We would like to thank Professor Marshall Lichtman for his letter, his interesting proposal, and using this venue to promote discussion of the topic. Professor Lichtman proposed a numerical calculation for authorship based on the authors’ perceptions of their relative contribution to a scientific publication, an idea also suggested by Jozsef Kovacs. The only limitation imposed by this system is that the total of all authors’ fractional contributions to any one publication equals no more than one. Lichtman’s interesting proposal serves as a disincentive to offer gift authorship to colleagues whose contributions were minimal, if they contributed at all.
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.
Objective: Idiopathic eosinophilic vasculitis has been described in previous case series as a possible manifestation of hypereosinophilic syndrome (HES) in asthma-free patients. A rare disease, it can be classified as an eosinophilic-rich, necrotizing, systemic form of vasculitis that affects vessels of various sizes in these patients. This report shares our experience with the treatment of a patient with eosinophilic vasculitis.
Case Presentation: We present the case of a 45-year-old man who suffered from idiopathic HES manifesting as digital ulcers and peripheral ischemia of both the upper and lower limbs without the involvement of other systems. Diagnosis was made after excluding the primary and secondary causes of eosinophilia. The patient responded well to both corticosteroids and mepolizumab, an interleukin-5 inhibitor, as a corticosteroid-sparing therapy.
Conclusion: Our case of HES-associated vasculitis in an asthma-free patient supports previous reports describing this rare diagnosis of idiopathic eosinophilic vasculitis in recent years. We describe a good response to mepolizumab (interleukin-5 inhibitor) in our patient.
When patients undergoing ventral or incisional hernia repair are reoperated for recurrence with an incidence rate of 16.0% following open repair and 18.8% following minimally invasive repair, it is time for re-evaluation of the real benefit of laparoscopy in ventral hernia repair.
Background and Aims: Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) poses a significant healthcare challenge, characterized by chronic gastrointestinal and extraintestinal symptoms impacting individuals’ well-being. Treatment preferences may vary among patients from different ethnic groups, such as Arab and Jewish Israelis, necessitating tailored approaches.
Methods: A bilingual (Hebrew/Arabic) questionnaire assessing patients’ preferences regarding treatment goals was developed. It was administered online in Israeli IBS Facebook groups, as well as in two hospital gastroenterology clinics.
Results: The study included 267 IBS patients (91 Arabs and 176 Jews). Demographic analysis revealed a higher proportion of females in both groups, with a significantly greater percentage among Jews compared to Arabs (84% versus 64.8%, respectively, P<0.001). The median age was 32 years for both Arabs and Jews (interquartile ranges of 26–42 and 24–62, respectively). Arabs exhibited higher rates of mixed-type IBS and constipation, while Jews had a higher prevalence of predominant diarrhea IBS. Arabs reported more bloating, higher rates of IBS-related comorbidities, and more medication usage. When asked to rate the importance of treatment goals, both populations preferred improvement in abdominal pain, bloating, and regular defecation, while assigning lower importance to improving difficulty in mental and/or physical aspects of intercourse, as well as arthralgia and myalgia. Arab patients assigned lower importance scores to various symptoms compared to their Jewish counterparts.
Conclusion: This study highlights the impact of ethnicity on patients’ treatment goals. Understanding patients’ preferences will enable tailoring an individual approach to each IBS patient.
Dear Editor, ... The recommendation by Roth and Wald to en-force stricter regalia policies and uphold profession-alism at commencements is crucial. However, such measures should be complemented by proactive educational interventions. ...
