Statistical characteristics of analytical studies published in Peruvian medical journals from 2021 to 2022: A methodological study.

OBJECTIVE: While statistical analysis plays a crucial role in medical science, some published studies might have utilized suboptimal analysis methods, potentially undermining the credibility of their findings. Critically appraising analytical approaches can help elevate the standard of evidence and ensure clinicians and other stakeholders have trustworthy results on which to base decisions. The aim of the present study was to examine the statistical characteristics of original articles published in Peruvian medical journals in 2021-2022. DESIGN AND SETTING: We performed a methodological study of articles published between 2021 and 2022 from nine medical journals indexed in SciELO-Peru, Scopus, and Medline. We included original articles that conducted analytical analyses (i.e., association between variables). The statistical variables assessed were: statistical software used for analysis, sample size, and statistical methods employed (measures of effect), controlling for confounders, and the method employed for confounder control or epidemiological approaches. RESULTS: We included 313 articles (ranging from 11 to 77 across journals), of which 67.7% were cross-sectional studies. While 90.7% of articles specified the statistical software used, 78.3% omitted details on sample size calculation. Descriptive and bivariate statistics were commonly employed, whereas measures of association were less common. Only 13.4% of articles (ranging from 0% to 39% across journals) presented measures of effect controlling for confounding and explained the criteria for selecting such confounders. CONCLUSION: This study revealed important statistical deficiencies within analytical studies published in Peruvian journals, including inadequate reporting of sample sizes, absence of measures of association and confounding control, and suboptimal explanations regarding the methodologies employed for adjusted analyses. These findings highlight the need for better statistical reporting and researcher-editor collaboration to improve the quality of research production and dissemination in Peruvian journals.

The Peer Review Process: Past, Present, and Future.

The peer review process is a fundamental aspect of modern scientific paper publishing, underpinning essential quality control. First conceptualised in the 1700s, it is an iterative process that aims to elevate scientific literature to the highest standards whilst preventing publication of scientifically unsound, potentially misleading, and even plagiarised information. It is widely accepted that the peer review of scientific papers is an irreplaceable and fundamental aspect of the research process. However, the rapid growth of research and technology has led to a huge increase in the number of publications. This has led to increased pressure on the peer review system. There are several established peer review methodologies, ranging from single and double blind to open and transparent review, but their implementation across journals and research fields varies greatly. Some journals are testing entirely novel approaches (such as collaborative reviews), whilst others are piloting changes to established methods. Given the unprecedented growth in publication numbers, and the ensuing burden on journals, editors, and reviewers, it is imperative to improve the quality and efficiency of the peer review process. Herein we evaluate the peer review process, from its historical origins to current practice and future directions.

Large language models are changing landscape of academic publications. A positive transformation?

The advent of large language models (LLMs) based on neural networks marks a significant shift in academic writing, particularly in medical sciences. These models, including OpenAI's GPT-4, Google's Bard, and Anthropic's Claude, enable more efficient text processing through transformer architecture and attention mechanisms. LLMs can generate coherent texts that are indistinguishable from human-written content. In medicine, they can contribute to the automation of literature reviews, data extraction, and hypothesis formulation. However, ethical concerns arise regarding the quality and integrity of scientific publications and the risk of generating misleading content. This article provides an overview of how LLMs are changing medical writing, the ethical dilemmas they bring, and the possibilities for detecting AI-generated text. It concludes with a focus on the potential future of LLMs in academic publishing and their impact on the medical community.

Still to ARRIVE at adequate reporting of orthodontic studies involving animal models.

BACKGROUND: The ARRIVE 2.0 guidelines were introduced to improve the reporting of animal studies. The aim of this study was to assess the reporting adherence of orthodontic speciality animal studies in relation to ARRIVE 2.0 guidelines. Associations between the reporting and study characteristics were explored. MATERIALS AND METHOD: An electronic database search was undertaken using Medline via PubMed (www.pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov) to identify studies meeting the eligibility criteria published between 1 January 2018 and 31 December 2023. Data extraction was performed in duplicate and independently. Descriptive statistics and frequency distributions for the responses to each checklist item were calculated. Mean values for adequate reporting per ARRIVE item were calculated. A sum score was calculated by adding the responses (0 = not reported, 1 = inadequate reporting, 2 = adequate reporting) per item and sub-questions. On an exploratory basis, univariable linear regression between summary score and study characteristics (year of publication, continent of authorship, type of centre, and number of authors) was performed. RESULTS: Three hundred and eighty-four studies were analysed. Variability in the adequate reporting of the ARRIVE 2.0 guideline items was evident. In particular, in 32% of studies, there was a lack of reporting of the priori sample size calculation. Overall, the mean reporting score for the sample was 57.9 (SD 6.7 and range 34-74). There were no associations between score and study characteristics except for a weak association for year of publication with a small improvement over time (each additional year). CONCLUSIONS: The reporting of animal studies relevant to the speciality of orthodontics is sub-optimal in relation to the ARRIVE 2.0 guidelines. There was a tendency for the non-reporting of items pertaining to study sample size, eligibility, methods to reduce bias and interpretation/scientific implications. Greater awareness and reporting adherence to the ARRIVE 2.0 guidelines are required to reduce research waste involving animal models.

Ethical requirements of instructions for authors of complementary and alternative medicine journals: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Medical research in complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) has increased recently, raising ethical concerns about the moral status of CAM. Medical academic journals are responsible for conducting ethical review (ER) of manuscripts to protect the interests of human subjects and to make ethical results available before deciding to publish. However, there has been no systematic analysis of the ER in CAM journals. This study is aim to evaluate the current status of ethical requirements and compliance in CAM journals. METHODS: This is a cross-sectional study. We reviewed instructions for authors (IFAs) of CAM journals included in the Journal Citation Reports (2021) ( https://jcr.clarivate.com ) for general information and requirements for ER. We also browsed the manuscripts regarding randomized controlled trials published by CAM journals in Q1 and Q2 section from January to June, 2023, to check the actual situation of ethical requirement. Descriptive statistics and Fisher's exact test were used for statistical analysis. RESULTS: 27 journals and 68 manuscripts were ultimately included. 92.6% (25/27) IFAs included keywords of ER, indicating the presence of ethical considerations. However, no specific ER was required for CAM (n = 0). We categorized journals by Geographic origin, JCR section, Year of electronic JCR, Types of studies, % of OA Gold to explore the factors that could influence CAM journals to have certain ethical review policies. The results showed there was no statistical significance in certain ethical review policy in any classification of journals (p > 0.05). All RCT manuscripts included in the study generally met the requirements of the published journals for ethical review. CONCLUSIONS: All IFAs discussed ER, but the content was scattered, unfocused, and there were no specific ER requirements regarding CAM. Although the manuscripts basically met the requirements of the journal, it was not possible to get closer to the process of ER in the manuscript. To ensure full implementation of these policies in the future, CAM journals should require authors to provide more details, or to form a list of items necessary for CAM ethical review.