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.
This case study describes the successful short-term outcome of staged minimally invasive pectus excavatum correction and endoscopic mitral valve repair in a patient with severe mitral valve regurgitation and pectus excavatum.
Late-onset nasolacrimal duct obstruction (NLDO) as a result of inflammatory processes causing dacryostenosis is a common entity affecting mostly women. While a few mechanisms have been suggested as contributors to the expression of NLDO, the trigger for the inflammation remains mostly unknown. Familial predilection for this condition has not been previously reported. We present two families with multiple individuals affected with congenital or late-onset NLDO, describe the signs and symptoms of the affected individuals, and explore their medical history for any contributing factors. Family A, spanning four generations, included 7 female patients affected by late-onset NLDO. Family B, spanning two generations, included 8 individuals affected by either congenital or late-onset NLDO. This case series suggests a familial predisposition to NLDO, apparently with an autosomal dominant inheritance pattern. Further studies are needed to elucidate the molecular basis of this genetic predisposition.
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.
To the Editor:
I have followed, with great interest, the passionate debate held between Lichtman, and Ashkenazi and Olsha in Rambam Maimonides Medical Journal. Lichtman put forward a curious and enlightening proposal to offer a fractional value to each author, depending on the value of their relative contribution, with the total amounting to 1, as a way to reduce authorship abuses, such as gift or guest authorship, which are two very prevalent forms of authorship abuses in academic publishing today.
Objective: Medical decision-making is often uncertain. The positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) are conditional probabilities characterizing diagnostic tests and assessing diagnostic interventions in clinical medicine and epidemiology. The PPV is the probability that a patient has a specified disease, given a positive test result for that disease. The NPV is the probability that a patient does not have the disease, given a negative test result for that disease. Both values depend on disease incidence or prevalence, which may be highly uncertain for unfamiliar diseases, epidemics, etc. Probability distributions for this uncertainty are usually unavailable. We develop a non-probabilistic method for interpreting PPV and NPV with uncertain prevalence.
Methods: Uncertainty in PPV and NPV is managed with the non-probabilistic concept of robustness in info-gap theory. Robustness of PPV or NPV estimates is the greatest uncertainty (in prevalence) at which the estimate’s error is acceptable.
Results: Four properties are demonstrated. Zeroing: best estimates of PPV or NPV have no robustness to uncertain prevalence; best estimates are unreliable for interpreting diagnostic tests. Trade-off: robustness increases as error increases; this trade-off identifies robustly reliable error in PPV or NPV. Preference reversal: sometimes sub-optimal PPV or NPV estimates are more robust to uncertain incidence or prevalence than optimal estimates, motivating reversal of preference from the putative optimum to the sub-optimal estimate. Trade-off between specificity and robustness to uncertainty: the robustness increases as test-specificity decreases. These four properties underlie the interpretation of PPV and NPV.
Conclusions: The PPV and NPV assess diagnostic tests, but are sensitive to lack of knowledge that generates non-probabilistic uncertain prevalence and must be supplemented with robustness analysis. When uncertainties abound, as with unfamiliar diseases, assessing robustness is critical to avoiding erroneous decisions.
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.
At the time of writing, in July 2020, the recently emerging SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has attracted major attention to viral diseases, in particular coronaviruses. In spite of alarming molecular evidence, documentation of interspecies transmission in livestock, and the emergence of two new and relatively virulent human coronaviruses within a 10-year period, many gaps remain in the study and understanding of this family of viruses. This paper provides an overview of our knowledge regarding the coronavirus family, while highlighting their key biological properties in the context of our overall understanding of viral diseases.
This review describes cyclooxygenase (COX), which synthesizes prostanoids that play an important role in living things. The authors conducted a national and international literature review on the subject. The COX enzyme uses arachidonic acid to form prostanoids, which play a role in several physiological and pathological conditions. This enzyme has different isoforms, mainly COX-1 and COX-2. The constitutive isoform is COX-1, while COX-2 is the inducible isoform. Both are expressed in different tissues and at different levels, but they may also coexist within the same tissue. Both isoforms show essentially the same mode of action, but their substrates and inhibitors may differ. The COX-1 isoform, which plays a role in the continuation of physiological events, has an increased expression level in various carcinomas, and the COX-2 isoform, which is increased in inflammatory conditions, is typically expressed at low physiological levels in some tissues such as the brain, kidney, and uterus. In addition to investigating the efficacies of the COX-1 and COX-2 isoforms, the discovery of potential new COX enzymes and their effect continues. This review also looks at the roles of the COX enzyme in certain physiological and pathological conditions.
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.
