A comparison of the academic impact of plastic surgery units in the United Kingdom and Ireland using bibliometric analysis

Academic output is just one aspect of a successful career as a plastic surgeon. However, for those with a strong interest in academia, the academic output of a department will likely be a key factor when deciding how to rank jobs. The aim of this study was to quantify and rank the academic output of plastic surgery units across the UK and Ireland. The Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) Web of Science Bibliometric analysis tool was used to collate cumulative (1950–2016), 10 year (2006–2016) and 3 years (2013–2015) research output data for plastic surgery units in the UK and Ireland. Sixty-six plastic surgery units were identified. Departments were ranked for each time period according to the number of papers produced, number of citations (Nc) and h-index (a measure of the impact of scientific output). The top 3 departments for number of papers in the last 10 years were The Royal Free Hospital, London (226) Broomfield Hospital, Chelmsford (218), and Morriston Hospital and Swansea (188). The top 3 for h-number were The Royal Free Hospital (21) Wythenshawe Hospital, Manchester (18) and Morriston Hospital (17). Academic output varies across plastic surgery units in the UK and Ireland. A number of departments have consistently maintained high academic outputs across the years and will be of interest to surgeons hoping to pursue a career in academia.     

The case for allele‐specific recognition by the TCR

There is a sharp difference in how one views TCR structure–function–behaviour dependent on whether its recognition of major histocompatibility complex‐encoded restriction elements (R) is germline selected or somatically generated. The generally accepted or Standard model is built on the assumption that recognition of R is by the V regions of the αβ TCR, which is not driven by allele specificity, whereas the competing model posits that recognition of R is allele‐specific. The establishing of allele‐specific recognition of R by the TCR would rule out the Standard model and clear the road to a consideration of a competing construct, the Tritope model. Here, the case for allele‐specific recognition (germline selected) is detailed making it obvious that the Standard model is untenable.     

Treatment of classical Hodgkin’s lymphoma in children and adolescents

Introduction: The treatment of classical Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL) in children is a story of success. Nowadays, more than 90% of patients are cured and overall survival is nearly 100% at 5 years. Efforts have been made to avoid related effects of therapies; therefore, children are treated using different chemotherapy schemes in comparison with adults.

Areas covered: This review includes a view of the clinical classification and risk assessment in children suffering from HL. The chemotherapy more commonly employed is revisited. The use of PET/CT to evaluate the disease in order to guide therapy is analyzed. New options of chemotherapy and emerging immunotherapy are also included.

Expert opinion: In order to make the right treatment choice, a proper initial assessment of risk is mandatory. The choice of therapy in these kinds of patients must be done according to the experience of the team, and also, the cost and logistics related to the eligible scheme are very important. If possible, efforts must be made to include PET/CT in guiding therapy and avoiding overtreatment and long-term adverse effects in children. New options in immunotherapy are emerging and must be considered with caution in selected patients.     

Polymerase Chain Reaction and Goldmann-Witmer Coefficient Testing in the Diagnosis of Infectious Uveitis in HIV-Positive and HIV-Negative Patients in South Africa

Purpose: To use polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and Goldmann-Witmer coefficient (GWC) calculation to diagnose infectious uveitis.

Methods: Prospective cross-sectional study.

Results: Twenty-seven of 106 patients had positive PCR and/or GWC results on aqueous humor (AH) sampling and 15 of 27 (55.6%) were HIV-positive. Patients with non-anterior uveitis (NAU) were more likely to be HIV+ (p = 0.005). More than 1 possible pathogen was identified in 9 of 27 patients of whom 7 were HIV+. The final clinical diagnosis was discordant with AH findings in 9 of 27 cases. A positive EBV PCR result was associated with a discordant diagnosis (p = 0.001). All cases of herpetic anterior uveitis (42.9% HIV+) tested PCR-/GWC+ while all cases of herpetic NAU tested PCR+/GWC- (83.3% HIV+). All rubella virus cases were PCR+/GWC+.

Conclusion: PCR is useful to diagnose herpetic NAU in HIV+ patients while GWC is useful to diagnose herpetic anterior uveitis.