Core competencies for scientific editors of biomedical journals: consensus statement.

BACKGROUND: Scientific editors are responsible for deciding which articles to publish in their journals. However, we have not found documentation of their required knowledge, skills, and characteristics, or the existence of any formal core competencies for this role. METHODS: We describe the development of a minimum set of core competencies for scientific editors of biomedical journals. RESULTS: The 14 key core competencies are divided into three major areas, and each competency has a list of associated elements or descriptions of more specific knowledge, skills, and characteristics that contribute to its fulfillment. CONCLUSIONS: We believe that these core competencies are a baseline of the knowledge, skills, and characteristics needed to perform competently the duties of a scientific editor at a biomedical journal.

Living systematic review: 1. Introduction-the why, what, when, and how.

Systematic reviews are difficult to keep up to date, but failure to do so leads to a decay in review currency, accuracy, and utility. We are developing a novel approach to systematic review updating termed "Living systematic review" (LSR): systematic reviews that are continually updated, incorporating relevant new evidence as it becomes available. LSRs may be particularly important in fields where research evidence is emerging rapidly, current evidence is uncertain, and new research may change policy or practice decisions. We hypothesize that a continual approach to updating will achieve greater currency and validity, and increase the benefits to end users, with feasible resource requirements over time.

A scoping review of competencies for scientific editors of biomedical journals.

BACKGROUND: Biomedical journals are the main route for disseminating the results of health-related research. Despite this, their editors operate largely without formal training or certification. To our knowledge, no body of literature systematically identifying core competencies for scientific editors of biomedical journals exists. Therefore, we aimed to conduct a scoping review to determine what is known on the competency requirements for scientific editors of biomedical journals. METHODS: We searched the MEDLINE®, Cochrane Library, Embase®, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and ERIC databases (from inception to November 2014) and conducted a grey literature search for research and non-research articles with competency-related statements (i.e. competencies, knowledge, skills, behaviors, and tasks) pertaining to the role of scientific editors of peer-reviewed health-related journals. We also conducted an environmental scan, searched the results of a previous environmental scan, and searched the websites of existing networks, major biomedical journal publishers, and organizations that offer resources for editors. RESULTS: A total of 225 full-text publications were included, 25 of which were research articles. We extracted a total of 1,566 statements possibly related to core competencies for scientific editors of biomedical journals from these publications. We then collated overlapping or duplicate statements which produced a list of 203 unique statements. Finally, we grouped these statements into seven emergent themes: (1) dealing with authors, (2) dealing with peer reviewers, (3) journal publishing, (4) journal promotion, (5) editing, (6) ethics and integrity, and (7) qualities and characteristics of editors. DISCUSSION: To our knowledge, this scoping review is the first attempt to systematically identify possible competencies of editors. Limitations are that (1) we may not have captured all aspects of a biomedical editor's work in our searches, (2) removing redundant and overlapping items may have led to the elimination of some nuances between items, (3) restricting to certain databases, and only French and English publications, may have excluded relevant publications, and (4) some statements may not necessarily be competencies. CONCLUSION: This scoping review is the first step of a program to develop a minimum set of core competencies for scientific editors of biomedical journals which will be followed by a training needs assessment, a Delphi exercise, and a consensus meeting.

Global burden of skin disease as reflected in Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews.

