This review highlights the wide spectrum and high prevalence of pancreatic lesions in vHL. Simple cysts and SCAs are benign, but NETs require careful observation due to their malignant potential.

No abstract

No abstract

Summary Pilot and feasibility studies are preliminary investigations undertaken before a larger study. We hypothesised that only a small proportion of pilot or feasibility studies published in anaesthesia journals were correctly labelled as such. We searched for papers published between 2007 and 2017 in six anaesthesia journals using the text words ‘pilot’ OR ‘feasibility’ and included 266 original articles with 26,682 human participants. Only 34 (12.8%) were correctly labelled as a pilot or feasibility study. They were more likely to: have more median (IQR [range]) participants, 73 (40–130 [4–2716]) vs. 27 (15–60 [2–3305], p < 0.001; report feasibility outcomes, 82.4% vs. 4.3%, p < 0.001; and report an intention to convert, 100% vs. 39.7%, p < 0.001. They were less likely to test the efficacy of the primary outcome, 50% vs. 72.8%, p = 0.009; and report firm clinical conclusions 41.2% vs. 67.7%, p = 0.004. Of the studies published more than 5 years ago, correctly labelled pilot or feasibility studies were more likely to precede a published conversion study, 53.8% vs. 16%, p = 0.004. There was no difference between the number of citations 18 (9–44 [2–216]) vs. 20 (7–47 [0–251]), p = 0.865. These results have important consequences for patients, trialists, researchers and funders. We argue that correctly labelled pilot studies enhance the quality of scientific research by encouraging methodological rigour, ensuring scientific validity and reducing research waste. Authors, reviewers, editors and publishers should ensure they adhere to the contents of the 2016 CONSORT extension for pilot and feasibility studies.

Previous studies of critical care admissions have largely compared patients that have been granted or declined admission. To better understand the decision process itself, our ethnographic approach combined observation of and interviews with critical care physicians in a large English hospital. We observed 30 critical care doctors managing 71 referrals and conducted ten interviews with senior decision-makers to explore the themes raised by our observations. We analysed data using the constant comparative method. We found that the decision to move a patient to critical care was just one way in which the trajectory of critical illness could be modified. When patients were admitted to critical care, it was not always for invasive monitoring or advanced organ support, with some admitted for more general medical and/or nursing care. When patients were declined admission, they were not simply forgotten or left behind; they nevertheless underwent careful assessment and follow-up. Thus, depicting admission or refusal as a binary event is misleading. We suggest that prescriptive admission algorithms are problematic for clinicians, in that they may not take into account the complexity of clinical practice.