- Email: [email protected]
How to review a journal paper critically
Abstracts uterus during pregnancy three-dimensional ultrasound (3DUS) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Ultrasound (US) examination is the primary method of fetal assessment because it is patient-friendly, effective, cost-efficient and considered to be safe. MRI is generally used when US cannot provide sufficiently high-quality images. It offers high-resolution fetal imaging with excellent contrast that allows visualization of internal tissues. Additive manufacturing (AM) is the automatic, layer by-layer construction of physical models using solid free-form fabrication. The first AM techniques were used in the late 1980s to produce models and prototypes. The use of AM in the biomedical sector has increased steadily over the past decade. Different uses have been reported widely in the medical literature, but little has been published on its application to the gravid uterus, so we applied AM technology to fetal images obtained by 3DUS and MRI. Fetoscopy is a technique that utilizes a small camera to examine and perform procedures on the fetus. The term ‘virtual fetoscopy’ describes the creation and evaluation of representations of the fetus and surrounding structures using spatial information derived from imaging sources other than the fetoscope itself. We believe that virtual and physical models can help in the tactile and interactive study of complex abnormalities in multiple disciplines. They may also be useful for prospective parents because a 3D physical model with the characteristics of the fetus should allow a more direct emotional connection to their unborn child. The key concern of this talk will show how to obtain high-quality 3D images from US and MRI and the use of AM and virtual navigation.
SESSION 9G: EDUCATION How to review a journal paper critically Christy K. Holland1,2 1 Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Cardiovascular Health and Disease, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH, USA, 2 Editor in Chief, Ultrasound in Medicine and Biology Peer review is the cornerstone of publishing in Ultrasound in Medicine and Biology. Diversity of perspectives is an integral part of a successful vetting process. The editor, associate editors, and reviewers who examine each manuscript are the authors’ peers: persons with comparable standing in the same research field as the authors themselves. Peer review contributes to improving the quality of a published paper, ensures previous work is properly acknowledged, highlights the importance and novelty of the findings, detects plagiarism and fraud, and promotes academic career development. Reviewers help by providing a comprehensive analysis of the abstract, introduction and background, methodology, results and discussion, conclusion, references, tables and figures. Good reviewers provide a detailed and timely report supporting statements regarding whether the research is original, novel, and important to the field of ultrasound in medicine and biology. The top reviewers currently make up the advisory editorial board, whose names appear on the face page of Ultrasound in Medicine and Biology. However, an expanded list of multidisciplinary and international reviewers with broader capabilities are called on frequently. Either a list of page and line numbers accompanies specific comments and constructive criticism, or these comments are embedded in the portable document file (.pdf) of the submitted manuscript. Reviewers should be prepared to demonstrate objectivity, critique revised versions of the manuscript, as well as provide a clear recommendation whether the paper can be accepted for publication, requires minor or major modifications, or should be rejected altogether with no opportunity to revise. Tips for providing and navigating peer review in Ultrasound in Medicine and Biology will be reviewed and discussed.
S45
SESSION 9H: GENERAL ABDOMEN Ultrasound of bile ducts Antonio Carlos Matteoni de Athayde Latin American Federation of Ultrasound Medicien and Biology, Salvador-Ba, Brazil Usually in the icteric patient, ultrasound is the first imaging technique to be used for evaluation, seeking to differentiate whether jaundice is obstructive or not, if it is obstructive, then it should be characterized intra- or extrahepatic, being extrahepatic, the next step whether it is high, above the pancreatic head, or if it is low, in the head of the pancreas or below it, generally these three items are always identified by ultrasound, the fourth item to be evaluated in these patients is the etiology of the obstruction, which it is not always possible with ultrasound, especially in the face of gas interposition.
Gallbladder polyps - Incidental finding or potential cancer Torben Lorentzen Dept of Gastric Surgery, Herlev Hospital, University of Copenhagen, Denmark The term gallbladder polyp (GBP) refers to any elevated lesion on the surface of the gallbladder mucosa. The majority of GBPs are socalled pseudopolyps (cholesterol-polyps, focal adenomyomatosis, hyperplastic polyps or inflammatory polyps) with no malignant potential. True GBPs includes adenomas and adenocarcinomas. Gall bladder adenomas (GBA) are benign; however, they might have a malignant potential as seen in the adenoma-carcinoma sequence in colo-rectal cancer. It is; however, unclear how often adenocarcinomas have arisen from pre-existing adenomas. GBPs are commonly detected as incidental findings on ultrasound (US) of the abdomen or on the histological examination after cholecystectomy. Pseudopolyps are far more likely to be of size < 10 mm, whereas true polyps (adenomas and adenocarcinomas) are more frequently > 10 mm in size. Patients with polyps of 10 mm or greater should be treated with cholecystectomy. Small GBPs < 5 mm are very common and accounts for over 50% of polyps. Fortunately, the probability of malignancy is nearly zero when the GBPs are less than 5-6 mm. Growth of GBPs < 10 mm during follow up is rare. On the other hand, progression in size has been associated with malignancy and malignant potential. Single GBPs are more likely to be malignant than multiple GBPs; and sessile GBPs are significantly more commonly associated with malignancy probably because most gallbladder cancers arise from flat dysplastic epithelium. The diagnostic challenge is to identify the small group of patients with malignant and premalignant GBPs where surgically treatment (cholecystectomy) is indicated, and spare the remaining large group of patients with non-malignant and non-premalignant GBP for unnecessary cholecystectomy and unnecessary follow-up exams. Unnecessary cholecystectomies should be limited to avoid the potential complications related to this procedure. Unnecessary follow-up exams should be limited to reduce the economic cost related hereto; and to reduce the fear that is introduced when a patient is told that “something in the gallbladder has to be controlled”. Unfortunately, the level of evidence regarding guidelines for followup and treatment of GBP is low; and randomized controlled trials are lacking. Based upon best practice, I suggest these recommendations: GBP > 10 mm: Surgical treatment (cholecystectomy) is recommended.
