines published in peer-reviewed journals do not report using a published adaptation method, and their adaptation quality was variable.

Reporting of financial and non-financial conflicts of interest by authors of systematic reviews: a methodological survey.

BACKGROUND: Conflicts of interest may bias the findings of systematic reviews. The objective of this methodological survey was to assess the frequency and different types of conflicts of interest that authors of Cochrane and non-Cochrane systematic reviews report. METHODS: We searched for systematic reviews using the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and Ovid MEDLINE (limited to the 119 Core Clinical Journals and the year 2015). We defined a conflict of interest disclosure as the reporting of whether a conflict of interest exists or not, and used a framework to classify conflicts of interest into individual (financial, professional and intellectual) and institutional (financial and advocatory) conflicts of interest. We conducted descriptive and regression analyses. RESULTS: Of the 200 systematic reviews, 194 (97%) reported authors' conflicts of interest disclosures, typically in the main document, and in a few cases either online (2%) or on request (5%). Of the 194 Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews, 49% and 33%, respectively, had at least one author reporting any type of conflict of interest (p=0.023). Institutional conflicts of interest were less frequently reported than individual conflicts of interest, and Cochrane reviews were more likely to report individual intellectual conflicts of interest compared with non-Cochrane reviews (19% and 5%, respectively, p=0.004). Regression analyses showed a positive association between reporting of conflicts of interest (at least one type of conflict of interest, individual financial conflict of interest, institutional financial conflict of interest) and journal impact factor and between reporting individual financial conflicts of interest and pharmacological versus non-pharmacological intervention. CONCLUSIONS: Although close to half of the published systematic reviews report that authors (typically many) have conflicts of interest, more than half report that they do not. Authors reported individual conflicts of interest more frequently than institutional and non-financial conflicts of interest.