Central venous catheterization is a standard procedure in intensive care therapy. In developing countries, this intervention is frequently performed by physicians in training and without the availability of ultrasound guidance. Purpose of this study was to determine the incidence and potential risk factors for mechanical complications during central venous catheterization in an intensive care setting performed by a mixed group of practitioners without the use of adjunct ultrasound. Prospective observational cohort study in a university teaching hospital. Three hundred critically ill patients requiring their first central venous catheter insertion were enrolled. All patients were observed for 24 hours for mechanical complications (pneumothorax, hemothorax, arterial puncture, incorrect tip position, cardiac dysrhythmia, and/or subcutaneous hematoma). Potential associations with mechanical complications were adjusted using multivariable analysis. Main outcome was the cumulative incidence of mechanical complications. The incidence of mechanical complications was 17% (n = 51). After covariate adjustment, the number of punctures was significantly related to mechanical complications. Compared with 1 puncture, 3 or more attempts were significantly associated with mechanical complications (odds ratio 3.62 [95% confidence interval 1.34-9.8]; P = .011). Experience of the operator was not associated with mechanical complications. The incidence of mechanical complications is affected by the number of punctures performed. After adjustment, the risk increases substantially with more than 3 attempts. Limiting the number of attempts, appropriate supervision and the use of ultrasound guidance when available are recommended for the further reduction in mechanical complications of central venous catheterization.

Introduction: Case reports represent a relevant, timely and important study design in advancing medical scientific knowledge. They allow integration between clinical practice and clinical epidemiology. We aimed to assess the completeness of reporting (COR) of case reports published in high‐impact journals. We assessed the COR of case reports using the CARE guidelines.Materials and methods: We selected three high‐impact journals and one journal specialized in publishing case reports, in which we included all published case reports from July to December 2017. Median COR score was calculated per study, and CORs were compared between journals with and without endorsement of CARE guidelines.Results: One hundred and fourteen case reports were included. Overall median COR was 81%, IQR [63%‐96%]. Sections with the highest COR (84%‐100%) were patient information, clinical findings, therapeutic intervention, follow‐up and outcomes, discussion and informed consent. Sections with the lowest COR were title, keywords, timeline and patient perspective (2%‐34%). COR was higher in journals endorsing in comparison to those not endorsing CARE guidelines (77% vs 65%), respectively, median difference = −12% 95% CI [−16% to −7%].Discussion: Overall completeness of case reports in included journals is high especially for CARE endorsing and dedicated journals but reporting of some items could be improved. Ongoing and future evaluations of endorsement status of reporting guidelines in medical journals should be assessed to improve completeness and reduce waste of clinical research, including case reports.

This article presents a Delphi consensus developed by a panel of editors-in-chief of anaesthesiology and pain medicine journals to guide the responsible use of large language models (LLMs) in academic publishing. LLMs offer potential benefits for scientific writing, including language editing, summarisation, translation, information organisation, and support for non-native English speakers, but their misuse raises concerns about accuracy, transparency, confidentiality, and research integrity. Through a three-round modified Delphi process involving 53 editors-in-chief or their delegates, 59 statements were generated and categorised into guidance for authors, editors, reviewers, and publishers with a particular attention to LLM disclosure practices and perceived risks. The consensus recognises that LLMs are useful tools in academic publishing for authors, reviewers, and editors. However, their use must be guided by ethics, legality, and principles of transparency and accountability. LLMs may assist with limited editorial and authorial tasks provided that their use is fully disclosed and all outputs are verified by humans. The consensus also emphasises the inappropriateness of using LLMs to generate original or ideative content, which should remain a strictly human responsibility. Moreover, LLMs must not generate data, references, conclusions, or entire manuscripts, nor be used for editorial decisions or peer-review reports. Editors expressed concerns about 'hallucinations', erosion of critical skills, confidentiality breaches, and the proliferation of low-quality LLM-generated manuscripts. The resulting guidance highlights transparency, human accountability, and careful verification as essential principles for integrating LLMs into scholarly workflows while preserving the integrity of scientific publishing.

Summary: Postoperative pain might be different after intravenous vs. oral paracetamol. We systematically reviewed randomised controlled trials in patients >15 years that compared intravenous with oral paracetamol for postoperative pain. We identified 14 trials with 1695 participants. There was inconclusive evidence for an effect of route of paracetamol administration on postoperative pain at 0–2 h (734 participants), 2–6 h (766 participants), 6–24 h (1115 participants) and >24 h (248 participants), with differences in standardised mean (95%CI) pain scores for intravenous vs. oral of −0.17 (−0.45 to 0.10), −0.09 (−0.24 to 0.06), 0.06 (−0.12 to 0.23) and 0.03 (−0.22 to 0.28), respectively. Trial sequential analyses suggested that a total of 3948 participants would be needed to demonstrate a meaningful difference in pain or its absence at 0–2 h. There were no differences in secondary outcomes. Intravenous paracetamol is more expensive than oral paracetamol. Substitution of oral paracetamol in half the patients given intravenous paracetamol in our hospital would save around £ 38,711 (€ 43,960 or US$ 47,498) per annum.