|
 |
|
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR |
|
|
|
| Year : 2021 | Volume
: 26
| Issue : 3 | Page : 208-209 |
| |
On the evaluation of scientific papers presented in IAPS conferences
Venkatachalam Raveenthiran
Department of Pediatric Surgery, SRM Medical College, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India
| Date of Submission | 23-Sep-2020 |
| Date of Acceptance | 25-Sep-2020 |
| Date of Web Publication | 15-May-2021 |
Correspondence Address:
Prof. Venkatachalam Raveenthiran
200. Fifth Street, Viduthalai Nagar, Kovilambakkam, Chennai - 600 117, Tamil Nadu
India
 Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None  | Check |
DOI: 10.4103/jiaps.JIAPS_327_20
How to cite this article:
Raveenthiran V. On the evaluation of scientific papers presented in IAPS conferences. J Indian Assoc Pediatr Surg 2021;26:208-9 |
Sir,
With great interest, I read the article by Drs Murthi and Mukkavilli.[1] Periodic qualitative auditing of the scientific papers presented in IAPS conferences is highly desirable. It is the only way of improving our research standards. I published a similar but methodologically more robust analysis almost a decade ago.[2] Unfortunately, the present authors have made no reference to the previous work. Probably because of that, they adopted a very different methodology to evaluate the scientific papers presented between 2014 and 2018. Thus, the two papers become uncomparable and the golden opportunity of evaluating if we have improved overtime or not, is lost. The present study is a retrospective review, while the previous study was a prospective observational study. Perhaps due to the limitations of a retrospective study, the authors could not comment on the scientific value of discussions, the relevance of conclusions, and the quality of audience interaction. The authors have taken 4 consecutive years (2014–2018) for analysis. Instead, restricting it to a particular year would have enabled more focused analysis. Similarly, posters and oral presentations cannot be mixed-up together because of their different purpose, format, and impact. The authors could have easily evaluated the papers for their level of evidence. Although they mention it in the discussion section, their data do not reflect anything on the analysis of the Oxford level of evidence. Finally, authors have only provided descriptive data rather than statistical analysis, facilitating the synthesis of conclusions. Hence, the phrase “qualitative evaluation” in the title could possibly be misleading and it would have been appropriate had it been “quantitative study.” I wish, future researches adopt a standard methodology so that the auditing papers become comparable and we will know the improvements made over a period of time.
Financial support and sponsorship
Nil.
Conflicts of interest
There are no conflicts of interest.
 Reply to Letter to Editor Written by Ramesh Babu and VVS | |  |
Thank you so much for your interest in our article just published and for raising intelligent queries to be discussed. We hope our reply to your queries would benefit not only the junior colleagues but also others interested in posterior urethral valves (PUV) management.
- Why not voiding cystourethrogram (VCUG)! In this era with the “concept minimal invasion” and aware parents, radiation-free ultrasound is capable to show the features of obstruction through posterior urethral dilation, bladder wall thickness, trabeculations, and hydro-ureteronephrosis in the upper tract.
During follow-up, to check the resolution of posterior urethral obstruction, we avoid doing VCUG, but we do check cystoscopy after 3 months. In our indexed article, we have used cystogram, not VCUG, to assess the vesicoureteric reflux and/or obstruction and not for assessment persistent PUV - Bladder neck incision (BNI): Good suggestion for the comparative study. I presume that junior colleagues would be interested and come forward to do the study considered necessary. BNI should be the full thickness, as mentioned in our article, muscle incision at bladder neck, so deep to bring the peri-vesical areolar tissue visible in incision line
With alfa-blockers, you might get an increase of flow by 2 ml in Qmax which might not be sufficient enough to relief the obstruction. Hence, we have to quantify the obstruction and assess the relief of obstruction with a repeat UD Study - Urodynamic studies (UDS) (URO dynamic study): In our setup, UDS is possible after 6 months of age. We expect high pressure in the PUV bladder even after fulguration (discussed in our article) but not possible to quantify bladder pressure without UDS. hence, it is important
- Rhabdosphincter spasm: RSS is rather a new concept not yet focused on western literature. However, it is a “derived concept” from literature published in the coveted journals as discussed in the section of discussion in our index article. As RSS is a new concept, most would not agree with our observations and inferences until and unless further studies are done on RSS in the western countries. We respect personal opinion which may not be supported by evidences and we are also in the same opinion with you that RS should not be damaged during PUV fulguration. Not only that we also feel that the posterior urethra should not be damaged during PUV fulguration
- Ureterovesical junction obstruction (UVJO) and Double J (DJ) stent: Yes, your apprehension is justified. With similar apprehension of infection, sepsis, and death, we avoid VCUG as mentioned in our index article. However, till now, we have not experienced any infection following DJ insertion in UVJO. The chance of urinary tract infection (UTI) is more due to stasis of urine. Stasis occurs due to obstruction, decreased peristalsis, etc. Hence, we support the “concept of drainage” to prevent or mitigate UTI by obviating the obstruction at the level of RS (Rhabdo Sphincter) or BN (bladder neck) or at UVJ
- Chronic kidney disease (CKD) and Statistics: This is a retrospective observational study with multiple unconcerned concepts which are difficult to establish statistically at one go and we have not attempted that at all, as mentioned in our article at the last line of conclusion. We have presented our atomic data, and our article is an attempt to aware the concerned surgeons about the paradigm mentioned to prevent upstaging of CKD at the beginning of PUV management and end-stage renal disease at the end.
Downstaging (stage-wise improvement) is metaphoric bonus, a “chance finding!” That is why we have kept our focus on prevention of upstaging (stage-wise deterioration). You have checked statistical surrogated significance only in “down staging” not in “upstaging” group. In upstaging group, you might get P = 0.00001 in between first and second authors and P = 0.004 in between first and third authors (Chi-square with Yates correction, in two-tailed analysis). Both are highly significant statistically.
Financial support and sponsorship
Nil.
Conflicts of interest
There are no conflicts of interest.
U. S. Chatterjee, A. K. Basu
Visiting Pediatric Surgeon Park Clinic, Gorky Terrace, Kolkata,
West Bengal, India
Address for correspondence: U. S. Chatterjee,
Visiting Pediatric Surgeon Park Clinic, Gorky Terrace,
Kolkata, West Bengal, India.
E-mail: [email protected]
| References | | |
| 1. | Murthi GV, Mukkavilli SR. A qualitative evaluation of the scientific program in IAPSCON 2014-2018. J Indian Assoc Pediatr Surg 2020;25:265-8.  |
| 2. | Raveenthiran V. What do we discuss at IAPS meetings? An appraisal of free paper sessions at the 30 th annual conference. J Indian Assoc Pediatr Surg 2005;10:31-6. Thank you so much for your interest in our article just published and for raising intelligent queries to be discussed. We hope our reply to your queries would benefit not only the junior colleagues but also others interested in posterior urethral valves (PUV) management. [Full text] |
|
