Una Revisión de los tipos de Fraude Científico más Frecuentes / A Review of the most frequent types of Scientific Fraud

La presión que existe hoy por publicar ha llevado a que muchos investigadores cometan malas conductas científicas, siendo el fraude la más grave de todas. Este ocurre en forma de fabricación, falsificación, plagio, problemas de autoría, manipulación de imágenes y publicaciones redundantes. El fraude científico se define como una tergiversación deliberada por parte de alguien que conoce la verdad. En la historia de la humanidad se han conocido importantes casos de fraude científico, dentro de ellos se pueden destacar: el hombre de Piltdown, caso Shinichi Fujimura, el escándalo de las vacunas, caso Pearce, el caso Yoshitaka Fujii, entre otros. Con el objetivo de neutralizar el fraude, se han desarrollado diferentes estrategias dirigidas a detectarlo, dentro de ellas encontramos: evaluación mediante pares evaluadores, programas de Conducta de Investigación Responsable (RCR), regulaciones que la misma comunidad científica realiza, donde encontramos la fundación PubPeer y el blog For Better Science. Del mismo modo, se han impuesto diferentes medidas para contrarrestar el fraude, tales como: transparencia de las presiones y oportunidades, disponibilidad pública de los datos que sustentan la hipótesis y denuncia pública de los fraudes científicos. El impacto de un fraude trae consecuencias importantes para la ciencia, estudiar a partir de información falsa o errónea conlleva a un gran retroceso en los avances científicos del mundo actual. Es responsabilidad de cada uno ser consciente de lo que se escribe y lo que se lee, ya que como se sabe, esa es la única manera de combatirlo. Como investigadores somos responsables de actuar éticamente en nuestras investigaciones y tener conocimiento de las medidas que existen hoy para detectar y combatir el fraude científico.

The pressure to publish today has led many researchers to commit scientific misconduct, fraud being the most serious of all. This occurs in the form of fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, authorship problems, image manipulation, and redundant posting. Scientific fraud is defined as deliberate misrepresentation by someone who knows the truth. In the history of humanity, important cases of scientific fraud have been known, among them the following can be highlighted: the Piltdown man, the Shinichi Fujimura case, the vaccine scandal, the Pearce case, the Yoshitaka Fujii case, among others. In order to neutralize fraud, different strategies have been developed to detect it, among them we find: evaluation by peer reviewers, Responsible Research Conduct (RCR) programs, regulations that the scientific community itself carries out, where we find the PubPeer Foundation and the For Better Science blog. Similarly, different measures have been imposed to counteract fraud, such as: transparency of pressures and opportunities, public availability of the data that support the hypothesis, and public denunciation of scientific fraud. The impact of a fraud has important consequences for science, studying from false or wrong information leads to a great setback in scientific advances in the world today. It is the responsibility of each one to be aware of what is written and what is read, since as is known, that is the only way to combat it. As researchers we are responsible for acting ethically in our research and being aware of the measures that exist today to detect and combat scientific fraud.

Experiencia en la introducción de resultados científicos desde la formación doctoral / Experience in the introduction of scientific results from the doctoral training i: en

Durante estos años, condicionados por los efectos de una pandemia y la situación económica global, la incorporación oportuna de los resultados científico-técnicos es necesidad y responsabilidad de la comunidad científica. En este trabajo se expone una experiencia en la introducción de resultados científicos desde la formación doctoral, dirigida al área de la atención inicial al paciente con traumatismo maxilofacial. La importancia de esta práctica radica en los aportes social, científico y profesional y en la formación de recursos humanos para lograr la transformación y el mejoramiento de la realidad.

During these years, conditioned by the effects of a pandemic and the global economic situation, the opportune incorporation of the scientific technical results is necessity and responsibility of scientific community. An experience in the introduction of scientific results from the doctoral training, directed to the area of initial care to the patient with maxillofacial traumatism, is presented in this work. The importance of this practice resides in the social, scientific, professional contributions and in the formation of human resources to achieve the transformation and improvement of reality.

