No abstract

Background Inappropriate authors’ self-citation (A-SC) is a growing mal-practice possibly boosted by the raising importance given to author’s metrics. Similarly, also excessive journals’ self-citation (J-SC) practice may factitiously influence journal’s metrics (impact factor, IF). Evaluating the appropriateness of each self-citation remains challenging. Main body We evaluated the presence of policies discouraging A-SC in Critical Care Medicine (CCM) journals with IF. We also calculated the J-SC rate of these journals. In order to evaluate if J-SC rates are influenced by the focus of interest of CCM journals, we separated them in three sub-categories (“multidisciplinary”, “broad” or “topic-specific” CCM journals). We analyzed 35 CCM journals and only 5 (14.3%) discouraged excessive and inappropriate A-SC. The median IF was higher in CCM journals with A-SC policies [4.1 (3–12)] as compared to those without [2.5 (2–3.5); p = 0.02]. The J-SC rate was highly variable (0–35.4%), and not influenced by the presence of A-SC policies (p = 0.32). However, J-SC rate was different according to the focus of interest (p = 0.01): in particular, it was higher in “topic-specific” CCM journals [15.3 (8.8–23.3%)], followed by “broad” CCM [11.8 (4.8–17.9%)] and “multidisciplinary” journals [6.1 (3.6–9.1%)]. Conclusions A limited number of CCM journals have policies for limiting A-SC, and these have higher IF. The J-SC rate among CCM journals is highly variable and higher in “topic-specific” interest CCM journals. Excluding self-referencing practice from scientific metrics calculation could be valuable to tackle this scientific malpractice.

an improved alternative to static barrier enclosures to enhance the safety of healthcare providers performing aerosol-generating procedures without compromising patient care. Nonetheless, personal protective equipment (PPE) should remain the main defence during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. 3 With the threat of a potential second wave of infection as the world reopens, 10 any additional protective measures should not be overlooked. However, such measures should not trade off patient safety or create further exposure risks to healthcare providers after use.

Background Tracheal intubation in patients with coronavirus disease-19 is a high-risk procedure that should be performed with personal protective equipment (PPE). The influence of PPE on operator’s performance during tracheal intubation remains unclear. Methods We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of simulation studies to evaluate the influence of wearing PPE as compared to standard uniform regarding time-to-intubation (TTI) and success rate. Subgroup analyses were conducted according to device used and operator’s experience. Results The TTI was prolonged when wearing PPE (eight studies): Standard Mean Difference (SMD) -0.54, 95% Confidence Interval [-0.75, -0.34], p <  0.0001. Subgroup analyses according to device used showed similar findings (direct laryngoscopy, SMD -0.63 [-0.88, -0.38], p < 0.0001; videolaryngoscopy, SMD -0.39 [-0.75, -0.02], p =  0.04). Considering the operator’s experience, non-anesthesiologists had prolonged TTI (SMD -0.75 [-0.98, -0.52], p < 0.0001) while the analysis on anesthesiologists did not show significant differences (SMD -0.25 [-0.51, 0.01], p = 0.06). The success rate of tracheal intubation was not influenced by PPE: Risk Ratio (RR) 1.02 [1.00, 1.04]; p = 0.12). Subgroup analyses according to device demonstrated similar results (direct laryngoscopy, RR 1.03 [0.99, 1.07], p = 0.15, videolaryngoscopy, RR 1.01 [0.98, 1.04], p =  0.52). Wearing PPE had a trend towards negative influence on success rate in non-anesthesiologists (RR 1.05 [1.00, 1.10], p = 0.05), but not in anesthesiologists (RR 1.00 [0.98, 1.03], p = 0.84). Trial-sequential analyses for TTI and success rate indicated robustness of both results. Conclusions Under simulated conditions, wearing PPE delays the TTI as compared to dressing standard uniform, with no influence on the success rate. However, certainty of evidence is very low. Performing tracheal intubation with direct laryngoscopy seems influenced to a greater extent as compared to videolaryngoscopy. Similarly, wearing PPE affects more the non-anesthesiologists subgroup as compared to anesthesiologists.

The erector spinae plane block (ESPB) is a recently implemented analgesic technique initially reported for thoracic analgesia and subsequently adopted for both intraand postoperative pain management. Thoracic surgery is among the most painful surgical procedures, even when conducted with minimally invasive approach. Robotic-assisted thoracic surgery (RATS) challenges the traditional analgesic regimens as one of its aims is to decrease the patient's length of stay (LOS) whilst achieving optimal postoperative pain management. Furthermore, there is lots of growing evidence on the impact of poorly controlled postoperative pain (PP) on the development of chronic post-surgical pain (CPSP). In these case series, we aim to describe our preliminary experience of postoperative pain management with continuous ESPB in the field of RATS. Case Series Presentation: In eight consecutive patients undergoing elective RATS procedure, we performed the ESPB after surgery with an initial bolus of local anesthetic followed by catheter insertion for continuous infusion. The infusion of local anesthetic lasted for the first two postoperative days. The effectiveness of the ESPB was evaluated through serial pain assessment with numeric rate scale (NRS) score, both at rest and during movement every 6 hours. Any analgesic rescue drug prescription was reported. We noted that the ESPB strongly reduced the prescription of opioids and of rescue analgesic. In our series, only one patient needed opioids during the first two postoperative days, and no rescue analgesic administration was noted in the remaining cases. Conclusion:We report a small but promising experience regarding postoperative pain management with continuous ESPB performed after RATS. We implemented the ESPB before surgery. Larger studies on postoperative pain management with continuous regional blocks in thoracic surgery are warranted.