Evidence-based medicine stipulates that clinical decision-making should revolve around scientific evidence. The goal of the present study is to evaluate the methodological quality of surgical research recently published in JAMA Surgery, International Journal of Surgery, and British Journal of Surgery, the three surgical journals with the highest impact factor. An electronic search of the PUBMED database was performed to retrieve all articles published in the JAMA Surgery, International Journal of Surgery, and British Journal of Surgery in the year 2022. Three authors independently reviewed all retrieved articles and methodological designs of the publications were analyzed and rated using a modification of the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine Levels of Evidence (Oxford Levels of Evidence scale). The initial search identified 1236 articles of which 809 were excluded after title and abstract screening. The remaining 427 underwent full text/methods read, of which 164 did not meet the inclusion/exclusion criteria. A total of 273 studies were included in the analysis. The average level of evidence was 2.5 ± 0.8 across all studies assessed. The majority of study designs were comprised of retrospective cohorts (n = 119), prospective cohorts (n = 47), systematic reviews of non RCTs (n = 39), and RCTs (n = 37). There was no significant difference in the average level of evidence between the top three journals (p = 0.50). Most clinical studies in the highest impact factor surgical journals are of level III evidence, consistent with earlier literature. However, our analysis demonstrates a relatively higher percentage of LOE I and II compared to what was previously published in the literature.

OBJECTIVE: Traumatic intracranial hematoma (TICH) is a neurosurgical emergency with high mortality and morbidity. The time to operative decompression is a modifiable but inconsistently reported risk factor for TICH patients?
RESULTS: We aimed to provide contemporary time to evacuation data and long-term trends in timing of TICH evacuation in a trauma system.
METHODS: A 13-year retrospective cohort study ending in 2021 at a trauma system with one level-1 trauma center included all patients undergoing urgent craniotomy or craniectomy for evacuation of TICH. Demographics, injury severity and key timeframes of care were collected. Subgroups analyzed were polytrauma versus isolated head injury, direct admissions versus transfers and those who survived versus those who died. Linear regression of times from injury to operating room was performed.
RESULTS: Seventy-eight TICH patients (Age: 35 (22-56); 58 (74%) males; ISS: 25(25-41); AIS head: 5 (4-5); mortality: 21 (27%) patients) were identified. Initial GCS was 8 (3.25-14) which decreased to 3 (3-7) by arrival in the trauma center. There were 46 (59%) patients intubated prior to arrival. Median time from injury to operation was 4.88 (3.63-6.80) hours. Linear regression of injury to OR showed increasing times to operative intervention for direct admissions to the trauma center over the study period (p=0.04). There was no associated change in mortality or Glasgow outcome score over the same time.
CONCLUSIONS: This contemporary data shows timing from injury to evacuation is approaching 5 hours. Over the 13-year study period the time to operative intervention significantly increased for direct admissions. This study will guide our institutions response to TICH presentations in the future. Other trauma systems should critically appraise their results with the same reporting standard.

UNASSIGNED: The purpose of this study was to examine the level of evidence (LOE) characteristics and associated factors that change over time in three leading prosthodontics journals.
UNASSIGNED: Articles published in The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry (JPD), International Journal of Prosthodontics (IJP), and Journal of Prosthodontics (JP) in 2013 and 2020 were reviewed by eight independent reviewers. After applying exclusion and inclusion criteria, the number of authors, the corresponding author\'s educational degree, corresponding author\'s origin in each clinical research article were recorded. The included articles were rated by reviewers according to the level of evidence criteria and proposed level of evidence-associated factors. Descriptive statistics, univariable, and binary logistic regression analysis were performed to investigate dependent variables and potentially associated factors. All independent variables with a significant effect were analyzed by using a multivariable test. The entry and exit alpha level were set at αE = 0.15. The statistical significance was set at α = 0.05.
UNASSIGNED: A total of 439 articles from 3 selected journals for the years studied met the inclusion criteria. The percentages of level 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 articles were 2.7 %, 11.4 %, 9.6 %, 13.4 % and 62.9 %, respectively. Univariable analysis results demonstrated significant associations related to the number of authors (P = 0.005), the corresponding author\'s educational degree (P = 0.022), and the corresponding author\'s geographic origin (P = 0.042). Multivariable analysis results demonstrated significant associations related to the number of authors (P = 0.002), and the corresponding author\'s geographic origin (P = 0.014).
UNASSIGNED: The number of authors, CA degree, and CA origin had a significant association with the LOE of included prosthodontic studies. Although there was an increase in the number of publications from 2013 to 2020, the level of evidence trend shows no improvement over the years.

