Background: Post-liver transplant biliary strictures are a common cause of morbidity among patients who have undergone living donor liver transplantation (LDLT). Limited data are available concerning the response rates to various treatment modalities and the long-term outcomes for these individuals. Methods: This study was a retrospective analysis of a prospectively collected database, including adult patients aged 18 years or older who underwent LDLT between 2006 and 2022. Results: Between 2006 and 2022, a total of 3,550 patients underwent liver transplantation. After applying exclusion criteria, 2,956 patients were included in the analysis.During the study period, 344 patients (11.6%) developed biliary strictures. Of these, 77.0% underwent endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography as the primary treatment for biliary strictures, while the remainder received percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage. Identified risk factors for post-liver transplant biliary strictures included the presence of multiple biliary anastomoses, bile leak, and older donor and recipient ages. The overall graft and patient survival rates were comparable between patients with and without biliary strictures, at both 1 year (93.0% vs. 96.3%) and 5 years (82.3% vs. 79.2%). Conclusions Biliary strictures are observed in approximately 11% of recipients following LDLT. While the presence of biliary strictures is associated with increased morbidity, it does not significantly impact patient survival.

Background: Post-liver transplant biliary strictures are a common cause of morbidity among patients who have undergone living donor liver transplantation (LDLT). Limited data are available concerning the response rates to various treatment modalities and the long-term outcomes for these individuals. Methods: This study was a retrospective analysis of a prospectively collected database, including adult patients aged 18 years or older who underwent LDLT between 2006 and 2022. Results: Between 2006 and 2022, a total of 3,550 patients underwent liver transplantation. After applying exclusion criteria, 2,956 patients were included in the analysis.During the study period, 344 patients (11.6%) developed biliary strictures. Of these, 77.0% underwent endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography as the primary treatment for biliary strictures, while the remainder received percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage. Identified risk factors for post-liver transplant biliary strictures included the presence of multiple biliary anastomoses, bile leak, and older donor and recipient ages. The overall graft and patient survival rates were comparable between patients with and without biliary strictures, at both 1 year (93.0% vs. 96.3%) and 5 years (82.3% vs. 79.2%). Conclusions Biliary strictures are observed in approximately 11% of recipients following LDLT. While the presence of biliary strictures is associated with increased morbidity, it does not significantly impact patient survival.

Background: Post-liver transplant biliary strictures are a common cause of morbidity among patients who have undergone living donor liver transplantation (LDLT). Limited data are available concerning the response rates to various treatment modalities and the long-term outcomes for these individuals. Methods: This study was a retrospective analysis of a prospectively collected database, including adult patients aged 18 years or older who underwent LDLT between 2006 and 2022. Results: Between 2006 and 2022, a total of 3,550 patients underwent liver transplantation. After applying exclusion criteria, 2,956 patients were included in the analysis.During the study period, 344 patients (11.6%) developed biliary strictures. Of these, 77.0% underwent endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography as the primary treatment for biliary strictures, while the remainder received percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage. Identified risk factors for post-liver transplant biliary strictures included the presence of multiple biliary anastomoses, bile leak, and older donor and recipient ages. The overall graft and patient survival rates were comparable between patients with and without biliary strictures, at both 1 year (93.0% vs. 96.3%) and 5 years (82.3% vs. 79.2%). Conclusions Biliary strictures are observed in approximately 11% of recipients following LDLT. While the presence of biliary strictures is associated with increased morbidity, it does not significantly impact patient survival.

Background: Post-liver transplant biliary strictures are a common cause of morbidity among patients who have undergone living donor liver transplantation (LDLT). Limited data are available concerning the response rates to various treatment modalities and the long-term outcomes for these individuals. Methods: This study was a retrospective analysis of a prospectively collected database, including adult patients aged 18 years or older who underwent LDLT between 2006 and 2022. Results: Between 2006 and 2022, a total of 3,550 patients underwent liver transplantation. After applying exclusion criteria, 2,956 patients were included in the analysis.During the study period, 344 patients (11.6%) developed biliary strictures. Of these, 77.0% underwent endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography as the primary treatment for biliary strictures, while the remainder received percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage. Identified risk factors for post-liver transplant biliary strictures included the presence of multiple biliary anastomoses, bile leak, and older donor and recipient ages. The overall graft and patient survival rates were comparable between patients with and without biliary strictures, at both 1 year (93.0% vs. 96.3%) and 5 years (82.3% vs. 79.2%). Conclusions Biliary strictures are observed in approximately 11% of recipients following LDLT. While the presence of biliary strictures is associated with increased morbidity, it does not significantly impact patient survival.

Background: Reactive arthritis (ReA) is an often neglected disease that received some attention during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. There is some evidence that infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 can lead to “reactive” arthritis. However, this does not follow the classical definition of ReA that limits the organisms leading to this condition. Also, there is no recommendation by any international society on the management of ReA during the current pandemic. Thus, a survey was conducted to gather information about how modern clinicians across the world approach ReA. Methods: An e-survey was carried out based on convenient sampling via social media platforms. Twenty questions were validated on the pathogenesis, clinical presentation, and management of ReA. These also included information on post-COVID-19 arthritis. Duplicate entries were prevented and standard guidelines were followed for reporting internet-based surveys. Results: There were 193 respondents from 24 countries. Around one-fifth knew the classical definition of ReA. Nearly half considered the triad of conjunctivitis, urethritis and asymmetric oligoarthritis a “must” for diagnosis of ReA. Other common manifestations reported include enthesitis, dermatitis, dactylitis, uveitis, and oral or genital ulcers. Threefourths opined that no test was specific for ReA. Drugs for ReA were non-steroidal antiinflammatory drugs, intra-articular injections, and conventional disease-modifying agents with less than 10% supporting biological use. Conclusion The survey brought out the gap in existing concepts of ReA. The current definition needs to be updated. There is an unmet need for consensus recommendations for the management of ReA, including the use of biologicals.

