Parochialism or self-consciousness? Internationality in medical history journals 1997-2006

Research councils, universities and funding agencies are increasingly asking for tools to measure the quality of research in the humanities. One of their preferred methods is a ranking of journals according to their supposed level of internationality. Our quantitative survey of seventeen major journals of medical history reveals the futility of such an approach. Most journals have a strong national character with a dominance of native language, authors and topics. The most common case is a paper written by a local author in his own language on a national subject regarding the nineteenth or twentieth century. American and British journals are taken notice of internationally but they only rarely mention articles from other history of medicine journals. Continental European journals show a more international review of literature, but are in their turn not noticed globally. Increasing specialisation and fragmentation has changed the role of general medical history journals. They run the risk of losing their function as international platforms of discourse on general and theoretical issues and major trends in historiography, to international collections of papers. Journal editors should therefore force their authors to write a more international report, and authors should be encouraged to submit papers of international interest and from a more general, transnational and methodological point of view.

In vitro diagnosis of T cell-mediated drug allergy

Diagnosis of drug hypersensitivity relies on history, skin tests, in vitro tests and provocation tests. In vitro tests are of great interest, due to possible reduction of drug provocation tests. In this review we focus on best investigated in vitro techniques for the diagnosis of T cell-mediated drug hypersensitivity reactions. As drug hypersensitivity relies on different pathomechanisms and as a single diagnostic test usually does not cover all possible reactions, it is advisable to combine different tests to increase the overall sensitivity. Recently, proliferation-based assays have been supplemented by a panel of novel in vitro tests including analysis of cytotoxic potential of effector cells (granzyme B, granulysin, CD107a), evaluation of cytokine secretion (IL-2, IL-5, IL-13, and IFN-γ) and up-regulation of cell surface activation markers (CD69). We discuss the latest findings and readout systems to identify causative drugs by detecting functional and phenotypic markers of drug-reacting cells, and their ability to enable a more conclusive diagnosis of drug allergy.

Meta-analysis in medical research: potentials and limitations

Meta-analysis, the statistical combination of results from several studies to produce a single estimate of a treatment effect or size of an association, continues to attract controversy. We illustrate and discuss the promises and limitations of meta-analysis. Meta-analysis of clinical trials can prevent delays in the introduction of effective treatments or lead to the timely identification of adverse effects. However, meta-analyses are liable to numerous biases, both at the level of the individual study and the selection of studies for inclusion in meta-analysis. The biases and confounding factors that threaten the validity of individual studies will also affect meta-analyses of observational studies. We argue that meta-analyses should only be performed within the framework of systematic reviews that have been prepared using methods that minimize bias and address the combinability of studies.

Combined magnetic resonance imaging and magnetic resonance spectroscopy imaging in the diagnosis of prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

CONTEXT: Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) combined with magnetic resonance spectroscopy imaging (MRSI) emerged as a promising test in the diagnosis of prostate cancer and showed encouraging results. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this systematic review is to meta-analyse the diagnostic accuracy of combined MRI/MRSI in prostate cancer and to explore risk profiles with highest benefit. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: The authors searched the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases and the Cochrane Library, and the authors screened reference lists and contacted experts. There were no language restrictions. The last search was performed in August 2008. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: We identified 31 test-accuracy studies (1765 patients); 16 studies (17 populations) with a total of 581 patients were suitable for meta-analysis. Nine combined MRI/MRSI studies (10 populations) examining men with pathologically confirmed prostate cancer (297 patients; 1518 specimens) had a pooled sensitivity and specificity on prostate subpart level of 68% (95% CI, 56-78%) and 85% (95% CI, 78-90%), respectively. Compared with patients at high risk for clinically relevant cancer (six studies), sensitivity was lower in low-risk patients (four studies) (58% [46-69%] vs 74% [58-85%]; p>0.05) but higher for specificity (91% [86-94%] vs 78% [70-84%]; p<0.01). Seven studies examining patients with suspected prostate cancer at combined MRI/MRSI (284 patients) had an overall pooled sensitivity and specificity on patients level of 82% (59-94%) and 88% (80-95%). In the low-risk group (five studies) these values were 75% (39-93%) and 91% (77-97%), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: A limited number of small studies suggest that MRI combined with MRSI could be a rule-in test for low-risk patients. This finding needs further confirmation in larger studies and cost-effectiveness needs to be established.