The practice of medicine forces medical practitioners to make difficult and challenging choices on a daily basis. On the one hand we are obligated to cure with every resource available, while on the other hand we put the patient at risk because our treatments are flawed. To understand the ethics of error in medicine, its moral value, and the effects, error must first be defined. However, definition of error remains elusive, and its incidence has been extraordinarily difficult to quantify. Yet, a health care system that acknowledges error as a consequence of normative ethical practice must create systems to minimize error. Error reduction, in turn, should attempt to decrease patient harm and improve the entire health care system. We discuss a number of ethical and moral considerations that arise from practicing medicine despite anticipated error.
To the Editor,
We carefully read the comments of our respected colleagues Cengiz Beyan and Esin Beyan regarding our article, “An Evaluation of the Different Serum Markers Associated with Mortality in Crimean–Congo Hemorrhagic Fever.”1
We actually investigated many blood parameters in patients with Crimean–Congo hemorrhagic fever (CCHF), including white blood cell counts, hemoglobin, platelet counts, mean platelet volume (MPV), neutrophils, lymphocytes, red cell distribution width (RDW), and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hs-CRP). Statistical analysis was conducted by our col¬leagues who are experts in this field. Statistical analysis revealed a statistically significant difference in the mean values of white blood cell, neutrophil, lymphocyte, hs-CRP, MPV, RDW, MPV-to-platelet count ratio (MPVPCR), and RDW-to-platelet count ratio (RDWPCR) in the survivors versus non-survivors.
Objective: The growing availability of next-generation sequencing technologies has revolutionized medical genetics, facilitating discovery of causative genes in numerous Mendelian disorders. Nevertheless, there are still many undiagnosed cases. We report the experience of the Genetics Institute at Rambam Health Care Campus in rare disease diagnostics using whole-exome sequencing (WES).
Methods: Phenotypic characterization of patients was done in close collaboration with referring physi-cians. We utilized WES analysis for diagnosing families suspected for rare genetic disorders. Bioinformatic analysis was performed in-house using the Genoox analysis platform.
Results: Between the years 2014 and 2017, we studied 34 families. Neurological manifestations were the most common reason for referral (38%), and 55% of families were consanguineous. A definite diagnosis was reached in 21 cases (62%). Four cases (19%) were diagnosed with variants in novel genes. In addition, six families (18%) had strong candidate novel gene discoveries still under investigation. Therefore, the true diagnosis rate is probably even higher. Some of the diagnoses had a significant impact such as alerting the patient management and providing a tailored treatment.
Conclusions: An accurate molecular diagnosis can set the stage for improved patient care and provides an opportunity to study disease mechanisms, which may lead to development of tailored treatments. Data from our genetic research program demonstrate high diagnostic and novel disease-associated or causative gene discovery rates. This is likely related to the unique genetic architecture of the population in Northern Israel as well as to our strategy for case selection and the close collaboration between analysts, geneticists, and clinicians, all working in the same hospital.
This research letter presents our study, which sought to evaluate the differences in the prevalence of self-reported symptoms of depression, anxiety, and loneliness between younger and older generations at the time of the COVID-19 pandemic. Since the younger generation is generally less accustomed to facing and dealing with adversity and illness, we hypothesized that adolescents and younger adults would have a higher prevalence of depression, anxiety, and loneliness as compared to the older generation. It must be emphasized that this survey was conducted during the first COVID-19 lockdown that occurred in Israel from mid-March 2020 to early-May 2020. This was a time when businesses were closed, individuals and families were isolated at home with very limited social contact, and feelings of fear and panic were fueled by the electronic media.
Anti-neutrophil cytoplasmic antibody (ANCA)-associated vasculitis (AAV) is a rare systemic small-vessel disease, with heterogeneous clinical manifestations. While arthralgia and myalgia are common in the disease course, frank myositis is exceedingly rare. Immune-mediated necrotizing myopathy (IMNM) is a subtype of idiopathic inflammatory myopathies (IIMs), characterized by severe myositis. We report herein a case of prominent diffuse myositis with shared features of AAV and IMNM.
