Objective: To evaluate the incidence and the clinical and echocardiographic features of infective endocarditis (IE) caused by Staphylococcus lugdunensis and to identify the prognostic factors of surgery and mortality in this disease. Design: Prospective cohort study. Setting: Study at two centres (a tertiary care centre and a community hospital). Patients: 10 patients with IE caused by S lugdunensis in 912 consecutive patients with IE between 1990 and 2003. Methods: Prospective study of consecutive patients carried out by the multidisciplinary team for diagnosis and treatment of IE from the study institutions. English, French, and Spanish literature was searched by computer under the terms “endocarditis” and “Staphylococcus lugdunensis” published between 1989 and December 2003. Main outcome measures: Patient characteristics, echocardiographic findings, required surgery, and prognostic factors of mortality in left sided cases of IE. Results: 10 cases of IE caused by S lugdunensis were identified at our institutions, representing 0.8% (four of 467), 1.5% (two of 135), and 7.8% (four of 51) of cases of native valve, prosthetic valve, and pacemaker lead endocarditis in the non-drug misusers. Native valve IE was present in four patients (two aortic, one mitral, and one pulmonary), prosthetic valve aortic IE in two patients, and pacemaker lead IE in the other four patients. All patients with left sided IE had serious complications (heart failure, periannular abscess formation, or shock) requiring surgery in 60% (three of five patients) of cases with an overall mortality rate of 80% (four of five patients). All patients with pacemaker IE underwent combined medical treatment and surgery, and mortality was 25% (one patient). In total 59 cases of IE caused by S lugdunensis were identified in a review of the literature. The combined analysis of these 69 cases showed that native valve IE (53 patients, 77%) is characterised by mitral valve involvement and frequent complications such as heart failure, abscess formation, and embolism. Surgery was needed in 51% of cases and mortality was 42%. Prosthetic valve endocarditis (nine of 60, 13%) predominated in the aortic position and was associated with abscess formation, required surgery, and high mortality (78%). Pacemaker lead IE (seven of 69, 10%) is associated with a better prognosis when antibiotic treatment is combined with surgery. Conclusions: S lugdunensis IE is an uncommon cause of IE, involving mainly native left sided valves, and it is characterised by an aggressive clinical course. Mortality in left sided native valve IE is high but the prognosis has improved in recent years. Surgery has improved survival in left sided IE and, therefore, early surgery should always be considered. Prosthetic valve S lugdunensis IE carries an ominous prognosis.

Background: A false-negative case of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV- 2) infection is defined as a person with suspected infection and an initial negative result by reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test, with a positive result on a subsequent test. False-negative cases have important implications for isolation and risk of transmission of infected people and for the management of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We aimed to review and critically appraise evidence about the rate of RT-PCR false-negatives at initial testing for COVID-19. Methods: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, as well as COVID-19 repositories including the EPPI-Centre living systematic map of evidence about COVID-19 and the Coronavirus Open Access Project living evidence database. Two authors independently screened and selected studies according to the eligibility criteria and collected data from the included studies. The risk of bias was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) tool. We calculated the proportion of false-negative test results with the corresponding 95% CI using a multilevel mixed-effect logistic regression model. The certainty of the evidence about false- negative cases was rated using the GRADE approach for tests and strategies. All information in this article is current up to July 17, 2020. Results: We included 34 studies enrolling 12,057 COVID-19 confirmed cases. All studies were affected by several risks of bias and applicability concerns. The pooled estimate of false-negative proportion was highly affected by unexplained heterogeneity (tau-squared= 1.39; 90% prediction interval from 0.02 to 0.54). The certainty of the evidence was judged as very low, due to the risk of bias, indirectness, and inconsistency issues. Conclusions: There is a substantial and largely unexplained heterogeneity in the proportion of false-negative RT-PCR results. The collected evidence has several limitations, including risk of bias issues, high heterogeneity, and concerns about its applicability. Nonetheless, our findings reinforce the need for repeated testing in patients with suspicion of SARS-CoV-2 infection given that up to 54% of COVID-19 patients may have an initial false-negative RT-PCR (certainty of evidence: very low). An update of this review when additional studies become available is warranted. Systematic review registration: Protocol available on the OSF website: https://osf.io/gp38w/

