TO THE EDITOR
I read with interest the letter by Klaus Rose et al. regarding the article about delayed diagnosis of severe medical conditions during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic.1 The author stressed the importance of recognizing that delayed presentation of patients, during the COVID-19 pandemic, was not limited to the pediatric population. I agree with this important point, and the article does not claim otherwise. The presented cases are pediatric, given that they took place in a pediatric department, but it is reasonable to assume that adults have faced the same challenges.
We have carefully read and evaluated the letter writ¬ten by Drs Mungmunpuntipantip and Wiwanitkit regarding our article published in the July issue of Rambam Maimonides Medical Journal.
Purpose: This case series analyzed the appropriateness of computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for visualization of rhinoorbitocerebral mucormycosis (ROCM) patterns associated with type 2 diabetes (T2D) post-recovery from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).
Methods: The study included 24 patients with invasive ROCM after having recovered from COVID-19. All patients underwent CT examinations and microbiological and histological verification; 5 patients underwent MRI.
Results: The CT and MRI patterns noted in our patients revealed involvement of skull orbits, paranasal sinuses, large arteries, and optic nerves, with intracranial spread and involvement of the cranial base bones. Using brain scan protocol for CT provided better soft-tissue resolution. We found that extending the MRI protocol by T2-sequence with fat suppression or STIR was better for periantral fat and muscle evaluations.
Conclusion: Computed tomography of the paranasal sinuses is the method of choice for suspected fungal infections, particularly mucormycosis. However, MRI is recommended if there is suspicion of orbital, vascular, or intracranial complications, including cavernous sinus extension. The combination of both CT and MRI enables determination of soft tissue invasion and bony destruction, thereby facilitating the choice of an optimal ROCM treatment strategy. Invasive fungal infections are extremely rare in Europe; most of the related data are provided from India and Middle Eastern or African nations. Hence, this study is notable in its use of only diagnosed ROCM cases in Russia.
In their article “Authorship Disputes in Scholarly Biomedical Publications and Trust in the Research Institution” in the July 2023 issue of RMMJ, Ashkenazi and Olsha examined the association between the prevalence of misattributed authorship and trust in the institution analyzing misconduct in their scholarly publications. The authors, appropriately, include “gift authorship” as one of the three principal deviations from appropriate authorship choices that they examined. In essence, gift or honorary authorship is listing an author on a scholarly publication for which that person’s contribution did not justify assigning authorship. This behavior has become commonplace.
It has been the policy of Rambam Maimonides Medical Journal to limit the number of editorials published. However, silence and standing on the sidelines is not an option in light of the atrocities and inhumanity we witnessed on October 7. The savagery of the Hamas massacre was executed indiscriminately upon children, women, older people (some of whom are Holocaust survivors), infants, and even medical professionals caring for the casualties. Currently, there are about 230 women, men, children, and babies being held hostage by Hamas; among them are cancer patients and others with serious disorders, doctors, and other medical professionals. We cannot rest and must address the plight of our hostages who are being held by terrorists motivated by hatred and showing no respect for life, whether that of their enemies, their own people, or even themselves. ...
The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were elaborated to allow authors of such papers to identify quality articles for inclusion in their scholarly work. However, we have identified several issues that point to an over-reliance on the PRISMA guidelines. Firstly, we question the rigor of implementation by authors and the rigor of verification by peer reviewers and editors, and whether they have screened papers to ensure adherence to the PRISMA guidelines. Secondly, we have identified cases where the PRISMA criteria led to as much as 99.97% of the published literature being ignored, suggesting that valid publications meeting these criteria might be at risk of being ignored. Thirdly, we have noted that exclusion is not only a quantitative problem—it is also a qualitative one, since the screening procedure groups all non-conforming literature into one basket. Fourthly, we have noted that seven copies of the PRISMA guidelines exist. This being the case, which one should be cited? To replace over-reliance on PRISMA screening, we encourage authors, peer reviewers, and editors to publish systematic reviews and meta-analyses that respect the dual criteria of scientific plausibility and diversity of included papers.
Failed surgical treatment of anterior shoulder instability should be treated according to clinical principles similar to primary stabilization by addressing risk factors related to the damaged static glenohumeral stabilizers (labrum, capsule and its components, and bony damage to the humeral head and scapular glenoid). In relatively rare conditions when failed primary surgery involves patients with functionally low demands, conservative treatment by strengthening dynamic muscular stabilizers might be considered; otherwise, surgical revision should be strongly considered aimed at improving quality of life. Although the overall failure rate following primary and revision surgery is expected to be below 4%, it is clear that revision surgery is technically demanding. Therefore, the initial recognition and correction of the exact pathology causing glenohumeral instability is crucial to avoid failure of primary surgery and to facilitate the success of the revision procedure, if necessary.
The coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) epidemic started in late 2019, and was upgraded to a pandemic on March 11, 2020 by the World Health Organization (WHO). Well established epidemiological models have been used over the last few months in an attempt to predict how the virus would spread. The predictions were frightening, and the resulting panic caused many governments to impose lockdowns or other severe restrictions, with lasting effects. This short paper discusses another way of looking at the spread of COVID-19, by focusing on the daily rate of infection, defined as the daily rate of increase in the number of infected persons. It is shown that the daily rate is monotonically decreasing, after a short initial period, in all countries, and that the pattern is similar in all countries. This appears to be a universal phenomenon. Based on these calculations, the April 1, 2020 data for Western Europe were sufficient to predict the beginning of the end of COVID-19 in that region before the end of that month.
The COVID-19 pandemic is different from previous pandemic diseases in many ways. One of them relates to the literature. There is an exponential increase in the number of articles since April 2020. Also, and equally drastic, is how readily available they are to the general reader. It will be interesting to analyze (in the future) if advances in information age have played any significant role in the battle against our current pandemic.
During the past few years, thousands of articles have been published concerning medical cannabis useage. Unfortunately, most publications are case studies or small and poorly designed research projects. In attempting to understand the reasons behind this situation, the obstacles impeding the use of medical cannabis and related research merit more in-depth examination. This editorial looks at some of the issues.