BACKGROUND: Since its establishment in 1999, the journal of Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research (CIDRR) has consistently disseminated notable clinical and translational research within the domain of oral implantology. As the journal approaches its milestone 25th anniversary, this study endeavors to systematically delineate the publication trends, level of evidence, and bibliometric indices characterizing the initial quarter-century of CIDRR\'s scholarly activity. Notably, the investigation adopts a contemporary methodology by incorporating Altmetric analysis, thereby enriching the evaluation with an assessment of the broader societal and online impact of the published research.
METHODS: A comprehensive search was performed in SCOPUS and PubMed to access the bibliographic data of all articles published in the journal from 1999 to 2024. Additionally, Altmetric database was used to obtain social media attention scores (AAS). Journal\'s overall performance via impact factor and quartile range was assessed. Most cited papers were identified and the most prolific authors, institutions and countries and the collaboration networks among those were assessed. The level of evidence of all articles was determined based on Oxford level of evidence scale. All articles were categorized based on their major topic in the field of implant dentistry.
RESULTS: Throughout its first 25 years of activity, CIDRR published 1912 articles with an annual growth rate of 2.67% and consistently being ranked at Q1 quartile in \"Dentistry (miscellaneous)\" and \"Oral Surgery\" journal categories. When clinical studies are considered, level I and II evidence constituted 22.82% and 11.82% of all articles, respectively. Sweden, the USA, and Italy as well as Göteborgs Universitet, Sahlgrenska Akademin. and Malmö Högskola were the most prolific countries and institutions respectively. \"Implant system/design/characteristics,\" \"Bone Augmentation,\" and \"Implant Prosthesis\" were the top most investigated topics.
CONCLUSIONS: The examination of the journal\'s initial 25 years highlighted that CIDRR has surpassed similar dental research journals in publishing a greater number of high-level evidence articles. It also showcased diverse country- and author-collaboration networks. However, the journal\'s social media presence is still evolving. This article, presenting a comprehensive overview of the journal\'s scientometric and bibliographic activities, serves as a valuable reference for researchers, clinicians, and stakeholders, offering insights into both traditional and contemporary perspectives.

UNASSIGNED: The European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) guidelines are among the most comprehensive and widely used clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) globally. However, the level of scientific evidence supporting ESMO CPG recommendations has not been systematically investigated. This study assessed ESMO CPG levels of evidence (LOE) and grades of recommendations (GOR), as well as their trends over time across various cancer settings.
UNASSIGNED: We manually extracted every recommendation with the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) classification from each CPG. We examined the distribution of LOE and GOR in all available ESMO CPG guidelines across different topics and cancer types.
UNASSIGNED: Among the 1,823 recommendations in the current CPG, 30% were classified as LOE I, and 43% were classified as GOR A. Overall, there was a slight decrease in LOE I (-2%) and an increase in the proportion of GOR A (+1%) in the current CPG compared to previous versions. The proportion of GOR A recommendations based on higher levels of evidence such as randomized trials (LOE I-II) shows a decrease (71% vs. 63%, p = 0.009) while recommendations based on lower levels of evidence (LOE III-V) show an increase (29% vs. 37%, p = 0.01) between previous and current version. In the current versions, the highest proportion of LOE I (42%) was found in recommendations related to pharmacotherapy, while the highest proportion of GOR A recommendations was found in the areas of pathology (50%) and diagnostic (50%) recommendations. Significant variability in LOE I and GOR A recommendations and their changes over time was observed across different cancer types.
UNASSIGNED: One-third of the current ESMO CPG recommendations are supported by the highest level of evidence. More well-designed randomized clinical trials are needed to increase the proportion of LOE I and GOR A recommendations, ultimately leading to improved outcomes for cancer patients.

BACKGROUND: The impact of COVID-19 infection at the time of traumatic injury remains understudied. Previous studies demonstrate that the rate of COVID-19 vaccination among trauma patients remains lower than in the general population. This study aims to understand the impact of concomitant COVID-19 infection on outcomes in trauma patients.
METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients ≥18 years old admitted to a level I trauma center from March 2020 to December 2022. Patients tested for COVID-19 infection using a rapid antigen/PCR test were included. We matched patients using 2:1 propensity accounting for age, gender, race, comorbidities, vaccination status, injury severity score (ISS), type and mechanism of injury, and GCS at arrival. The primary outcome was inpatient mortality. Secondary outcomes included hospital length of stay (LOS), Intensive Care Unit (ICU) LOS, 30-day readmission, and major complications.
RESULTS: Of the 4448 patients included, 168 (3.8%) were positive (COV+). Compared with COVID-19-negative (COV-) patients, COV+ patients were similar in age, sex, BMI, ISS, type of injury, and regional AIS. The proportion of White and non-Hispanic patients was higher in COV- patients. Following matching, 154 COV+ and 308 COV- patients were identified. COVID-19-positive patients had a higher rate of mortality (7.8% vs 2.6%; P = .010), major complications (15.6% vs 8.4%; P = .020), and thrombotic complications (3.9% vs .6%; P = .012). Patients also had a longer hospital LOS (median, 9 vs 5 days; P < .001) and ICU LOS (median, 5 vs 3 days; P = .025).
CONCLUSIONS: Trauma patients with concomitant COVID-19 infection have higher mortality and morbidity in the matched population. Focused interventions aimed at recognizing this high-risk group and preventing COVID-19 infection within it should be undertaken.