Transgender (TG) women in many settings continue to contend with barriers to healthcare, including experiences of stigma and discrimination. Argentina has a universal health care system and laws designed to promote healthcare access among TG women. However, little is known about barriers to healthcare access among TG women in this setting. The aim of this study was to explore individual, social-structural and environmental factors associated with healthcare avoidance among TG women in Argentina. Data were derived from a 2013 nation-wide, cross-sectional study involving TG women in Argentina. We assessed the prevalence and factors associated with avoiding healthcare using multivariable logistic regression. Among 452 TG women included in the study, 184 (40.7%) reported that they avoided seeking healthcare because of their transgender identity. In multivariable analysis, factors positively associated with avoiding seeking healthcare were: having been exposed to police violence (adjusted odd ratio [aOR] = 2.20; 95% CI: 1.26 - 3.83), internalized stigma (aOR = 1.60, 95% CI: 1.02-2.51), having experienced discrimination by healthcare workers (aOR = 3.36: 95% CI: 1.25 - 5.70) or patients (aOR = 2.57; 95% CI: 1.58 - 4.17), and currently living in the Buenos Aires metropolitan area (aOR = 2.32; 95% CI: 1.44 - 3.76). In contrast, TG women with extended health insurance were less likely to report avoiding healthcare (aOR = 0.49; 95% CI: 0.26 - 0.93). A high proportion of TG women in our sample reported avoiding healthcare. Avoiding healthcare was associated with stigma and discrimination in healthcare settings, as well as police violence experiences. Although further research is warranted, these finding suggests that socio-structural interventions tailored TG women needs are needed to improve access to healthcare among this population.

Global investment in biomedical research has grown significantly over the last decades, reaching approximately a quarter of a trillion US dollars in 2010. However, not all of this investment is distributed evenly by gender. It follows, arguably, that scarce research resources may not be optimally invested (by either not supporting the best science or by failing to investigate topics that benefit women and men equitably). Women across the world tend to be significantly underrepresented in research both as researchers and research participants, receive less research funding, and appear less frequently than men as authors on research publications. There is also some evidence that women are relatively disadvantaged as the beneficiaries of research, in terms of its health, societal and economic impacts. Historical gender biases may have created a path dependency that means that the research system and the impacts of research are biased towards male researchers and male beneficiaries, making it inherently difficult (though not impossible) to eliminate gender bias. In this commentary, we – a group of scholars and practitioners from Africa, America, Asia and Europe – argue that gender-sensitive research impact assessment could become a force for good in moving science policy and practice towards gender equity. Research impact assessment is the multidisciplinary field of scientific inquiry that examines the research process to maximise scientific, societal and economic returns on investment in research. It encompasses many theoretical and methodological approaches that can be used to investigate gender bias and recommend actions for change to maximise research impact. We offer a set of recommendations to research funders, research institutions and research evaluators who conduct impact assessment on how to include and strengthen analysis of gender equity in research impact assessment and issue a global call for action.

As governments, funding agencies and research organisations worldwide seek to maximise both the financial and non-financial returns on investment in research, the way the research process is organised and funded is becoming increasingly under scrutiny. There are growing demands and aspirations to measure research impact (beyond academic publications), to understand how science works, and to optimise its societal and economic impact. In response, a multidisciplinary practice called research impact assessment is rapidly developing. Given that the practice is still in its formative stage, systematised recommendations or accepted standards for practitioners (such as funders and those responsible for managing research projects) across countries or disciplines to guide research impact assessment are not yet available. In this statement, we propose initial guidelines for a rigorous and effective process of research impact assessment applicable to all research disciplines and oriented towards practice. This statement systematises expert knowledge and practitioner experience from designing and delivering the International School on Research Impact Assessment (ISRIA). It brings together insights from over 450 experts and practitioners from 34 countries, who participated in the school during its 5-year run (from 2013 to 2017) and shares a set of core values from the school’s learning programme. These insights are distilled into ten-point guidelines, which relate to (1) context, (2) purpose, (3) stakeholders’ needs, (4) stakeholder engagement, (5) conceptual frameworks, (6) methods and data sources, (7) indicators and metrics, (8) ethics and conflicts of interest, (9) communication, and (10) community of practice. The guidelines can help practitioners improve and standardise the process of research impact assessment, but they are by no means exhaustive and require evaluation and continuous improvement. The prima facie effectiveness of the guidelines is based on the systematised expert and practitioner knowledge of the school’s faculty and participants derived from their practical experience and research evidence. The current knowledge base has gaps in terms of the geographical and scientific discipline as well as stakeholder coverage and representation. The guidelines can be further strengthened through evaluation and continuous improvement by the global research impact assessment community.