Enterococcal endocarditis in the beginning of the 21st century: analysis from the International Collaboration on Endocarditis-Prospective Cohort Study.

Enterococci are reportedly the third most common group of endocarditis-causing pathogens but data on enterococcal infective endocarditis (IE) are limited. The aim of this study was to analyse the characteristics and prognostic factors of enterococcal IE within the International Collaboration on Endocarditis. In this multicentre, prospective observational cohort study of 4974 adults with definite IE recorded from June 2000 to September 2006, 500 patients had enterococcal IE. Their characteristics were described and compared with those of oral and group D streptococcal IE. Prognostic factors for enterococcal IE were analysed using multivariable Cox regression models. The patients' mean age was 65 years and 361/500 were male. Twenty-three per cent (117/500) of cases were healthcare related. Enterococcal IE were more frequent than oral and group D streptococcal IE in North America. The 1-year mortality rate was 28.9% (144/500). E. faecalis accounted for 90% (453/500) of enterococcal IE. Resistance to vancomycin was observed in 12 strains, eight of which were observed in North America, where they accounted for 10% (8/79) of enterococcal strains, and was more frequent in E. faecium than in E. faecalis (3/16 vs. 7/364 , p 0.01). Variables significantly associated with 1-year mortality were heart failure (HR 2.4, 95% CI 1.7--3.5, p <0.0001), stroke (HR 1.9, 95% CI 1.3--2.8, p 0.001) and age (HR 1.02 per 1-year increment, 95% CI 1.01--1.04, p 0.002). Surgery was not associated with better outcome. Enterococci are an important cause of IE, with a high mortality rate. Healthcare association and vancomycin resistance are common in particular in North America.

Seeking good peer review in geomorphology

This paper provides an extended guide to reviewing for ESPL in particular and geomorphology in general. After a brief consideration of both how we choose reviewers and why we hope that reviewers will accept, I consider what makes a fair and constructive review. I note that we aim to publish papers with the rigour (r) necessary to sustain an original and significant contribution (q). I note that judging q is increasingly difficult because of the ever-growing size of the discipline (the Q). This is the sense in which we rarely have a full appreciation of Q, and our reviews are inevitably going to contain some bias. It is this bias that cannot be avoided (cf. Nicholas and Gordon, 2011) and makes the job of ESPL's Editors of critical importance. With this in mind, I identify six elements of a good review: (1) an introductory statement that explains your assessment of your competences in relation to the manuscript (r and Q); (2) a summative view of the originality and significance of the manuscript (q) in relation to Q: (3) a summative view of the methodological rigour of the manuscript (r); (4) identification and justification of any major concerns; (5) identification of any minor issues to be corrected if you think the manuscript merits eventual publication; and (6) note of any typographical or presentation issues to be addressed although this latter activity is also an editorial responsibility. In addition, I note the importance of a constructive review, grounded in what is written in the manuscript, justified where appropriate and avoiding reference to personal views as far as is possible. I conclude with a discussion of whether or not you should sign your review openly and the importance of reviewer confidentiality. Copyright (C) 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Access to a simulator is not enough: the benefits of virtual reality training based on peer-group-derived benchmarks--a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Virtual reality (VR) simulators are widely used to familiarize surgical novices with laparoscopy, but VR training methods differ in efficacy. In the present trial, self-controlled basic VR training (SC-training) was tested against training based on peer-group-derived benchmarks (PGD-training). METHODS: First, novice laparoscopic residents were randomized into a SC group (n = 34), and a group using PGD-benchmarks (n = 34) for basic laparoscopic training. After completing basic training, both groups performed 60 VR laparoscopic cholecystectomies for performance analysis. Primary endpoints were simulator metrics; secondary endpoints were program adherence, trainee motivation, and training efficacy. RESULTS: Altogether, 66 residents completed basic training, and 3,837 of 3,960 (96.8 %) cholecystectomies were available for analysis. Course adherence was good, with only two dropouts, both in the SC-group. The PGD-group spent more time and repetitions in basic training until the benchmarks were reached and subsequently showed better performance in the readout cholecystectomies: Median time (gallbladder extraction) showed significant differences of 520 s (IQR 354-738 s) in SC-training versus 390 s (IQR 278-536 s) in the PGD-group (p < 0.001) and 215 s (IQR 175-276 s) in experts, respectively. Path length of the right instrument also showed significant differences, again with the PGD-training group being more efficient. CONCLUSIONS: Basic VR laparoscopic training based on PGD benchmarks with external assessment is superior to SC training, resulting in higher trainee motivation and better performance in simulated laparoscopic cholecystectomies. We recommend such a basic course based on PGD benchmarks before advancing to more elaborate VR training.