Platelet activation is a link in the pathophysiology of diseases prone to thrombosis and inflammation. Numerous platelet markers, including mean platelet volume (MPV), have been investigated in connection with both thrombosis and inflammation. This review considers MPV as a prognostic and therapeutic marker as well as the factors influencing its measurement. Established cardiovascular risk factors, such as smoking, hypertension, dyslipidemia, and diabetes, can influence MPV, depending on confounding factors. Low-grade inflammation is one such factor. Evidence, particularly derived from prospective studies and a meta-analysis, suggest a correlation between an increase in MPV and the risk of thrombosis. High MPV associates with a variety of established risk factors, cardio- and cerebrovascular disorders, and low-grade inflammatory conditions prone to arterial and venous thromboses. High-grade inflammatory diseases, such as active rheumatoid arthritis or attacks of familial Mediterranean fever, present with low levels of MPV, which reverse in the course of anti-inflammatory therapy. Lifestyle modification, antihypertensive, lipid lowering and diet therapies can also affect MPV values, but these effects need to be investigated in large prospective studies with thrombotic endpoints.

The platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio (PLR) has emerged as an informative marker revealing shifts in platelet and lymphocyte counts due to acute inflammatory and prothrombotic states. PLR has been extensively examined in neoplastic diseases accompanied by immune suppression and thrombosis, which can be predicted by combined blood cell counts and their ratios. Several large observational studies have demonstrated the value of shifts in PLR in evaluating the severity of systemic inflammation and predicting infections and other comorbidities, in inflammatory rheumatic diseases. The value of PLR as an inflammatory marker increases when its fluctuations are interpreted along with other complementary hematologic indices, particularly the neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), which provides additional information about the disease activity, presence of neutrophilic inflammation, infectious complications, and severe organ damage in systemic lupus erythematosus. PLR and NLR have high predictive value in rheumatic diseases with predominantly neutrophilic inflammation (e.g., Behçet disease and familial Mediterranean fever). High PLR, along with elevated platelet count, is potentially useful in diagnosing some systemic vasculitides, particularly giant-cell arteritis. A few longitudinal studies on rheumatic diseases have demonstrated a decrease in PLR in response to anti-inflammatory therapies. The main limitations of PLR studies are preanalytical faults, inadequate standardization of laboratory measurements, and inappropriate subject selection. Nonetheless, accumulating evidence suggests that PLR can provide valuable information to clinicians who encounter multisystem manifestations of rheumatic diseases, which are reflected in shifts in platelet, lymphocyte, neutrophil, or monocyte counts. Interpretation of PLR combined with complementary hematologic indices is advisable to more accurately diagnose inflammatory rheumatic diseases and predict related comorbidities.

Review articles comprehensively covering a specific topic are crucial for successful research and academic projects. Most editors consider review articles for special and regular issues of journals. Writing a review requires deep knowledge and understanding of a field. The aim of this review is to analyze the main steps in writing a narrative biomedical review and to consider points that may increase the chances of success. We performed a comprehensive search through MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, and Web of Science using the following keywords: review of the literature, narrative review, title, abstract, authorship, ethics, peer review, research methods, medical writing, scientific writing, and writing standards. Opinions expressed in the review are also based on personal experience as authors, peer reviewers, and editors.

No abstract

Clinical manifestations of most rheumatic diseases have changed over the past few decades, largely due to advances in therapies targeting autoimmune and (auto)inflammatory pathways. Improvements in the management of rheumatic diseases have also now brought to the fore the issue of comorbidities. It has become evident that the burden of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality is increased in rheumatoid arthritis (RA), systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and the spondyloarthropathies, amongst other conditions. As a result, efforts have switched toward investigating the effects of conventional antirheumatic and new biologic agents on inflammationinduced atherothrombosis. Evidence is accumulating suggesting a beneficial cardiovascular profile of some antirheumatic drugs, such as methotrexate and hydroxychloroquine, but it also indicates the possibility of a variety of adverse events developing in the short- and long-term. The aim of this review is to highlight cardiovascular adverse effects of the drugs widely used in the treatment of rheumatic diseases. The literature search was performed through PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Scopus, and Web of Science databases using the following terms: "antirheumatic drugs", "inflammation", "rheumatic diseases", "cardiovascular diseases", "adverse events", "toxicity", "drug design", and "drug interactions". Adverse events ranging from infusion-related hypertension and myocardial ischemia, to restrictive cardiomyopathy and congestive heart failure have been reported in large trials and case series on most antirheumatic drugs. Clinicians should be alert of the wide variety of cardiovascular adverse effects of individual antirheumatic drugs, and should carefully monitor blood pressure and markers of inflammation, thrombosis, myocardial ischemia, electrolytes, and lipid disturbances while administering these drugs. Future prospective studies should specifically investigate the cardiovascular safety of most antirheumatic drugs as part of mono- or combination therapy in relation to different dosage regimens, duration of therapy, age, and gender.

Authorship problems in scholarly journals shake the foundations of research, diminish scientific quality of papers and devalue records of citation tracking services. The 'Publish or Perish' mantra is thought to drive some instances of unfair, honorary authorship, particularly in countries of emerging scientific power. Though causes of honorary, gift, guest and ghost authorship are still ill-defined, it is possible to avoid some of these instances by improving awareness of what constitutes authorship and by adhering to the editorial policies of learned associations. This paper overviews common cases of inappropriate authorship and suggests options to solve related problems by authors, reviewers and editors of scholarly journals.

AimTo analyze mistakes and misconduct in multidisciplinary and specialized biomedical journals. MethodsWe conducted searches through PubMed to retrieve errata, duplicate, and retracted publications (as of . To analyze publication activity and citation profiles of countries, multidisciplinary, and specialized biomedical journals, we referred to the latest data from the SCImago Journal & Country Rank database. Total number of indexed articles and values of the h-index of the fifty most productive countries and multidisciplinary journals were recorded and linked to the number of duplicate and retracted publications in PubMed.Results Our analysis found 2597 correction items. A striking increase in the number of corrections appeared in 2013, which is mainly due to 871 (85.3%) corrections from PLOS One. The number of duplicate publications was 1086. Articles frequently published in duplicate were reviews (15.6%), original studies (12.6%), and case reports (7.6%), whereas top three retracted articles were original studies (10.1%), randomized trials (8.8%), and reviews (7%). A strong association existed between the total number of publications across countries and duplicate (r s = 0.86, P < 0.001) and retracted items (r s = 0.812, P < 0.001). A similar trend was found between country-based h-index values and duplicate and retracted publications. ConclusionThe study suggests that the intensified self-correction in biomedicine is due to the attention of readers and authors, who spot errors in their hub of evidence-based information. Digitization and open access confound the staggering increase in correction notices and retractions.

No abstract