Annals of surgery
-
The aim of this study was to analyze esophageal cancer patients who previously underwent neoadjuvant therapy followed by a curative resection to determine whether additional adjuvant therapy is associated with improved survival outcomes. ⋯ Adjuvant therapy after neoadjuvant treatment and esophagectomy with negative resection margins provide an improved OS at 1 and 5 years with moderate to high certainty of evidence, but the benefit for disease-free survival and locoregional/distal recurrence remain uncertain due to limited reporting of these outcomes.
-
To perform the first systematic review of all available gender-affirming surgery (GAS) publications across all procedures to assess both outcomes reported in the literature and the methods used for outcome assessment. ⋯ This study represents the most comprehensive review of GAS literature. By aggregating all previously utilized measurement instruments, this study offers a foundation for discussions about current methodologic limitations and what dimensions must be included in assessing surgical success. We have assembled a comprehensive list of outcome instruments; this offers an ideal starting basis for emerging discussions between patients and providers about deficiencies which new, better instruments and metrics must address. The lack of consistent use of the same outcome measures and validated GAS-specific instruments represent the 2 primary barriers to high-quality research where improvement efforts should be focused.
-
Identify key demographic factors and modes of follow-up in surgical survey response. ⋯ Every survey is unique, but the main commonality between studies is response rate. Response rates appear to be highly dependent on type of survey, follow-up, geography, and interviewee type.
-
The gold standard of safe-guarding the quality of published science is peer review. However, this long-standing system has not evolved in today's digital world, where there has been an explosion in the number of publications and surgical journals. A journal's quality depends not only on the quality of papers submitted but is reflected upon the quality of its peer review process. ⋯ This review identifies the potential causes of the peer-review crisis, outlines the incentives and drawbacks of being a reviewer, summarizes the currently established common practices of rewarding reviewers and the existing and potential solutions to the problem. The magnitude of the problem and unsustainability that will make it perish are discussed along with its current flaws. Finally, recommendations are made to address many of the weaknesses of the system with the hope to revive it.