Gastric cancer immunotherapy: A scientometric and clinical trial review

This letter is intended to arouse your interest in a recent review of comprehensive scientometrics and clinical trials on immunotherapy for gastric cancer (GC). Our study reviews recent advances in immunotherapy in the field of GC and highlights its new prospects as a treatment for GC. Our research reveals China's leadership in this field, as well as new therapeutic strategies such as immune checkpoint inhibitors, cellular immunotherapy, and vaccines. The combined findings highlight the potential of immunotherapy to improve survival and quality of life in patients with stomach cancer. We believe that this study will provide important guidance for the future direction of the GC treatment field.

A scoping review identifies multiple comments suggesting modifications to SPIRIT 2013 and CONSORT 2010

OBJECTIVES

To identify, summarize, and analyse comments on the core reporting guidelines for protocols of randomized trials (Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials [SPIRIT] 2013) and for completed trials (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials [CONSORT] 2010), with special emphasis on suggestions for guideline modifications.

METHODS

We included documents written in English and published after 2010 that explicitly commented on SPIRIT 2013 or CONSORT 2010. We searched four bibliographic databases (Embase and MEDLINE to June 2022; Web of Science and Google Scholar to April 2022) and other sources (e.g., the EQUATOR Network website, the BMC Blog Network, and the BMJ rapid response section). Two authors independently assessed documents for eligibility and extracted data on basic characteristics and the wording of the main comments. We categorized comments as 'suggestion for modification to the wording of an existing guideline item,' 'suggestion for a new item,' or 'reflections on challenges or strengths.' We provided a summary and examples of the proposed suggestions and categorized comments into those that were directly linked to empirical investigations, were continuations of previous methodological discussions, or reflected new methodological developments.

RESULTS

We assessed full text of 2,320 potentially eligible documents and included 93 documents with 114 comments. In total, 37 comments suggested modifications to existing guideline items. The participant flow section of CONSORT 2010 received the most comments (eight comments made different suggestions, e.g., one comment suggested to add numbers on nonrandomized screened participants). There were 46 comments suggesting new items. Multiple suggestions were related to trial interventions (eight comments made different suggestions, e.g., one comment suggested to add content on cointerventions), blinding (six comments suggested to add content on risk of unblinding), statistical methods (five comments made different suggestions, e.g., one comment suggested to add content on blinding of statisticians), and participant flow (seven comments made different suggestions, e.g., three comments suggested to add content on missing data). Half (53%) of the suggestions were directly linked to empirical investigations. Six (7%) suggestions were continuations of previous methodological discussions and five (6%) suggestions reflected new methodological developments related to conflicts of interest and funding, data sharing, and patient and public involvement.

CONCLUSION

The issues raised provide context to authors, peer reviewers, editors, and readers of trials using SPIRIT 2013 and CONSORT 2010 and inform the planned updates of the core guidelines.

Good field practice and hydrogeological knowledge are essential to determine reliable concentrations of microplastics in groundwater

There are some weaknesses in the methodology of original paper "Informal landfill contributes to the pollution of microplastic in the surrounding environment" published in Environmental Pollution. We commented on the groundwater sampling procedure that affect the calculated concentrations of microplastics in groundwater. Important information related to the description of sampling wells, informal landfill, and the exact description of sample collection method are missing. In addition, significant data related to the groundwater like water level, flow direction, and velocity have been skipped, which are fundamental in groundwater related studies. There should be a clear diagram of landfill location and sampling wells in the landfill, for appropriate understanding of microplastics (MPs) pollution in surrounding environment of a landfill.

Comments on the calculation of the standard equilibrium constant using the Langmuir model in Journal of Hazardous Materials 422 (2022) 126863

The calculation of equilibrium constant from the Langmuir model is widely used in the literature. However, the dimensional problem of the equilibrium constant has often been ignored. For example, a recent publication on the strong properties of the new adsorbent for tetracycline. Nevertheless, this used an improper calculation of the standard equilibrium constant, confusing solute and solution. This creates dimension for K₀ obtained from Eq. (13). Unfortunately, K₀ should be dimensionless. In this comment, the origin and background of this kind of error is analyzed and the method for correcting the error is presented. Specifically, we establish a clear relationship between the Langmuir constant (K_L) and the standard equilibrium constant (K₀). We hope this comment clarifies the essence of calculating the standard equilibrium constant by using the Langmuir model, so others avoid the propagation of this kind of error.

Comment on "Efficient removal of plastic additives by sunlight active titanium dioxide decorated Cd-Mg ferrite nanocomposite: Green synthesis, kinetics and photoactivity"

In this comment paper, some critical shortcomings and errors in the original paper [Chemosphere, 290, 133,307] are discussed. The authors have not adhered to the 12 Principles of Green Chemistry by incorporating the highly toxic metal Cd in their ferrite nanocomposite photocatalyst, despite its synthesis being described as green. Neither the necessity nor the effectiveness of Cd addition in relation to catalytic activity were explained. Although adsorption of the substrates on the catalyst is necessary for the photocatalytic process, excessive adsorption may give a false impression of efficient removal as opposed to true degradation or mineralization. This issue is extremely important for experimental design when the solubility of the substances is very low. The authors have disregarded the solvent effect of organic scavengers for the reactive species, potentially attributing a greater contribution of the degradation of substances to hydroxyl radicals. Some suggestions are also provided to improve their work in the field of photocatalysis.