SESSION 9G: EDUCATION How to review a journal paper critically Christy K. Holland1,2 1 Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Cardiovascular Health and Disease, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH, USA, 2 Editor in Chief, Ultrasound in Medicine and Biology Peer review is the cornerstone of publishing in Ultrasound in Medicine and Biology. Diversity of perspectives is an integral part of a successful vetting process. The editor, associate editors, and reviewers who examine each manuscript are the authors’ peers: persons with comparable standing in the same research field as the authors themselves. Peer review contributes to improving the quality of a published paper, ensures previous work is properly acknowledged, highlights the importance and novelty of the findings, detects plagiarism and fraud, and promotes academic career development. Reviewers help by providing a comprehensive analysis of the abstract, introduction and background, methodology, results and discussion, conclusion, references, tables and figures. Good reviewers provide a detailed and timely report supporting statements regarding whether the research is original, novel, and important to the field of ultrasound in medicine and biology. The top reviewers currently make up the advisory editorial board, whose names appear on the face page of Ultrasound in Medicine and Biology. However, an expanded list of multidisciplinary and international reviewers with broader capabilities are called on frequently. Either a list of page and line numbers accompanies specific comments and constructive criticism, or these comments are embedded in the portable document file (.pdf) of the submitted manuscript. Reviewers should be prepared to demonstrate objectivity, critique revised versions of the manuscript, as well as provide a clear recommendation whether the paper can be accepted for publication, requires minor or major modifications, or should be rejected altogether with no opportunity to revise. Tips for providing and navigating peer review in Ultrasound in Medicine and Biology will be reviewed and discussed.
S45
SESSION 9H: GENERAL ABDOMEN Ultrasound of bile ducts Antonio Carlos Matteoni de Athayde Latin American Federation of Ultrasound Medicien and Biology, Salvador-Ba, Brazil Usually in the icteric patient, ultrasound is the first imaging technique to be used for evaluation, seeking to differentiate whether jaundice is obstructive or not, if it is obstructive, then it should be characterized intra- or extrahepatic, being extrahepatic, the next step whether it is high, above the pancreatic head, or if it is low, in the head of the pancreas or below it, generally these three items are always identified by ultrasound, the fourth item to be evaluated in these patients is the etiology of the obstruction, which it is not always possible with ultrasound, especially in the face of gas interposition.
Gallbladder polyps - Incidental finding or potential cancer Torben Lorentzen Dept of Gastric Surgery, Herlev Hospital, University of Copenhagen, Denmark The term gallbladder polyp (GBP) refers to any elevated lesion on the surface of the gallbladder mucosa. The majority of GBPs are socalled pseudopolyps (cholesterol-polyps, focal adenomyomatosis, hyperplastic polyps or inflammatory polyps) with no malignant potential. True GBPs includes adenomas and adenocarcinomas. Gall bladder adenomas (GBA) are benign; however, they might have a malignant potential as seen in the adenoma-carcinoma sequence in colo-rectal cancer. It is; however, unclear how often adenocarcinomas have arisen from pre-existing adenomas. GBPs are commonly detected as incidental findings on ultrasound (US) of the abdomen or on the histological examination after cholecystectomy. Pseudopolyps are far more likely to be of size < 10 mm, whereas true polyps (adenomas and adenocarcinomas) are more frequently > 10 mm in size. Patients with polyps of 10 mm or greater should be treated with cholecystectomy. Small GBPs < 5 mm are very common and accounts for over 50% of polyps. Fortunately, the probability of malignancy is nearly zero when the GBPs are less than 5-6 mm. Growth of GBPs < 10 mm during follow up is rare. On the other hand, progression in size has been associated with malignancy and malignant potential. Single GBPs are more likely to be malignant than multiple GBPs; and sessile GBPs are significantly more commonly associated with malignancy probably because most gallbladder cancers arise from flat dysplastic epithelium. The diagnostic challenge is to identify the small group of patients with malignant and premalignant GBPs where surgically treatment (cholecystectomy) is indicated, and spare the remaining large group of patients with non-malignant and non-premalignant GBP for unnecessary cholecystectomy and unnecessary follow-up exams. Unnecessary cholecystectomies should be limited to avoid the potential complications related to this procedure. Unnecessary follow-up exams should be limited to reduce the economic cost related hereto; and to reduce the fear that is introduced when a patient is told that “something in the gallbladder has to be controlled”. Unfortunately, the level of evidence regarding guidelines for followup and treatment of GBP is low; and randomized controlled trials are lacking. Based upon best practice, I suggest these recommendations: GBP > 10 mm: Surgical treatment (cholecystectomy) is recommended.