Context:Pectoralis major tendon ruptures are becoming increasingly common due to the growing prevalence of active lifestyles. Studies investigating the efficacy of pectoralis major tendon repair have limited sample sizes and offer mixed results, while existing reviews do not explore postoperative activity outcomes for patients.Objective:To summarize and synthesize the clinical outcomes and rate of return to activity after isolated pectoralis major tendon repair.Data Sources:Four databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, and CINAHL) were searched from database inception through March 7, 2018.Study Selection:Studies reporting outcomes of isolated pectoralis major tendon repair for pectoralis major tendon rupture were included.Study Design:Systematic review.Level of Evidence:Level 4.Data Extraction:Data including patient demographics, intervention details, and clinical outcomes were extracted. The methodological quality of included studies was evaluated.Results:Of 2332 retrieved articles, 18 studies were included, with a total of 536 patients. A majority (90%; 134/149) of patients undergoing pectoralis major tendon repair successfully returned to sport at a mean 6.1 ± 1.7 months postsurgery, of which 74% (95/128) successfully returned to their preinjury level of sport. The majority (95%; 269/284) of patients returned to work at a mean 6.9 ± 1 months. Postsurgically, 81% (83/102) of patients experienced complete pain relief after the surgery, and 19% (21/109) had cosmetic complaints after pectoralis major repair. Of the 10 studies that reported complications, 18% (75/423) of patients had postoperative complications, including reruptures and wound infections; 7% (30/423) of patients required reoperation for their complications.Conclusion:Pectoralis major tendon repair is an effective treatment that results in a high rate of return to sport and work, pain relief, and improved cosmetic appearance, albeit with a significant rate of complication. The evidence supporting all outcomes was limited by the rarity of the injury, the variable surgical techniques, and outcome assessment criteria.

Objectives We performed a meta-analysis and systematic review on elderly survivors of war suffering from PTSD to estimate the variability in their cognitive impairment based on individual neuropsychological tests. Methods We included case control studies that explored the association of cognitive deficits in elderly PTSD civilian survivor of wars (age >60 years), using MEDLINE, Embase and PsycINFO from the inception to January 2018. We compared the cognitive performances in three comparisons i) PTSD+ vs. PTSD− civilian survivors of war; ii) PTSD+ vs. Control and iii) PTSD− vs. Control. The risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for case-control studies. Results Out of 2939 titles and abstracts, 13 studies were eligible for data extraction. As compared to PTSD− civilian survivors of war, PTSD+ civilian survivors of war demonstrated significant deficits on TMT-A, TMT-B, Digit span backward, explicit memory low pair associate, CVLT recognition, WAIS-verbal and non-verbal tests. As compared to health controls, PTSD+ survivors demonstrated significantly lower performance on explicit memory low pair and high associate, RAVLT immediate and delayed recall, CVLT delayed and short cued recall. Performance on the neuropsychological test between PTSD− survivors of war and controls was not significant for all tests. Conclusion The pattern suggests that PTSD+ survivors of war had poorer performance in tasks requiring processing speed, executive function, attention, working memory and learning. The magnitude of the cognitive deficits in our pooled analysis was small to moderate depending on the neuropsychological test. Most of our pooled analysis suffered from a high risk of bias, which lowered the confidence in our results.

ImportanceRandomized clinical trials (RCTs) on COVID-19 are increasingly being posted as preprints before publication in a scientific, peer-reviewed journal.ObjectiveTo assess time to journal publication for COVID-19 RCT preprints and to compare differences between pairs of preprints and corresponding journal articles.Evidence ReviewThis systematic review used a meta-epidemiologic approach to conduct a literature search using the World Health Organization COVID-19 database and Embase to identify preprints published between January 1 and December 31, 2021. This review included RCTs with human participants and research questions regarding the treatment or prevention of COVID-19. For each preprint, a literature search was done to locate the corresponding journal article. Two independent reviewers read the full text, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool. Time to publication was analyzed using a Cox proportional hazards regression model. Differences between preprint and journal article pairs in terms of outcomes, analyses, results, or conclusions were described. Statistical analysis was performed on October 17, 2022.FindingsThis study included 152 preprints. As of October 1, 2022, 119 of 152 preprints (78.3%) had been published in journals. The median time to publication was 186 days (range, 17-407 days). In a multivariable model, larger sample size and low risk of bias were associated with journal publication. With a sample size of less than 200 as the reference, sample sizes of 201 to 1000 and greater than 1000 had hazard ratios (HRs) of 1.23 (95% CI, 0.80-1.91) and 2.19 (95% CI, 1.36-3.53) for publication, respectively. With high risk of bias as the reference, medium-risk articles with some concerns for bias had an HR of 1.77 (95% CI, 1.02-3.09); those with a low risk of bias had an HR of 3.01 (95% CI, 1.71-5.30). Of the 119 published preprints, there were differences in terms of outcomes, analyses, results, or conclusions in 65 studies (54.6%). The main conclusion in the preprint contradicted the conclusion in the journal article for 2 studies (1.7%).Conclusions and RelevanceThese findings suggest that there is a substantial time lag from preprint posting to journal publication. Preprints with smaller sample sizes and high risk of bias were less likely to be published. Finally, although differences in terms of outcomes, analyses, results, or conclusions were observed for preprint and journal article pairs in most studies, the main conclusion remained consistent for the majority of studies.

The Scinapse Undergraduate Science Case Competition (USCC) is an annual provincial student initiative that was established in 2012. The organization was founded on the premise of bridging the gap between classroom knowledge and the practical application of student inquiry. Inspired by a "case-study" problem-based learning style, the USCC offers a mechanism to inspire student research at an undergraduate level, without typical barriers such as funding and lab equipment. This guest editorial serves to describe the layout for the organization as well as reflect on the challenges and strategies in hosting the annual competition.