Just over half of STARD criteria are reported in more than 80% studies. As poorly reported studies may negatively impact their clinical usefulness, it is essential that studies of diagnostic test accuracy be performed and reported adequately. Future studies should assess whether studies have improved compliance with the STARD 2015 criteria amendment.

Objective Alternative energy devices have become a popular alternative to conventional hemostasis in thyroid surgery. These devices have been shown to reduce operative time and thermal nerve injury. As hemostasis is paramount in thyroid surgery, we sought to examine the relative efficacy of 2 alternate energy devices compared to conventional hemostasis in preventing postoperative hematoma following total thyroidectomy. Data Sources Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Review Methods A systematic literature search was performed for all relevant English-language studies published between 1946 and July 2018. Two authors independently extracted data and analyzed articles for quality using the National Institute of Health Quality Assessment Scale. Our primary outcome of interest was hematoma requiring reoperation. Results A total of 348 studies were screened, with 23 meeting the inclusion criteria. We found no significant difference in postoperative hematoma rates using alternate energy devices compared to conventional hemostasis ( P = .370, .317). Network meta-analysis echoed the results of conventional meta-analysis, demonstrating no significant difference in hematoma rates. Conclusions We found no significant difference in postoperative hematoma rates following total thyroidectomy for any indication with the use of alternate energy devices compared to conventional hemostatic techniques. This suggests that hematoma occurrence does not necessarily need to be considered when choosing between these hemostatic devices. This information may help guide surgeons’ decisions regarding choice of hemostatic technique during thyroid surgery.

Background Salivary detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has been proposed as an alternative to nasopharyngeal or oropharyngeal swab testing. Our group previously published a study demonstrating that both testing methods identified SARS-CoV-2 using polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-based detection methodology. We therefore conducted a follow-up study using antibody testing to evaluate the accuracy of saliva versus swabs for COVID-19 detection and the durability of antibody response. Methods Venous blood samples were collected from consenting participants and the presence of serum antibodies for SARS-CoV-2 was evaluated on a large, automated immunoassay platform by the Roche anti-SARS-CoV-2 qualitative assay (Roche Diagnostics, Laval Quebec). Individuals with a serum antibody cut-off index (COI) ≥ 1.0 were considered positive. Results In asymptomatic and mildly symptomatic patients with a previously positive standard swab and/or saliva SARS-CoV-2 PCR-test, 42 demonstrated antibodies with 13 patients positive by swab alone, and 8 patients positive by saliva alone. Conclusions Despite their status as ‘current standard’ for COVID-19 testing, these findings highlight limitations of PCR-based tests.

BackgroundThe objective of this study was to examine the utility of postoperative radiation for low and intermediate grade cancers of the parotid and submandibular glands.MethodsThe authors conducted a retrospective, Canadian‐led, international, multi‐institutional analysis of a patient cohort with low or intermediate grade salivary gland cancer of the parotid or submandibular gland who were treated from 2010 until 2020 with or without postoperative radiation therapy. A multivariable, marginal Cox proportional hazards regression analysis was performed to quantify the association between locoregional recurrence (LRR) and receipt of postoperative radiation therapy while accounting for patient‐level factors and the clustering of patients by institution.ResultsIn total, 621 patients across 14 tertiary care centers were included in the study; of these, 309 patients (49.8%) received postoperative radiation therapy. Tumor histologies included 182 (29.3%) acinic cell carcinomas, 312 (50.2%) mucoepidermoid carcinomas, and 137 (20.5%) other low or intermediate grade primary salivary gland carcinomas. Kaplan–Meier LRR‐free survival at 10 years was 89.0% (95% confidence interval [CI], 84.9%–93.3%). In multivariable Cox regression analysis, postoperative radiation therapy was independently associated with a lower hazard of LRR (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.29–0.97). The multivariable model estimated that the marginal probability of LRR within 10 years was 15.4% without radiation and 8.8% with radiation. The number needed to treat was 16 patients (95% CI, 14–18 patients). Radiation therapy had no benefit in patients who had early stage, low‐grade salivary gland cancer without evidence of nodal disease and negative margins.ConclusionsPostoperative radiation therapy may reduce LLR in some low and intermediate grade salivary gland cancers with adverse features, but it had no benefit in patients who had early stage, low‐grade salivary gland cancer with negative margins.