IMPORTANCE: Research prioritization should be guided by impact of disease. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether systematic reviews and protocol topics in Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) reflect disease burden, measured by disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) from the Global Burden of Disease (GBD) 2010 project. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Two investigators independently assessed 15 skin conditions in the CDSR for systematic review and protocol representation from November 1, 2013, to December 6, 2013. The 15 skin diseases were matched to their respective DALYs from GBD 2010. An official publication report of all reviews and protocols published by the Cochrane Skin Group (CSG) was also obtained to ensure that no titles were missed. There were no study participants other than the researchers, who worked with databases evaluating CDSR and GBD 2010 skin condition disability data. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Relationship of CDSR topic coverage (systematic reviews and protocols) with percentage of total 2010 DALYs, 2010 DALY rank, and DALY percentage change from 1990 to 2010 for 15 skin conditions. RESULTS: All 15 skin conditions were represented by at least 1 systematic review in CDSR; 69% of systematic reviews and 67% of protocols by the CSG covered the 15 skin conditions. Comparing the number of reviews/protocols and disability, dermatitis, melanoma, nonmelanoma skin cancer, viral skin diseases, and fungal skin diseases were well matched. Decubitus ulcer, psoriasis, and leprosy demonstrated review/protocol overrepresentation when matched with corresponding DALYs. In comparison, acne vulgaris, bacterial skin diseases, urticaria, pruritus, scabies, cellulitis, and alopecia areata were underrepresented in CDSR when matched with corresponding DALYs. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Degree of representation in CDSR is partly correlated with DALY metrics. The number of published reviews/protocols was well matched with disability metrics for 5 of the 15 studied skin diseases, while 3 skin diseases were overrepresented, and 7 were underrepresented. Our results provide high-quality and transparent data to inform future prioritization decisions.

Vaccines for preventing rotavirus diarrhoea: vaccines in use.

BACKGROUND: Rotavirus results in more diarrhoea-related deaths in children less than five years of age than any other single agent in countries with high childhood mortality. It is also a common cause of diarrhoea-related hospital admissions in countries with low childhood mortality. Currently licensed rotavirus vaccines include a monovalent rotavirus vaccine (RV1; Rotarix, GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals) and a pentavalent rotavirus vaccine (RV5; RotaTeq, Merck & Co., Inc.). Lanzhou lamb rotavirus vaccine (LLR; Lanzhou Institute of Biomedical Products) is used in China only. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate rotavirus vaccines approved for use (RV1, RV5, and LLR) for preventing rotavirus diarrhoea. SEARCH METHODS: We searched MEDLINE (via PubMed) (1966 to May 2012), the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register (10 May 2012), CENTRAL (published in The Cochrane Library 2012, Issue 5), EMBASE (1974 to 10 May 2012), LILACS (1982 to 10 May 2012), and BIOSIS (1926 to 10 May 2012). We also searched the ICTRP (10 May 2012), www.ClinicalTrials.gov (28 May 2012) and checked reference lists of identified studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We selected randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in children comparing rotavirus vaccines approved for use with placebo, no intervention, or another vaccine. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently assessed trial eligibility, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. We combined dichotomous data using the risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). We stratified the analysis by child mortality, and used GRADE to evaluate evidence quality. MAIN RESULTS: Forty-one trials met the inclusion criteria and enrolled a total of 186,263 participants. Twenty-nine trials (101,671 participants) assessed RV1, and 12 trials (84,592 participants) evaluated RV5. We did not find any trials assessing LLR.RV1Children aged less than one year: In countries with low-mortality rates, RV1 prevents 86% of severe rotavirus diarrhoea cases (RR 