Fundamentos metodológicos para investigación clínica en estomatología / Methodological basis for clinical research in stomatology

La investigación científica en Odontología es la herramienta clave para generar conocimiento y resolver problemas que conduzcan al desarrollo exponencial y progreso tecnológico de la profesión. A su vez, e indispensable el estudio epidemiológico y etiopatogénico de las enfermedades estomatológicas, factores de riesgo y manifestaciones orales relacionadas a la salud sistémica, para implementar estrategias sanitarias y establecer un adecuado manejo multidisciplinario. La odontología basada en evidencia (OBE) exige al profesional realizar una práctica informada, responsable, actualizada y soportada en una sólida base científica para la toma de decisiones y garantizar resultados altamente predecibles. La mayoría de los estudios clínicos en Odontología se realizan bajo el enfoque cuantitativo utilizando los diseños epidemiológicos; por lo que es necesario identificar la ruta ideal para resolver cada problema científico, la presente revisión comprende las bases metodológicas de investigación en Odontología, la clasificación de tipos de estudio y una perspectiva futura de investigación.

Scientific research in Dentistry is the key tool to generate knowledge and solve problems that lead to the exponential development and technological progress of the profession. At the same time, the epidemiological and etiopathogenic study of stomatological diseases, risk factors and oral manifestations related to systemic health is essential to implement health strategies and establish adequate multidisciplinary management. Evidence-based dentistry (OBE) requires the professional to carry out an informed, responsible, up-to-date practice supported by a solid scientific basis for decision-making and to guarantee highly predictable results. Most of the clinical studies in Dentistry are carried out under a quantitative approach using epidemiological designs; Therefore, it is necessary to identify the ideal route to solve each scientific problem. This review includes the methodological bases of research in Dentistry, the classification of study types and a future research perspective.

Medical school dean's scientific production of the main universities by continent / Produção científica dos reitores de medicina das principais universidades por continente

Introduction: promoting scientifi c research is one of the main functions of universities. Medical schools should not be an exception; deans should also have appropriate research experience that allows them to have a different perspective on the importance of research in undergraduate medicine. Aim: to determine the medical school dean's scientific production of the main universities by continent. Methods: an observational, analytical, and transversal study. We identify the medical school dean's scientific production of the 20 universities with the best position from South America, Central America, North America, Europe, Asia, Africa, and Oceania, according to the Ranking Webometrics 2022, in the Scopus database. Results: 140 directors or deans of medicine were evaluated, of which 136 (97.1%) had published an article at least once in their life, 128 (91.4%) in the last fi ve years, 103 (73.6%) in the previous year, and 93 (66.4%) in the current year. The total number of published articles was 24.5 (Me=98), receiving a total of 1,251,766 citations (range 0 to 101,868), an Hindex 24 (range 0 to 140), and in collaboration with 154,711 coauthors. Conclusions: the medical school dean's scientific production from the main universities by continent was high, with notable differences between those who came from universities in Asia, North America, and Europe compared to Oceania, Africa, South America, and Central America

Introdução: promover a pesquisa científica é uma das principais funções das universidades. As escolas médicas não devem ser uma exceção. Os reitores também devem ter uma experiência de pesquisa adequada que lhes permita ter uma perspectiva diferente sobre a importância da pesquisa na graduação em medicina. Objetivo: determinar a produção científica dos reitores de medicina das principais universidades por continente. Métodos: estudo observacional, analítico e transversal. Identificamos a produção científica dos pró-reitores de medicina das 20 universidades com melhor posição da América do Sul, América Central, América do Norte, Europa, Ásia, África e Oceania, segundo o Ranking Webometrics 2022, na base Scopus. Resultados: foram avaliados 140 diretores ou reitores de medicina, dos quais 136 (97.1%) publicaram artigo pelo menos uma vez na vida, 128 (91.4%) nos últimos cinco anos, 103 (73.5%) no ano anterior, e 93 (66.4%) no ano corrente. O número total de artigos publicados foi de 24.5 (Me=98), recebendo um total de 1,251,766 citações (intervalo de 0 a 101.868), índice H = 24 (intervalo de 0 a 140) e em colaboração com 154,711 coautores. Conclusões: a produção científica dos reitores de medicina das principais universidades por continente foi alta, com diferenças notáveis entre aqueles que vieram de universidades da Ásia, América do Norte e Europa em comparação com Oceania, África, América do Sul e América Central

