ObjectiveTo summarise studies describing incidence of sudden cardiac death in a general population of young individuals to inform screening policy.DesignSystematic review.Data sourcesDatabase searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane library (all inception to current) on 29 April 2019 (updated 16 November 2019), and forward/backward citation tracking of eligible studies.Study eligibility criteriaAll studies that reported incidence of sudden cardiac death in young individuals (12–39 years) in a general population, with no restriction on language or date. Planned subgroups were incidence by age, sex, race and athletic status (including military personnel).Data extractionTwo reviewers independently assessed study eligibility, extracted study data and assessed risk of bias using the Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal checklist for prevalence studies.AnalysisReported incidence of sudden cardiac death in the young per 100 000 person-years.Results38 studies that reported incidence across five continents. We identified substantial heterogeneity in population, sudden cardiac death definition, and case ascertainment methods, precluding meta-analysis. Median reported follow-up years was 6.97 million (IQR 2.34 million–23.70 million) and number of sudden cardiac death cases was 64 (IQR 40–251). In the general population, the median of reported incidence was 1.7 sudden cardiac death per 100 000 person-years (IQR 1.3–2.6, range 0.75–11.9). Most studies (n=14, 54%) reported an incidence between one and two cases per 100 000 person-years. Incidence was higher in males and older individuals.ConclusionsThis systematic review identified variability in the reported incidence of sudden cardiac death in the young across studies. Most studies reported an incidence between one and two cases per 100 000 person-years.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42019120563.

A recent study examined the rate of full-length research paper publication following abstract presentation at the British association of clinical anatomists (BACA) annual meetings. The accepted standard for research dissemination is peer-reviewed publication following presentation at a national or international meeting. The study objectives were quantitative assessment of the abstracts presented at the American Association of Clinical Anatomists' (AACA) annual meetings with regards to the rate of subsequent full-length publication and comparison to BACA publication rates. All abstracts presented at the AACA annual meetings between 2003 and 2010 were analysed. MEDLINE was searched to identify peer-reviewed publications arising from each presented abstract. In total, 1,120 abstracts were presented with 22.9% (n = 257) subsequently published as full-length research papers. The mean number of abstracts presented each year was 140.0 ± 35.9. The median time to publication was 16 months. Chi-squared analysis showed the publication rate of abstracts presented at AACA (22.9%) was not statistically significantly different to BACA (20.4%) (P = 0.09). A total of 11.3% (n = 29) of the articles were published as full-length research articles before presentation as an abstract at an AACA meeting compared to 5.4% of abstracts presented at a BACA meeting. These rates are lower but comparable to those of surgical specialty meetings. Further work should try to identify any concerning reasons for the reduced rate of abstract publication in anatomical research. Clin. Anat. 30:140-144, 2017. © 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

No abstract

Introduction: Dissemination of research depends on published work being accessible. In many disciplines open access (OA) research is more frequently cited, although this has never before been demonstrated amongst anatomy publications. The objective of this study was to assess a selection of published anatomy papers to determine the effect of gold and bronze OA availability on citation rates. Materials and Methods: Taken together, 625 peer‐reviewed publications were identified from 2927 abstracts presented at meetings of AACA (2003–2010) and BACA (2000–2015). Results: In total 18.75% (69 of 368) of papers presented at BACA and 21.79% (56 of 257) of those presented at AACA reached OA publication.  Citation rates are significantly higher amongst OA papers as compared to non‐OA papers presented at these two anatomy conferences (OA 18.95, Non‐OA 15.14 p = 0.047). OA papers were most commonly themed around education and pure anatomy. Conclusions: The average OA publication rate of 20.0% in anatomical research arising from these conferences is significantly lower than the average rate for scientific research. Citation rates are significantly higher amongst OA anatomy papers presented at these two conferences.