Peripheral vascular trauma (PVT) is rare in children, with an incidence estimated below 1%. We studied pediatric PVT and risk factors for major amputation by accessing the 2019 National Trauma Data Bank (NTDB). Demographics, injury type and location, trauma center capability, injury severity score (ISS), length of stay (LOS), and major amputation rates were evaluated. Statistical analysis included chi-square testing for categorical variables and t-tests for continuous variables. Of 130,554 pediatric trauma patients, 1196 (.9%) had 1460 upper extremity (UE) and lower extremity (LE) PVT. Patients were predominantly male (n = 933, 78%) with a mean age of 14 years. Most patients suffered penetrating injury (n = 744, 62.2%). The most common vessels injuries were radial (n = 198, 13.6%) and femoral (n = 196, 13.4%). Major amputation occurred in 2.6% of patients (n = 31). Patients who suffered blunt injury (OR, 3.3; 95% CI, 1.5-7.5; P = .004) and lower limb PVT (OR, 11.1; 95% CI, 3.3-37.9, P = .0001) had higher odds of amputation.

BACKGROUND: Damage control surgery aims to control hemorrhage and contamination in the operating room (OR) with definitive management of injuries delayed until normal physiology is restored in the intensive care unit (ICU). There are limited studies evaluating the use of damage control thoracotomy (DCT) in trauma, and the best method of temporary closure is unclear.
METHODS: A retrospective review of trauma patients at two level I trauma centers who underwent a thoracotomy operation was performed. Subjects who underwent a thoracotomy after 24 h, age less than 16, expired in the trauma bay, or in the OR prior to ICU admission were excluded. One-way ANOVA and Kruskal-Wallis test were used to compare continuous and categorical variables between DCT and definitive thoracotomy (DT) patients.
RESULTS: 207 trauma patients underwent thoracotomy, 76 met our inclusion criteria. DCT was performed in 30 patients (39%), 46 (61 %) underwent DT operation. Techniques for temporizing the chest varied from skin closure with suture (8), adhesive dressing (5), towel clamps (2), or negative pressure devices (12). Compared to definitive closure, DCT had more derangements in HR, pH, (110 vs. 95, p = 0.04; 7.05 vs 7.24, p < 0.001), and injury severity score (41 vs 25, p < 0.001), and required more blood transfusions (40 vs 6, p < 0.001). Eleven (36.7 %) DCT patients survived to discharge compared to 38 patients (95.0 %) in the DT group. DCT showed significantly higher differences in cardiac arrest and unplanned returns to the OR rates. No differences were observed in ventilator days, or ICU length of stay.
CONCLUSIONS: DCT is a viable option for management of patients in extremis following thoracic trauma. DCT was associated with higher mortality rates, likely due to differences in injury and physiologic derangement. Despite this, DCT was associated with similar rates of complications, ICU stay, and ventilator days.

Critical analysis of the medical literature and an evidence-based approach to clinical practice and medical decision-making is of vital importance in contemporary podiatric practice. This article reviews the levels of clinical evidence and their application within this paradigm. This includes determining which level of evidence is most appropriate for a given methodology, as well as an appreciation of inherent limitations within each level of evidence. The article concludes with a discussion on the difference between statistical significance and clinical significance.

BACKGROUND: Despite increasing adoption of the direct anterior (DA) approach in total hip arthroplasty (THA), uncertainty persists regarding its outcomes beyond the 1-year mark in comparison to other approaches. We used the reverse fragility index (RFI) to evaluate the robustness of reported findings in the literature.
METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing implant revision rates between DA and other approaches in THA, defined as all those different from DA. Our primary outcome was the RFI, which gauges the number of events needed for a nonsignificant result to become significant, in the revision rate between DA and other approaches. We also calculated the reverse fragility quotient by dividing the RFI by each study\'s sample size. Median values and interquartile ranges (IQRs) were displayed.
RESULTS: A total of 10 RCTs with a total of 971 patients were included. The median RFI was 5 (IQR, 4 to 5), indicating the study\'s results would be statistically significant if the outcomes of 5 patients in 1 treatment arm were reversed. The median reverse fragility quotient was 0.049 (IQR, 0.04 to 0.057), indicating that a change of outcome in 4.9% of patients would render the revision rate significant. The median number of patients lost to follow-up was 4 (IQR, 0 to 7). Of the 10 RCTs, 6 had more patients lost to follow-up than their respective RFI values.
CONCLUSIONS: Notable fragility was evidenced in most studies comparing DA to other approaches for THA. Surgeons should not solely rely on the P value to determine clinical significance and instead use multiple metrics.
METHODS: II.