A look at vulnerability in the older population in health sciences studies: a systematic review / O olhar sobre a vulnerabilidade na população idosa nos estudos das ciências da saúde: uma revisão sistemática

The objective of this study was to systematically investigate and review studies on the concept of vulnerability associated with the health of the older population. Articles were selected, filtered, and analyzed following the steps recommended by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Screening and data extraction were performed independently by 2 reviewers using templates developed by the authors. Data extracted included specific details about population, interest, and context. Studies were eligible for inclusion if they: 1) were cross-sectional or prospective, 2) involved community-dwellers aged ≥ 60 years, 3) were published in the last 10 years, and 4) had as a concept vulnerability associated with the health of the older population. A total of 833 studies were identified and screened, 26 of which were included. Most included studies addressed vulnerability in older adults as an individual aspect, whether biological or psychological. The remaining studies reported vulnerability as affecting socio-environmental, health care system, and multifactorial aspects. Therefore, the concept of "vulnerability in older people" was not properly defined in the biomedical scientific community. When we return to the guiding question of this review, we can conclude that the conditions of vulnerability of older people are being treated broadly and diversely, producing different methodological strategies. The systematic review was conducted in the United States National Library of Medicine (PubMed), Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS), and Scientific Electronic Library Online (SciELO) databases between August and December 2020 and updated in September 2022, with registration number CRD42022361649

O objetivo da pesquisa é investigar e revisar sistematicamente estudos sobre o conceito de vulnerabilidade associado à saúde da população idosa. Os trabalhos foram selecionados, filtrados e analisados seguindo as etapas recomendadas pela The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guideline. A triagem e a extração de dados foram realizadas por dois revisores independentes usando modelos desenvolvidos pelos autores. A extração de dados incluiu detalhes específicos da população; interesse; contexto. Consideraram-se artigos que: 1) fossem estudos transversais ou prospectivos, 2) envolvessem idosos da comunidade (≥ 60 anos), 3) fossem dos últimos dez anos; tivessem como conceito a vulnerabilidade associada à saúde da população idosa. O total de 833 estudos foi identificado e triado, e 26 deles foram incluídos. A maioria dos estudos incluídos verificou a vulnerabilidade do idoso no aspecto individual, seja biológico, seja psicológico. Em contrapartida, o restante dos estudos acredita que a vulnerabilidade atinja o aspecto socioambiental, sistema de saúde e multifatorial. Sendo assim, conceito de "vulnerabilidade do idoso" não está devidamente definido na comunidade científica biomédica. Neste caso, retornando à questão norteadora desta revisão, conclui-se que as condições de vulnerabilidade do idoso estão sendo tratadas de maneira ampla e diversa, produzindo diferentes estratégias metodológicas. A revisão sistemática foi realizada nas bases de dados United States National Library of Medicine (PubMed), Literatura Latino-Americana e do Caribe em Ciências da Saúde (Lilacs) e Scientific Electronic Library Online (SciELO), entre agosto e dezembro de 2020, com atualização em setembro de 2022, sob código CRD42022361649

Sesgos en investigación quirúrgica / Biases in surgical research

Resumen Los resultados de diversos hallazgos de investigación han sido objeto de crítica, en especial en los últimos años, debido a presencia de errores sistemáticos (sesgos), los que ponen en duda la validez interna de los resultados obtenidos. Estos sesgos pueden ocurrir en cualquier etapa del curso de una investigación, es decir, desde la planificación del estudio hasta la presentación y publicación de sus resultados. Los sesgos se han clasificado de diferentes formas, intentado agruparlos bajo dimensiones conceptuales, objeto de organizar de mejor forma la información existente, que además es considerable. Los sesgos pueden ocurrir por diversos motivos, pero en general, los más frecuentes son aquellos originados por el observador (él o los que miden), por lo que es observado (sujeto en estudio); y aquello con lo que se observa (instrumento de medición). Por otra parte, varios de los múltiples sesgos existentes, se pueden agrupar en: sesgos de selección, de medición o información, y de confusión. El objetivo de este manuscrito fue comentar la importancia de los sesgos más comunes en la investigación quirúrgica, y su relación con algunos diseños de investigación; así como, conocer las estrategias existentes para minimizar su ocurrencia.