0.14, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.26; 40,631 participants, six trials; high-quality evidence), and, based on one large multicentre trial in Latin America and Finland, probably prevents 40% of severe all-cause diarrhoea episodes (rate ratio 0.60, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.72; 17,867 participants, one trial; moderate-quality evidence). In countries with high-mortality rates, RV1 probably prevents 63% of severe rotavirus diarrhoea cases (RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.75; 5414 participants, two trials; moderate-quality evidence), and, based on one trial in Malawi and South Africa, 34% of severe all-cause diarrhoea cases (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.98; 4939 participants, one trial; moderate-quality evidence).Children aged up to two years: In countries with low-mortality rates, RV1 prevents 85% of severe rotavirus diarrhoea cases (RR 0.15, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.20; 32,854 participants, eight trials; high-quality evidence), and probably 37% of severe all-cause diarrhoea episodes (rate ratio 0.63, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.71; 39,091 participants, two trials; moderate-quality evidence). In countries with high-mortality rates, based on one trial in Malawi and South Africa, RV1 probably prevents 42% of severe rotavirus diarrhoea cases (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.79; 2764 participants, one trial; moderate-quality evidence), and 18% of severe all-cause diarrhoea cases (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.95; 2764 participants, one trial; moderate-quality evidence).RV5Children aged less than one year: In countries with low-mortality rates, RV5 probably prevents 87% of severe rotavirus diarrhoea cases (RR 0.13, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.45; 2344 participants, three trials; moderate-quality evidence), and, based on one trial in Finland, may prevent 72% of severe all-cause diarrhoea cases (RR 0.28, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.48; 1029 participants, one trial; low-quality evidence). In countries with high-mortality rates, RV5 prevents 57% of severe rotavirus diarrhoea (RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.62; 5916 participants, two trials; high-quality evidence), but there was insufficient data to assess the effect on severe all-cause diarrhoea.Children aged up to two years: Four studies provided data for severe rotavirus and all-cause diarrhoea in countries with low-mortality rates. Three trials reported on severe rotavirus diarrhoea cases and found that RV5 probably prevents 82% (RR 0.18, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.50; 3190 participants, three trials; moderate-quality evidence), and another trial in Finland reported on severe all-cause diarrhoea cases and found that RV5 may prevent 96% (RR 0.04, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.70; 1029 participants, one trial; low-quality evidence). In high-mortality countries, RV5 prevents 41% of severe rotavirus diarrhoea cases (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.82; 5885 participants, two trials; high-quality evidence), and 15% of severe all-cause diarrhoea cases (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.75 to 0.98; 5977 participants, two trials; high-quality evidence).There was no evidence of a vaccine effect on mortality (181,009 participants, 34 trials; low-quality evidence), although the trials were not powered to detect an effect on this end point.Serious adverse events were reported in 4565 out of 99,438 children vaccinated with RV1 and in 1884 out of 78,226 children vaccinated with RV5. Fifty-eight cases of intussusception were reported in 97,246 children after RV1 vaccination, and 34 cases in 81,459 children after RV5 vaccination. No significant difference was found between children receiving RV1 or RV5 and placebo in the number of serious adverse events, and intussusception in particular. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: RV1 and RV5 prevent episodes of rotavirus diarrhoea. The vaccine efficacy is lower in high-mortality countries; however, due to the higher burden of disease, the absolute benefit is higher in these settings. No increased risk of serious adverse events including intussusception was detected, but post-introduction surveillance studies are required to detect rare events associated with vaccination.