Introduction: When authorship disputes arise in academic publishing, research institutions may be asked to investigate the circumstances. We evaluated the association between the prevalence of misattributed authorship and trust in the institution involved.
Methods: We measured trust using a newly validated Opinion on the Institution’s Research and Publication Values (OIRPV) scale (range 1–4). Mayer and Davies’ Organizational Trust for Management Instrument served as control. Association between publication misconduct, gender, institution type, policies, and OIRPV-derived Trust Scores were evaluated.
Results: A total of 197 responses were analyzed. Increased reporting of authorship misconduct, such as gift authorship, author displacement within the authors’ order on the byline, and ghost authorship, were associated with low Trust Scores (P<0.001). Respondents from institutions whose administration had made known (declared or published) their policy on authorship in academic publications awarded the highest Trust Scores (median 3.06, interquartile range 2.25 to 3.56). Only 17.8% favored their administration as the best authority to investigate authorship dispute honestly. Of those who did not list the administration as their preferred option for resolving disputes, 58.6% (95/162) provided a Trust Score <2.5, which conveys mistrust in the institution.
Conclusions: Increased reporting of publication misconducts such as gift authorship, author displacement within the order of the authors’ byline, and ghost authorship was associated with lower Trust Scores in the research institutions. Institutions that made their policies known were awarded the highest Trust Scores. Our results question whether the research institutions’ administrations are the appropriate authority for clarifying author disputes in all cases.
Background: Human papillomavirus HPV is considered to be responsible for 95% of virus-related cancers in many organs. Oropharyngeal carcinoma (OC) is distinguished by the transformation of the healthy epithelium into precancerous cells.
Aim: The current study sought to examine the uneven gene expression of 20 genes among those scanned by microarray for oropharyngeal cancer patients.
Materials and Methods: GSE56142 dataset was extracted from the GEO in NCBI. 24 specimens were evaluated. Gene Ontology (GO), KEGG, and the protein-protein interaction (PPI) were used to depict the biological roles of the genes under investigation using types of software.
Results: Six genes out of 20 in invasive patients had a binding correlation with high expression (PDGFRS, COL6A3, COL1A1, COL3A1, COL2A1, and COL4A1), and only two genes with low expression (CRCT1 and KRT78). The expression levels of 20 genes were examined between patients with OC and head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC). The correlation coefficient between highly expressed genes was statistically significant at the p < 0.05 level.
Conclusions: It is crucial to evaluate the high expression of particular genes as diagnostic tumor markers, particularly in the early stages.
Xenotransplantation represents a viable solution to meet the great need to provide organ donors at a time when there are not enough human organ donors. A lot of clinical studies have focused on using genetically engineered pigs as the prime source for organ transplantation. However, several religions, such as Judaism and Islam, have restrictions on the use of pigs for food or in business. In this article, we review the Jewish perspectives on xenotransplantation. Overall, the preservation of human life trumps most of the potential religious concerns associated with xenotransplantation. However, there are religious nuances related to xenotransplantation that are highlighted here, and that must be addressed by rabbinical scholars.
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.
At the time of writing, in July 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic has already inflicted dramatic international restrictions, including airports closing and limiting international travel. It has been suggested that re-opening of airports should involve and even rely on testing travelers for COVID-19. This paper discusses the methodology of estimating the detection and diagnostic accuracy of COVID-19 tests. It explains the clear distinction between the technical characteristics of the tests, the detection measures, and the diagnostic measures that have clinical and public health implications. It demonstrates the importance of the prevalence of COVID-19 in terms of determining the ability of a test to yield a diagnosis. We explain the methodology of evaluating diagnostic tests, using the predictive summary index (PSI), and the minimum number of tests that need to be performed in order to correctly diagnose one person, which is estimated by 1/PSI. In a population with low prevalence, even a high-sensitivity test may lead to a high percentage of false positive diagnoses, resulting in the need for multiple high-cost tests to achieve a correct diagnosis. Thus, basing a policy for opening airports on diagnostic testing, even with the best test for COVID-19, has some limits.
