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.
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. ...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