Vaccines for preventing rotavirus diarrhoea: vaccines in use.

BACKGROUND: Rotavirus results in more diarrhoea-related deaths in children less than five years of age than any other single agent in low- and middle-income countries. It is also a common cause of diarrhoea-related hospital admissions in high-income countries. The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends that all children should be vaccinated with a monovalent rotavirus vaccine (RV1; Rotarix, GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals) or a pentavalent rotavirus vaccine (RV5; RotaTeq, Merck & Co., Inc.), with a stronger recommendation for countries where deaths due to diarrhoea comprise more than 10% of all deaths. Lanzhou lamb rotavirus vaccine (LLR; Lanzhou Institute of Biomedical Products) is used in China only. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate rotavirus vaccines approved for use (RV1, RV5, and LLR) for preventing rotavirus diarrhoea. Secondary objectives were to evaluate the efficacy of rotavirus vaccines on all-cause diarrhoea, hospital admission, death, and safety profiles. SEARCH METHODS: For this update, we searched MEDLINE (via PubMed) in October 2011, and in June 2011 we searched the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register, CENTRAL (published in The Cochrane Library 2011, Issue 2), , EMBASE, LILACS, and BIOSIS. We also searched the ICTRP (28 June 2011) and checked reference lists of identified studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We selected randomized controlled trials in children comparing rotavirus vaccines approved for use with placebo, no intervention, or another vaccine. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently assessed trial eligibility, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. They combined dichotomous data using the risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) and used GRADE to evaluate evidence quality, which was reflected as follows: high quality ("vaccine prevents..."); moderate quality ("vaccine probably prevents..."); or low quality ("vaccine may prevent..."). MAIN RESULTS: Forty-three trials, including nine new trials for this update, met the inclusion criteria and enrolled 190,551 participants. Thirty-one trials assessed RV1, and 12 trials evaluated RV5. We did not find any trials assessing LLR.In children aged less than one year, RV1, compared to placebo, probably prevents 70% of all cases of rotavirus diarrhoea (RR 0.30, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.50; seven trials, 12,130 participants; moderate-quality evidence), and 80% of severe rotavirus diarrhoea cases (RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.35; seven trials, 35,004 participants; moderate-quality evidence). Similarly, RV5 prevents 73% of all rotavirus diarrhoea cases (RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.33; four trials, 7614 participants; high-quality evidence), and 77% of severe rotavirus diarrhoea cases (RR 0.23, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.71; three trials, 6953 participants; high-quality evidence). Both vaccines prevent over 80% of rotavirus diarrhoea cases that require hospitalization. For all-cause diarrhoea, based on two multi-centred trials from South Africa, Malawi, and Europe, RV1 may reduce severe cases by 42% (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.84; two trials, 8291 participants; low--quality evidence). Also, based on one trial from Finland, RV5 may reduce severe cases by 72% (RR 0.28, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.48; one trial, 1029 participants; low-quality evidence).During the second year of life, compared to placebo, RV1 probably prevents 70% of all cases of rotavirus diarrhoea of any severity (RR 0.30, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.43; six trials, 8041 participants; moderate-quality evidence), and 84% of severe rotavirus diarrhoea cases (RR 0.16, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.21; eight trials, 32,854 participants; moderate-quality evidence). RV5 prevents 49% of all rotavirus diarrhoea cases of any severity (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.72; four trials, 9784 participants; high-quality evidence), and 56% of severe rotavirus diarrhoea cases (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.88; four trials, 9783 participants; high-quality evidence). For all-cause diarrhoea, RV1 probably reduces severe cases by 51% (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.60; two trials, 6269 participants; moderate-quality evidence), and RV5 showed no difference with placebo (three trials, 8533 participants).Reported serious adverse events (including intussusception) after vaccination were measured in 95,178 children for RV1 and 77,480 for RV5, with no difference between the vaccines. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: RV1 and RV5 vaccines are effective in preventing rotavirus diarrhoea. These data support the WHO's global vaccine recommendation. The potential for reduced vaccine efficacy in low-income countries needs to be investigated. No increased risk of intussusception was detected, but surveillance monitoring studies are probably advisable in countries introducing the vaccine nationally.

Vaccines for preventing rotavirus diarrhoea: vaccines in use.

