No abstract

A B S T R A C TPurpose: Differentiating psychogenic non-epileptic seizures (PNES) from epileptic seizures (ES) can be difficult, even when expert clinicians have video recordings of seizures. Moreover, witnesses who are not trained observers may provide descriptions that differ from the expert clinicians', which often raises concern about whether the patient has both ES and PNES. As such, quantitative, evidence-based tools to help differentiate ES from PNES based on patients' and witnesses' descriptions of seizures may assist in the early, accurate diagnosis of patients. Methods: Based on patient-and observer-reported data from 1372 patients with diagnoses documented by videoelect roencephalography (vEEG), we used logistic regression (LR) to compare specific peri-ictal behaviors and seizure triggers in five mutually exclusive groups: ES, PNES, physiologic non-epileptic seizure-like events, mixed PNES plus ES, and inconclusive monitoring. To differentiate PNES-only from ES-only, we retrospectively trained multivariate LR and a forest of decision trees (DF) to predict the documented diagnoses of 246 prospective patients. Results: The areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUCs) of the DF and LR were 75% and 74%, respectively (empiric 95% CI of chance 37-62%). The overall accuracy was not significantly higher than the naïve assumption that all patients have ES (accuracy DF 71%, LR 70%, naïve 68%, p > 0.05). Conclusions: Quantitative analysis of patient-and observer-reported peri-ictal behaviors objectively changed the likelihood that a patient's seizures were psychogenic, but these reports were not reliable enough to be diagnostic in isolation. Instead, our scores may identify patients with "probable" PNES that, in the right clinical context, may warrant further diagnostic assessment.

BackgroundTo capture various social determinants of health, recent analyses have used comprehensive measures of socioeconomic disadvantage such as deprivation and vulnerability indices. Given that studies evaluating the effects of social deprivation on total joint arthroplasty (TJA) have yielded mixed results, a systematic review of this relationship might help answer questions about usage, complications, and results after surgery among patients in different socioeconomic groups and help guide targeted approaches to ensure health equity.Questions/purposesWe asked: How is social deprivation associated with TJA (1) usage, (2) adverse events including discharge deposition and length of stay, and (3) patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs)?MethodsA comprehensive review of the PubMed, EBSCO host, Medline, and Google Scholar electronic databases was conducted to identify all studies that evaluated social deprivation and TJA between January 1, 2000, and March 1, 2022. Studies were included if they evaluated comprehensive measures of socioeconomic deprivation rather than individual social determinants of health. Nineteen articles were included in our final analysis with a total of 757,522 patients. In addition to characteristics of included studies (such as patient population, procedure evaluated, and utilized social deprivation metric), we recorded TJA usage, adverse events, and PROM values as reported by each article. Two reviewers independently evaluated the quality of included studies using the Methodological Index for Nonrandomized Studies (MINORS) tool. The mean ± SD MINORS score was 13 ± 1 of 16, with higher scores representing better study quality. All the articles included are noncomparative studies. Given the heterogeneity of the included studies, a meta-analysis was not performed and results were instead presented descriptively.ResultsAlthough there were inconsistencies among the included articles, higher levels of social deprivation were associated with lower TJA usage even after controlling for various confounding variables. Similarly, there was agreement among studies regarding higher proportion of nonhome discharge for patients with more social deprivation. Although there was limited agreement across studies regarding whether patients with more social deprivation had differences in their baseline and postoperative PROMs scores, patients with more social deprivation had lower improvements from baseline for most of the included articles.ConclusionThese findings encourage continued efforts focusing on appropriate patient education regarding expectations related to functional improvement and the postoperative recovery process, as well as resources available for further information and social support. We suggest linking patient data to deprivation measures such as the Area Deprivation Index to help encourage shared decision-making strategies that focus on health literacy and common barriers related to access. Given the potential influence social deprivation may have on the outcome and utilization of TJ...

Background Because research experience is increasingly important in ranking orthopaedic residency and fellowship applicants, determining the accuracy of candidates reporting their scholarly activity is essential. However, disparate and inconsistent findings have made it difficult to draw meaningful conclusions from individual studies. Questions/purposes In this systematic review, we asked:(1) What percentage of research publications are misrepresented among orthopaedic residency and fellowship applicants? (2) What percentage of applications contain one or more example of academic misrepresentation? (3) Is research misrepresentation associated with any individual applicant characteristics? (4) What is the publication status of articles listed by applicants as having been submitted to journals?Methods A systematic review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines. PubMed, EBSCOhost, Medline, and Google Scholar electronic databases were searched on March 10, 2022, to identify all studies that evaluated research misrepresentation in orthopaedic residency and fellowship applications between January 1, 1995, and March 1, 2022. Articles were included if full-text articles in English were available and the study reported on research misrepresentation among orthopaedic residency or fellowship applicants. Studies investigating nonorthopaedic publications, systematic reviews, case studies, duplicate studies among databases, and gray literature were excluded. Two reviewers independently evaluated the quality of included studies using the Methodological Index for Nonrandomized Studies (MINORS) tool. This is a validated assessment tool that grades noncomparative studies from 0 to 16 and studies with control groups from 0 to 24, based on eight criteria related to study design, outcomes assessed, and followup. All included articles were noncomparative studies, so the maximum score here was 16, with higher scores indicating better study quality. The mean MINORS score was 13 6 1 in the studies we included. The final analysis included 10 studies with 5119 applicants. Eight studies evaluated orthopaedic residency applicants and two evaluated fellowship applicants. The applicant classes ranged from 1996 to 2019. Research misrepresentation was defined among studies as nonauthorship of an existing article, claimed authorship of a nonexistent article, or incorrect listing of authorship order for an existing article. Each study's findings and Each author certifies that there are no funding or commercial associations (consultancies, stock ownership, equity interest, patent/licensing arrangements, etc.) that might pose a conflict of interest in connection with the submitted article related to the author or any immediate family members. All ICMJE Conflict of Interest Forms for authors and Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research® editors and board members are on file with the publication and can be viewed on request.