The results of many research findings have come under scrutiny in recent years due to the introduction of systematic errors (biases), which can occur at any stage during an investigation, from planning to presentation of results and their presentation and further publication. Biases have been classified in different ways, trying to group them under conceptual dimensions to better organize the existing information, which is considerable. Biases can occur for various reasons, but in general, the most frequent are those originated by the observer, what is observed; and what is observed with. I.e., the subject that is measured, who measures it and with what it measures it. On the other hand, several of the multiple biases can be grouped into selection, measurement or information, and confounding biases. The aim of this manuscript was to comment on the importance of the most common biases in surgical research, and their relationship with some research designs; as well as know the existing strategies to reduce its occurrence.

Cirujano académico, centro académico: su rol docencia, investigación y en la atención de pacientes / The academic surgeon, academic center: its teaching, research, and patient's assistance role

Resumen Un cirujano académico tiene características y atributos especiales que lo distinguen de otros cirujanos. Su misión no es solo asistencial, sino que además es un investigador, docente, comunicador, deber ejercer liderazgo, debe ser innovador. Además de su función primordial que es ofrecer la óptima atención de sus pacientes. Al estar inserto en un centro académico cumple estas funciones y se convierte, dado su prestigio, en un referente individual e institucional para la comunidad y los futuros cirujanos.

An academic surgeon has special characteristics and attributes that distinguish them from other surgeons. His mission is not only healthcare, but he is also a researcher, teacher, communicator, must exercise leadership, must be innovative and the final goal is his work is to offer optimal care for his patients. Being inserted in an academic center, it fulfills these functions and becomes, given its prestige, an individual and institutional reference for the community and future.

Medicina personalizada en urología: Perspectiva desde un sistema de salud con escasez / Personalized Medicine in Urology: Perspective from a Sparse Health System

La medicina personalizada (MP) trae la promesa del cuidado individual a través de la identificación de variaciones genéticas que permitan determinar la predisposición ante una enfermedad, ofreciendo una prevención oportuna y específica, o adaptando las estrategias terapéuticas de manera particular.[1] [2] Su esencia es la integración de la investigación biomédica y la información clínica,[3] [4] con la esperanza de reducir el gasto en salud y la garantía de acceso equitativo a los ciudadanos.[4] La rapidez y bajo costo en la secuenciación del genoma ha permitido su implementación en la práctica clínica.[1] En urología estos avances han facilitado una mejor comprensión de los subtipos histológicos de las neoplasias del tracto genitourinario, facilitando el uso de tratamientos específicos y un seguimiento más oportuno.[2] [5] [6] Sin embargo, su aplicación en la identificación de biomarcadores no ha sido completamente determinada

Personalized medicine (PM) brings the promise of individualized care through the identification of genetic variations that allow determining the predisposition to a disease, offering timely and specific prevention, or adapting therapeutic strategies in a particular way.[1] [2] Its essence is the integration of biomedical research and clinical information,[3] [4] with the hope of reducing health spending and guaranteeing equitable access to citizens.[4] The speed and low cost of genome sequencing has allowed its implementation in clinical practice.[1] In urology, these advances have facilitated a better understanding of the histological subtypes of histological subtypes of neoplasms in urology. The speed and low cost of genome sequencing has allowed its implementation in clinical practice.[1] In urology these advances have facilitated a better understanding of the histological subtypes of neoplasms of the genitourinary tract, facilitating the use of specific treatments and more timely follow-up.[2] [5] [6] However, its application in the identification of biomarkers has not been fully determined.