Background: Plagiarism is one of the most common violation of publication ethics, and it still remains an area with several misconceptions and uncertainties. Methods: This online cross-sectional survey was conducted to analyze plagiarism perceptions among researchers and journal editors, particularly from non-Anglophone countries. Results: Among 211 respondents (mean age 40 years; M:F, 0.85:1), 26 were scholarly journal editors and 70 were reviewers with a large representation from India (50, 24%), Turkey (28, 13%), Kazakhstan (25, 12%) and Ukraine (24, 11%). Rigid and outdated pre- and post-graduate education was considered as the origin of plagiarism by 63% of respondents. Paraphragiarism was the most commonly encountered type of plagiarism (145, 69%). Students (150, 71%), nonAnglophone researchers with poor English writing skills (117, 55%), and agents of commercial editing agencies (126, 60%) were thought to be prone to plagiarize. There was a significant disagreement on the legitimacy of text copying in scholarly articles, permitted plagiarism limit, and plagiarized text in methods section. More than half (165, 78%) recommended specifically designed courses for plagiarism detection and prevention, and 94.7% (200) thought that social media platforms may be deployed to educate and notify about plagiarism. Conclusion Great variation exists in the understanding of plagiarism, potentially contributing to unethical publications and even retractions. Bridging the knowledge gap by arranging topical education and widely employing advanced anti-plagiarism software address this unmet need.

Background: Plagiarism is one of the most common violation of publication ethics, and it still remains an area with several misconceptions and uncertainties. Methods: This online cross-sectional survey was conducted to analyze plagiarism perceptions among researchers and journal editors, particularly from non-Anglophone countries. Results: Among 211 respondents (mean age 40 years; M:F, 0.85:1), 26 were scholarly journal editors and 70 were reviewers with a large representation from India (50, 24%), Turkey (28, 13%), Kazakhstan (25, 12%) and Ukraine (24, 11%). Rigid and outdated pre- and post-graduate education was considered as the origin of plagiarism by 63% of respondents. Paraphragiarism was the most commonly encountered type of plagiarism (145, 69%). Students (150, 71%), nonAnglophone researchers with poor English writing skills (117, 55%), and agents of commercial editing agencies (126, 60%) were thought to be prone to plagiarize. There was a significant disagreement on the legitimacy of text copying in scholarly articles, permitted plagiarism limit, and plagiarized text in methods section. More than half (165, 78%) recommended specifically designed courses for plagiarism detection and prevention, and 94.7% (200) thought that social media platforms may be deployed to educate and notify about plagiarism. Conclusion Great variation exists in the understanding of plagiarism, potentially contributing to unethical publications and even retractions. Bridging the knowledge gap by arranging topical education and widely employing advanced anti-plagiarism software address this unmet need.

Generating a testable working hypothesis is the first step towards conducting original research. Such research may prove or disprove the proposed hypothesis. Case reports, case series, online surveys and other observational studies, clinical trials, and narrative reviews help to generate hypotheses. Observational and interventional studies help to test hypotheses. A good hypothesis is usually based on previous evidence-based reports.Hypotheses without evidence-based justification and a priori ideas are not received favourably by the scientific community. Original research to test a hypothesis should be carefully planned to ensure appropriate methodology and adequate statistical power. While hypotheses can challenge conventional thinking and may be controversial, they should not be destructive. A hypothesis should be tested by ethically sound experiments with meaningful ethical and clinical implications. The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic has brought into sharp focus numerous hypotheses, some of which were proven (e.g. effectiveness of corticosteroids in those with hypoxia) while others were disproven (e.g. ineffectiveness of hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin).

No abstract available.
Fires ; Open Access Publishing

Background: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has led to a large volume of publications, a barrage of non-reviewed preprints on various professional repositories and a slew of retractions in a short amount of time. Methods: We conducted an e-survey using a cloud-based website to gauge the potential sources of trustworthy information and misinformation and analyzed researchers', clinicians', and academics' attitude toward unpublished items, and pre- and post-publication quality checks in this challenging time. Results: Among 128 respondents (mean age, 43.2 years; M:F, 1.1:1), 60 (46.9%) were scholarly journal editors and editorial board members. Social media channels were distinguished as the most important sources of information as well as misinformation (81 [63.3%] and 86 [67.2%]). Nearly two in five (62, 48.4%) respondents blamed reviewers, editors, and misinterpretation by readers as additional contributors alongside authors for misinformation. A higher risk of plagiarism was perceived by the majority (70, 58.6%), especially plagiarism of ideas (64.1%) followed by inappropriate paraphrasing (54.7%). Opinion was divided on the utility of preprints for changing practice and changing retraction rates during the pandemic period, and higher rejections were not supported by most (76.6%) while the importance of peer review was agreed upon by a majority (80, 62.5%). More stringent screening by journal editors (61.7%), and facilitating open access plagiarism software (59.4%), including Artificial Intelligence (AI)-based algorithms (43.8%) were among the suggested solutions. Most (74.2%) supported the need to launch a specialist bibliographic database for COVID-19, with information indexed (62.3%), available as open-access (82.8%), after expanding search terms (52.3%) and following due verification by academics (66.4%), and journal editors (52.3%). Conclusion While identifying social media as a potential source of misinformation on COVID-19, and a perceived high risk of plagiarism, more stringent peer review and skilled post-publication promotion are advisable. Journal editors should play a more active role in streamlining publication and promotion of trustworthy information on COVID-19.