Document recommendation systems for locating relevant literature have mostly relied on methods developed a decade ago. This is largely due to the lack of a large offline gold-standard benchmark of relevant documents that cover a variety of research fields such that newly developed literature search techniques can be compared, improved and translated into practice. To overcome this bottleneck, we have established the RElevant LIterature SearcH consortium consisting of more than 1500 scientists from 84 countries, who have collectively annotated the relevance of over 180 000 PubMed-listed articles with regard to their respective seed (input) article/s. The majority of annotations were contributed by highly experienced, original authors of the seed articles. The collected data cover 76% of all unique PubMed Medical Subject Headings descriptors. No systematic biases were observed across different experience levels, research fields or time spent on annotations. More importantly, annotations of the same document pairs contributed by different scientists were highly concordant. We further show that the three representative baseline methods used to generate recommended articles for evaluation (Okapi Best Matching 25, Term Frequency–Inverse Document Frequency and PubMed Related Articles) had similar overall performances. Additionally, we found that these methods each tend to produce distinct collections of recommended articles, suggesting that a hybrid method may be required to completely capture all relevant articles. The established database server located at https://relishdb.ict.griffith.edu.au is freely available for the downloading of annotation data and the blind testing of new methods. We expect that this benchmark will be useful for stimulating the development of new powerful techniques for title and title/abstract-based search engines for relevant articles in biomedical research.

No abstract

No abstract

Background and ObjectiveTo review the literature from a urologist’s perspective regarding the use of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE), associated challenges, and other potential measures that can be taken to reduce the risk of nosocomial COVID-19 transmission. Material and MethodsA literature review using PubMed, Cochrane Review, and Google Scholar database search was performed using the keyword terms “COVID-19”, “Coronavirus”, “Personal Protective Equipment” (PPE), “healthcare workers” (HCW), “protection”, “masks”, and “urology”. Non-English articles were excluded. We present a summary of key guidance provided by regulatory bodies as well as some of the key articles published to date relating to PPE. DiscussionSARS-CoV-2 virus is found mainly in the respiratory system but is also in blood, feces, semen, and urine. Both standard infection control precautions (SICPs) and transmission-based precautions (TBPs) are nec-essary to reduce nosocomial transmission of COVID-19 infection. PPE includes gowns, gloves, masks or respirators, goggles, and face shields; however, wearing PPE is only part of many precautionary measures that are necessary to prevent viral transmission. When used appropriately PPE not only protects HCWs from patients but also protects patients from HCWs who may be asymptomatic carriers of COVID-19 infection. Attention should also be paid to fit testing and fit checking, donning and doffing, and ever-evolving guide-lines on PPE. Wearing PPE for a long time is also technically challenging and may adversely affect surgical outcomes. Shortages of PPE in the supply chain during the peak of the pandemic as well as concerns about substandard PPE should be considered for a possible second wave of COVID-19. Other key measures to minimize nosocomial SARS-CoV-2 virus transmission are a symptom and temperature screening of patients and staff; controlling the flow of patients, staff, and relatives in hospitals; self-isolation by patients before elective surgery; a robust testing protocol for both patients and staff; patient and staff cohorting; physical distancing; good hand hygiene; respiratory etiquette including face coverings for patients, staff and visitors; proper disposal of waste and enhanced cleaning; thorough cleaning and sterilization of surgical equipment performed post-operatively; choosing suitable anesthetic methods to minimize aerosolization of the virus; and if possible ensuring a negative-pressure theatre environment while dealing with COVID-19 positive patients. As scientific and regulatory bodies continue to issue updated guidance as more data is collected and a better knowledge base is developed regarding COVID-19 employers and staff need to keep up to date with guidance also. ConclusionCOVID-19 will be around for the foreseeable future and infection rates may fluctuate as restrictions are eased. HCWs including urologists should take appropriate PPE measures not only in theatres, clinics, and endoscopy suits but also when performing simple tasks such as urine dipsticks, catheter, nephrostomy management, digital rectal examination (DRE), prostate biopsies, etc. as SARS-CoV-2 can be detected in feces, urine, and semen. Both employers and HCWs should adhere strictly to current guidelines and work together to minimize nosocomial transmission of COVID-19 infection.

Background According to the literature, there have been reports of introduction of foreign bodies into the urethra predominantly in males, both adults and children. Erotic stimulation, intoxication, assault and psychiatric conditions are the most frequent contributors. Case presentation A 70-year-old male presented with difficulty in passing urine for one week after having inserted two plastic ballpoint pens into his urethra. The patient had a failed attempt at removal using a rigid cystoscope and biopsy forceps. A Liga-clip applicator allowed successful blind removal of both pens while the patient was under a general anaesthetic. Conclusions Removal of urethral foreign bodies can be challenging as endoscopic removal may fail, and open or blind procedures may be required. Moreover, complications can be significant. On occasions, improvisations in techniques may be helpful, such as in our patient. A psychiatric review is vital to try and ensure the prevention of repeat incidents.

Background To establish the risk of catching COVID-19 as urology emergency inpatient and assess patients’ fears and attitudes towards seeking help. Methods A single-centre retrospective study of urological emergency admissions was conducted over a 10-week period in 2019 and compared to same period of 2020 pandemic. Also, a telephone survey was performed based on a COVID-19 fear questionnaire. Results In-hospital, infection rate was 0.82% during or within 28 days of discharge with no related mortality. The majority of patients were afraid to visit A&E during the pandemic with less being afraid to visit their GPs; 64% were reluctant to seek medical input by trying self-treatment; 56% admitted intentional delay to visit the hospital. Additionally, 56% considered risk of getting COVID-19 was higher rather than leaving their condition untreated. Interestingly, the vast majority (82%) stated that they would not change approach regarding hospital visits if the same situation occurred. Conclusions The risk of contracting COVID 19 while a urology in patient in a COVID-19 epicentre was very low with no COVID-19-related mortality. Our data support that patients should be encouraged to attend rather than stay at home during future surges in the pandemic to prevent further non–COVID-19-related harm.

No abstract

According to the World Health Organisation there have been 30,055,710 confirmed COVID-19 cases and 933,433 confirmed deaths across 216 countries globally. The availability of the complete SARS-CoV-2 genome relatively early in the epidemic has enabled the development of tests for the diagnosis of COVID-19. There are two broad categories of SARS-CoV-2 diagnostic tests currently in use or development: (1) Real-time reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) tests and (2) serology tests. RT-PCR is considered the gold standard and preferred method of diagnosis of acute infection. There is, however, a plethora of laboratory-developed and commercial RT-PCR assays with different gene targets. We discuss the value of pre-operative testing for COVID-19 before urological surgery.