Comment on "Spatial distribution of microplastic concentration around landfill sites and its potential risk on groundwater"

This paper discusses some critical weak points and mistakes identified in the original paper. The authors disregarded the importance of field blanks, sampling equipment, and well specifications for proper quality assurance and control. Beneficial field practices guarantee highly reliable results of laboratory analysis for microplastics. In addition, polymer type (chemical composition) and shape (form) are different classification criteria, but the authors mixed these in their description. The distribution and transport of microplastics should be properly understood, along with a knowledge of groundwater flow conditions, such as flow direction and velocity, in the study area.

Perspectives of pain specialists, patients, and family members on long-term opioid use for chronic non-cancer pain: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Opioids are currently prescribed for chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP), and some patients use opioids continuously for long-term treatment. Stakeholders' awareness about long-term opioid therapy is essential for improving the safety and effectiveness of pain treatment. The purpose of this study is to explore the perspectives of pain specialists, patients, and family caregivers about long-term opioid use in CNCP management.

METHODS

This study was a qualitative study and adhered to the COREQ guidelines. Pain specialists (n = 12), patients (n = 14), and family members (n = 9) were recruited to the study by purposive sampling at the Pain Clinic of Ramathibodi Hospital. Semi-structured interviews were recorded, verbatim transcribed, conceptually coded, and analyzed using Atlas.ti 8.0.

RESULTS

All groups of participants described opioids as non-first-line drugs for pain management. Opioids should be prescribed only for severe pain, when non-opioid pharmacotherapy and non-pharmacological therapies are not effective. Patients reported that the benefits of opioids were for pain relief, while physicians and most family members highlighted that opioid use should improve functional outcomes. Physicians and family members expressed concerns about opioid-related side effects, harm, and adverse events, while patients did not. Patients confirmed that they would continue using opioids for pain management under supervision. However, physicians stated that they would taper off or discontinue opioid therapy if patients' pain relief or functional improvement was not achieved. Both patients and family members were willing to consider non-pharmacological therapies if potential benefits existed. Patient education, doctor-patient/family relationships, and opioid prescription policies were proposed to enhance CNCP management.

CONCLUSION

Long-term opioid therapy for CNCP may be beneficial in patients who have established realistic treatment goals (for both pain relief and functional improvement) with their physicians. Regular monitoring and evaluation of the risks and benefits, adverse events, and drug-related aberrant behaviors are necessary. Integrated multimodal multidisciplinary therapies and family member collaborations are also important for improving CNCP management.

Comments on "High-efficiency removal of dyes from wastewater by fully recycling litchi peel biochar"

This paper provided further discussion on some identified mistakes and inconsistencies. Such problems included (1) the determination and discussion on the pH_PZC value of the biochar, (2) the excellent adsorption capacity of the biochar toward the dye contaminant, (3) the proposd adsorption mechanism (i.e., chemical adsorption) only based on the best fitting of the experimental data to the kinetic model (i.e., the pseudo-second-order or Elovich model), (4) the conception on the Freundlich model, and (5) the presentation of the adsorption mechanism involved in hydrogen bonding. Some other potential problems regarding the determination of adsorption capacity of an adsorbent towards an adsorbate (q_e; mg/g) were additionally discussed herein. It gives readers a gentle reminder that the initial concentration of adsorbate (also known as the blank sample; C_o) always plays a vital role in accurately calculating the q_e value. The C_o value from experiment (i.e., 254 mg/L or 245 mg/L) is often dissimilar to the C_o value from theory (i.e., 250 mg/L). The difference becomes enormously significant when the C_o value reaches very high concentration (i.e., 1000 mg/L) because an extremely high dilution factor is applied to determine the concentration of adsorbate in solution. The author hopes that the comments and contents in this paper will be particularly helpful for other researchers who are interested in the field of adsorption science and technology. Some highly-readable recent publications, which comprise the different types of paper as "comment", "discussion", "perspective", and "critical review", have also introduced in this paper. The expert reviewers and editors should give a great concern to such problems for further evaluations of submitted manuscripts in the field.

Comment on "removal of hexavalent chromium by biochar supported nZVI composite: Batch and fixed-bed column evaluations, mechanisms, and secondary contamination prevention"

This article aims to discuss (1) the incorrect identification of Cr(III) and Cr(VI) binding energies in the Cr 2p XPS (X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy) spectra of the laden adsorbent (the nZVI-BC sample after Cr(VI) adsorption), (2) misconception regarding the Weber-Morris intraparticle diffusion model, and (3) inconsistency between the experiential data and the Thomas adsorption rate constants. The authors hope that our comments are beneficial for other researchers to avoid the undesirable mistakes.

