To establish strict clinical criteria for reflex sympathetic dystrophy (RSD) of the foot and to characterize any associated scintigraphic pattern, the authors performed three-phase radionuclide bone scanning in 51 patients prospectively referred because RSD was a diagnostic consideration. To establish sensitivity and specificity data, the cases of an additional 100 consecutive patients referred for a variety of foot problems were retrospectively reviewed. The authors defined RSD of the foot as a pain syndrome characterized by diffuse nonanatomic, often unrelenting pain; autonomic-vasomotor signs including warm or cool skin temperatures and moist-sweaty or dry-scaly skin; and a positive response to a lumbar sympathetic block. Patients with RSD have a characteristic delayed bone-scan pattern consisting of diffuse increased tracer throughout the foot, with juxta-articular accentuation of tracer uptake. Overall, sensitivity in this study was 100%; specificity, 80%; positive predictive value, 54%; and negative predictive value, 100%. False-positive images were obtained in patients with infection, diabetes, and chronic pain. Specificity was 66% in the subgroup of patients who underwent sympathetic block, with a positive-predictive value of 88%. There were no differences in scan pattern related to duration of symptoms prior to imaging.

ObjectiveTo determine whether methodological and reporting quality are associated with surrogate measures of publication impact in the field of dementia biomarker studies.MethodsWe assessed dementia biomarker studies included in a previous systematic review in terms of methodological and reporting quality using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS) and Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy (STARD), respectively. We extracted additional study and journal-related data from each publication to account for factors shown to be associated with impact in previous research. We explored associations between potential determinants and measures of publication impact in univariable and stepwise multivariable linear regression analyses.Outcome measuresWe aimed to collect data on four measures of publication impact: two traditional measures—average number of citations per year and 5-year impact factor of the publishing journal and two alternative measures—the Altmetric Attention Score and counts of electronic downloads.ResultsThe systematic review included 142 studies. Due to limited data, Altmetric Attention Scores and electronic downloads were excluded from the analysis, leaving traditional metrics as the only analysed outcome measures. We found no relationship between QUADAS and traditional metrics. Citation rates were independently associated with 5-year journal impact factor (β=0.42; p<0.001), journal subject area (β=0.39; p<0.001), number of years since publication (β=-0.29; p<0.001) and STARD (β=0.13; p<0.05). Independent determinants of 5-year journal impact factor were citation rates (β=0.45; p<0.001), statement on conflict of interest (β=0.22; p<0.01) and baseline sample size (β=0.15; p<0.05).ConclusionsCitation rates and 5-year journal impact factor appear to measure different dimensions of impact. Citation rates were weakly associated with completeness of reporting, while neither traditional metric was related to methodological rigour. Our results suggest that high publication usage and journal outlet is not a guarantee of quality and readers should critically appraise all papers regardless of presumed impact.

Background This study aimed to determine the impact of preoperative exposure to intravenous contrast for CT and the risk of developing postoperative acute kidney injury (AKI) in patients undergoing major gastrointestinal surgery. Methods This prospective, multicentre cohort study included adults undergoing gastrointestinal resection, stoma reversal or liver resection. Both elective and emergency procedures were included. Preoperative exposure to intravenous contrast was defined as exposure to contrast administered for the purposes of CT up to 7 days before surgery. The primary endpoint was the rate of AKI within 7 days. Propensity score‐matched models were adjusted for patient, disease and operative variables. In a sensitivity analysis, a propensity score‐matched model explored the association between preoperative exposure to contrast and AKI in the first 48 h after surgery. Results A total of 5378 patients were included across 173 centres. Overall, 1249 patients (23·2 per cent) received intravenous contrast. The overall rate of AKI within 7 days of surgery was 13·4 per cent (718 of 5378). In the propensity score‐matched model, preoperative exposure to contrast was not associated with AKI within 7 days (odds ratio (OR) 0·95, 95 per cent c.i. 0·73 to 1·21; P = 0·669). The sensitivity analysis showed no association between preoperative contrast administration and AKI within 48 h after operation (OR 1·09, 0·84 to 1·41; P = 0·498). Conclusion There was no association between preoperative intravenous contrast administered for CT up to 7 days before surgery and postoperative AKI. Risk of contrast‐induced nephropathy should not be used as a reason to avoid contrast‐enhanced CT.

The peri-operative use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin-2 receptor blockers is thought to be associated with an increased risk of postoperative acute kidney injury. To reduce this risk, these agents are commonly withheld during the peri-operative period. This study aimed to investigate if withholding angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin-2 receptor blockers peri-operatively reduces the risk of acute kidney injury following major non-cardiac surgery. Patients undergoing elective major surgery on the gastrointestinal tract and/or the liver were eligible for inclusion in this prospective study. The primary outcome was the development of acute kidney injury within seven days of operation. Adjusted multi-level models were used to account for centre-level effects and propensity score matching was used to reduce the effects of selection bias between treatment groups. A total of 949 patients were included from 160 centres across the UK and Republic of Ireland. From this population, 573 (60.4%) patients had their angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin-2 receptor blockers withheld during the peri-operative period. One hundred and seventy-five (18.4%) patients developed acute kidney injury; there was no difference in the incidence of acute kidney injury between patients who had their angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin-2 receptor blockers continued or withheld (107 (18.7%) vs. 68 (18.1%), respectively; p = 0.914). Following propensity matching, withholding angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin-2 receptor blockers did not demonstrate a protective effect against the development of postoperative acute kidney injury (OR (95%CI) 0.89 (0.58-1.34); p = 0.567).

IntroductionGathering data on socioeconomic status (SES) is a prerequisite for any health programme that aims to assess and improve the equitable distribution of its outcomes. Many different modalities can be used to collect SES data, ranging from (1) face-to-face elicitation, to (2) telephone-administered questionnaires, to (3) automated text message-based systems. The relative costs and perceived benefits to patients and providers of these different data collection approaches is unknown. This protocol is for a systematic review that aims to compare the resource requirements, performance characteristics, and acceptability to participants and service providers of these three approaches to collect SES data from those enrolled in health programmes.Methods and analysisAn information specialist will conduct searches on the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, Global Health, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO ICTRP and OpenGrey. All databases will be searched from 1999 to present with no language limits used. We will also search Google Scholar and check the reference lists of relevant articles for further potentially eligible studies. Any empirical study design will be eligible if it compares two or more modalities to elicit SES data from the following three; in-person, voice call, or automated phone-based systems. Two reviewers will independently screen titles, abstracts and full-text articles; and complete data extraction. For each study, we will extract data on the modality characteristics, primary outcomes (response rate and equivalence) and secondary outcomes (time, costs and acceptability to patients and providers). We will synthesise findings thematically without meta-analysis.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval is not required, as our review will include published and publicly accessible data. This review is part of a project to improve equitable access to eye care services in low-ioncome and middle-income countries. However, the findings will be useful to policy-makers and programme managers in a range of health settings and non-health settings. We will publish our findings in a peer-reviewed journal and develop an accessible summary of results for website posting and stakeholder meetings.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42021251959.