BACKGROUND: Rotavirus results in higher diarrhoea-related death in children less than five years of age than any other single agent, particularly in low- and middle-income countries. The World Health Organization has recommended the use of rotavirus vaccines in childhood immunization schedules. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate rotavirus vaccines approved for use (Rotarix, RotaTeq, and Lanzhou Lamb Rotavirus (LLR)) for preventing rotavirus diarrhoea. SEARCH STRATEGY: In February 2010, we searched the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register, CENTRAL (published in The Cochrane Library 2009, Issue 1), MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, and BIOSIS. We also searched the ICTRP (January 2010) and checked reference lists of identified studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials comparing rotavirus vaccines approved for use with placebo, no intervention, or another vaccine in children. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently assessed trial eligibility, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. Dichotomous data were combined using the risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). MAIN RESULTS: Thirty-four trials that included 175,944 participants met the inclusion criteria. They evaluated Rotarix (26 trials; 99,841 participants) and RotaTeq (eight trials; 76,103 participants), and had variable risk of bias (where information provided). None of the identified trials used LLR or compared rotavirus vaccines. Compared to placebo, Rotarix and RotaTeq were both effective at reducing rotavirus diarrhoea (severe cases and cases of any severity). They also reduced all-cause diarrhoea (severe cases), and hospitalizations and need for medical attention caused by rotavirus diarrhoea. However, few data were available for Rotarix and all-cause diarrhoea. Versus the placebo groups, participants in each vaccine group had similar numbers of deaths, serious adverse events, reactogenicity profiles (fever, diarrhoea, and vomiting), and adverse events that required discontinuation of the vaccination schedule. Both vaccines were immunogenic (measured by virus shedding in stool and/or seroconversion). Subgroup analyses indicate that both vaccines are effective in countries with different incomes, but few data are available. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Rotarix and RotaTeq are effective vaccines for the prevention of rotavirus diarrhoea. The balance between benefit and harm favours benefit. Ongoing safety monitoring should be continued. Trials comparing LLR with placebo should be conducted and the results made available.

Systematic reviews in malaria: global policies need global reviews.

This article highlights systematic reviews of malaria research and what has been learned about applying methods of research synthesis in this particular infectious disease over the last 15 years. It illustrates how systematic reviews have been used to guide policy, shows what has been learned about synthesizing research in this area, and reflects on how best to maximize their uptake in policy and practice.

Intrarectal quinine for treating Plasmodium falciparum malaria: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: In children with malaria caused by Plasmodium falciparum, quinine administered rectally may be easier to use and less painful than intramuscular or intravenous administration. The objective of this review was to compare the effectiveness of intrarectal with intravenous or intramuscular quinine for treating falciparum malaria. METHODS: All randomized and quasi-randomized controlled trials comparing intrarectal with intramuscular or intravenous quinine for treating people with falciparum malaria located through the following sources were included: Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS and CINAHL. Trial quality was assessed and data, including adverse event data, were extracted. Dichotomous data were analysed using odds ratios and continuous data using weighted mean difference. RESULTS: Eight randomized controlled trials (1,247 children) fulfilled the inclusion criteria. The same principal investigator led seven of the trials. Five compared intrarectal with intravenous quinine, and six compared intrarectal with intramuscular treatment. No statistically significant difference was detected for death, parasite clearance by 48 hours and seven days, parasite and fever clearance time, coma recovery time, duration of hospitalization and time before drinking began. One trial (898 children) reported that intrarectal was less painful than intramuscular administration. CONCLUSION: No difference in the effect on parasites and clinical illness was detected for the use of intrarectal quinine compared with other routes, but most trials were small. Pain during application may be less with intrarectal quinine. Further larger trials, in patients with severe malaria and in adults, are required before the intrarectal route could be recommended.

Biofilms, homoserine lactones and biocide susceptibility.

AIMS: To investigate the susceptibility, to a range of different biocides, of Pseudomonas aeruginosa strains variously deficient in N-acyl homoserine lactone systems, grown either as planktonic or biofilm populations. METHODS AND RESULTS: Biocide susceptibility data were generated for strains of P. aeruginosa deficient in N-acyl homoserine lactone production, grown planktonically or as biofilm populations using a poloxamer hydrogel construct. Component cells from the biofilm constructs were also tested for their susceptibility. Significant differences in susceptibility were noted between the wild-type strain, a mutant defective in the long chain (C-12) homoserine lactone and a mutant defective in the short chain (C-4) homoserine lactone which could not be related to the biofilm mode of growth. Moreover, differences in susceptibility appeared to be dependent upon the nature of the homoserine lactone deletion and type of biocide rather than the mode of growth. CONCLUSIONS: No general trend exists between homoserine lactone deficiency and biocide susceptibility regardless of mode of growth.