Letter to the Editor: Comments on "Association between the ICAM-1 gene polymorphism and coronary heart disease risk: a meta-analysis"

Yin et al. (Bioscience Reports (2019) 39, BSR20180923) recently published a meta-analysis about the association between the K469E (rs5498) polymorphism and risk of coronary heart disease (CHD). Authors included 14 studies based on their inclusion criteria. They indicated that only studies which their genotyping data were in Hardy–Weinberg equilibrium (HWE) were included in their meta-analysis. They also tested HWE for these studies and found all the control groups in HWE. As their main finding, they concluded that ‘K469E polymorphism is associated with CHD risk and the K allele is a more significant risk factor for developing CHD amongst Chinese and Caucasians populations’. However, there seems to be presenting some mistakes in HWE test which strongly affects included studies and the final conclusion. Here we aim to comment on the issue.

Feelings and expectations in endometriosis: Analysis of open comments from a cohort of endometriosis patients

INTRODUCTION

Endometriosis symptoms may have a negative effect on health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Analyses of open comments are known to be a key source of information and support. The authors aimed to analyse open comments associated with a validation scale study, in order to ascertain whether the questionnaires allowed an adequate exploration of patient preoccupations and in so doing define important quality of life themes not assessed in HRQoL scales.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Analysis of open comments, following two questionnaires (SF-36 and EHP-30) as part of a national study evaluating the EHP-30, was performed. Questionnaires were distributed online, via a link to the RedCap Internet platform. The association EndoFrance, a support group for endometriosis patients, notified women of the launching of the study. Women were asked to complete the questionnaire and had the opportunity to comment. Comments were gathered, coded systematically, and categorised by theme.

RESULTS

Of the 1156 women who responded to the questionnaire, 913 (79.0%) declared having a confirmed surgical diagnosis of endometriosis, and 265 comments were analysed. Comments were classified in 20 themes. Correspondence between the themes and items for both questionnaires and the open comments was investigated for all topics, including those non-addressed by the questionnaires. 8 themes are not mentioned in both questionnaires, 9 themes are covered by EHP-30, two by SF-36 and only one by both.

CONCLUSION

Anonymous data collection and subsequent analysis proves to be an effective and practical way of obtaining patient opinion on their pathology. Analysis of comments may provide additional and useful information to the classical HRQoL Scale.

Mistakes and inconsistencies regarding adsorption of contaminants from aqueous solutions: A critical review

In recent years, adsorption science and technology for water and wastewater treatment has attracted substantial attention from the scientific community. However, the number of publications containing inconsistent concepts is increasing. Many publications either reiterate previously discussed mistakes or create new mistakes. The inconsistencies are reflected by the increasing publication of certain types of article in this field, including "short communications", "discussions", "critical reviews", "comments", "letters to the editor", and "correspondence (comment/rebuttal)". This article aims to discuss (1) the inaccurate use of technical terms, (2) the problem associated with quantities for measuring adsorption performance, (3) the important roles of the adsorbate and adsorbent pK_a, (4) mistakes related to the study of adsorption kinetics, isotherms, and thermodynamics, (5) several problems related to adsorption mechanisms, (6) inconsistent data points in experimental data and model fitting, (7) mistakes in measuring the specific surface area of an adsorbent, and (8) other mistakes found in the literature. Furthermore, correct expressions and original citations of the relevant models (i.e., adsorption kinetics and isotherms) are provided. The authors hope that this work will be helpful for readers, researchers, reviewers, and editors who are interested in the field of adsorption studies.

Evaluation of the Cochrane tool for assessing risk of bias in randomized clinical trials: overview of published comments and analysis of user practice in Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews

BACKGROUND

The Cochrane risk of bias tool for randomized clinical trials was introduced in 2008 and has frequently been commented on and used in systematic reviews. We wanted to evaluate the tool by reviewing published comments on its strengths and challenges and by describing and analysing how the tool is applied to both Cochrane and non-Cochrane systematic reviews.

METHODS

A review of published comments (searches in PubMed, The Cochrane Methodology Register and Google Scholar) and an observational study (100 Cochrane and 100 non-Cochrane reviews from 2014).

RESULTS

Our review included 68 comments, 15 of which were categorised as major. The main strengths of the tool were considered to be its aim (to assess trial conduct and not reporting), its developmental basis (wide consultation, empirical and theoretical evidence) and its transparent procedures. The challenges of the tool were mainly considered to be its choice of core bias domains (e.g. not involving funding/conflicts of interest) and issues to do with implementation (i.e. modest inter-rater agreement) and terminology. Our observational study found that the tool was used in all Cochrane reviews (100/100) and was the preferred tool in non-Cochrane reviews (31/100). Both types of reviews frequently implemented the tool in non-recommended ways. Most Cochrane reviews planned to use risk of bias assessments as basis for sensitivity analyses (70 %), but only a minority conducted such analyses (19 %) because, in many cases, few trials were assessed as having "low" risk of bias for all standard domains (6 %). The judgement of at least one risk of bias domain as "unclear" was found in 89 % of included randomized clinical trials (1103/1242).

CONCLUSIONS

The Cochrane tool has become the standard approach to assess risk of bias in randomized clinical trials but is frequently implemented in a non-recommended way. Based on published comments and how it is applied in practice in systematic reviews, the tool may be further improved by a revised structure and more focused guidance.