From master's thesis to research publication: a mixed-methods study of medical student publishing and experiences with the publishing process.

BACKGROUND: Medical student master's theses are often carried out as research projects, and some are published as research papers in journals. We investigated the percentage of master's theses conducted by 5th -year students at the Medical Degree Program at Lund University, Sweden, that subsequently served as the basis for research publications. In addition, we explored both student and supervisor experiences with the publishing process. METHODS: A cohort of four semesters of student data covering the period from 2019 to 2020 (n = 446) was searched in PubMed, Embase and the Web of Science to assess whether they had been published as research papers. Surveys were sent to students (n = 121) and supervisors (n = 77) to explore their experiences with the publishing process. RESULTS: We found that 33% (149 of 446) of the students in the 2019-2020 cohort subsequently published their theses, and 50% of these students were listed as first authors. Most students published original research. Students (n = 21) and supervisors (n = 44) reported that the publishing process was time-consuming and that students needed multilevel support from supervisors to achieve successful publication. The publishing process was reported by 79% of the students to have led to additional learning. Most of the papers (126 of 149, 85%) had a clinical or patient-oriented focus. CONCLUSION: A high percentage of the student publications in which students are listed as first authors require engagement from both students and supervisors. Supervisors play an essential role in supporting students in a successful publication process. Most of the published papers were either clinical or patient-oriented research.

Infodemics and health misinformation: a systematic review of reviews.

Objective: To compare and summarize the literature regarding infodemics and health misinformation, and to identify challenges and opportunities for addressing the issues of infodemics. Methods: We searched MEDLINE®, Embase®, Cochrane Library of Systematic Reviews, Scopus and Epistemonikos on 6 May 2022 for systematic reviews analysing infodemics, misinformation, disinformation and fake news related to health. We grouped studies based on similarity and retrieved evidence on challenges and opportunities. We used the AMSTAR 2 approach to assess the reviews' methodological quality. To evaluate the quality of the evidence, we used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation guidelines. Findings: Our search identified 31 systematic reviews, of which 17 were published. The proportion of health-related misinformation on social media ranged from 0.2% to 28.8%. Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and Instagram are critical in disseminating the rapid and far-reaching information. The most negative consequences of health misinformation are the increase of misleading or incorrect interpretations of available evidence, impact on mental health, misallocation of health resources and an increase in vaccination hesitancy. The increase of unreliable health information delays care provision and increases the occurrence of hateful and divisive rhetoric. Social media could also be a useful tool to combat misinformation during crises. Included reviews highlight the poor quality of published studies during health crises. Conclusion: Available evidence suggests that infodemics during health emergencies have an adverse effect on society. Multisectoral actions to counteract infodemics and health misinformation are needed, including developing legal policies, creating and promoting awareness campaigns, improving health-related content in mass media and increasing people's digital and health literacy.

Exponential growth of systematic reviews assessing artificial intelligence studies in medicine: challenges and opportunities.

The evidence-based medicine (EBM) movement is stepping up its efforts to assess medical artificial intelligence (AI) and data science studies. Since 2017, there has been a marked increase in the number of published systematic reviews that assess medical AI studies. Increasingly, data from observational studies are used in systematic reviews of medical AI studies. Assessment of risk of bias is especially important in medical AI studies to detect possible "AI bias".

Interventions to minimize blood loss in very preterm infants-A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Blood loss in the first days of life has been associated with increased morbidity and mortality in very preterm infants. In this systematic review we included randomized controlled trials comparing the effects of interventions to preserve blood volume in the infant from birth, reduce the need for sampling, or limit the blood sampled. Mortality and major neurodevelopmental disabilities were the primary outcomes. Included studies underwent risk of bias-assessment and data extraction by two review authors independently. We used risk ratio or mean difference to evaluate the treatment effect and meta-analysis for pooled results. The certainty of evidence was assessed using GRADE. We included 31 trials enrolling 3,759 infants. Twenty-five trials were pooled in the comparison delayed cord clamping or cord milking vs. immediate cord clamping or no milking. Increasing placental transfusion resulted in lower mortality during the neonatal period (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.26 to 1.00; participants = 595; trials = 5; I2 = 0%, moderate certainty of evidence) and during first hospitalization (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.51, 0.96; 10 RCTs, participants = 2,476, low certainty of evidence). The certainty of evidence was very low for the other primary outcomes of this review. The six remaining trials compared devices to monitor glucose levels (three trials), blood sampling from the umbilical cord or from the placenta vs. blood sampling from the infant (2 trials), and devices to reintroduce the blood after analysis vs. conventional blood sampling (1 trial); the certainty of evidence was rated as very low for all outcomes in these comparisons. Increasing placental transfusion at birth may reduce mortality in very preterm infants; However, extremely limited evidence is available to assess the effects of other interventions to reduce blood loss after birth. In future trials, infants could be randomized following placental transfusion to different blood saving approaches. Trial registration: PROSPERO CRD42020159882.

Novel Coronavirus Infection (COVID-19) in Humans: A Scoping Review and Meta-Analysis.

A growing body of literature on the 2019 novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) is becoming available, but a synthesis of available data has not been conducted. We performed a scoping review of currently available clinical, epidemiological, laboratory, and chest imaging data related to the SARS-CoV-2 infection. We searched MEDLINE, Cochrane CENTRAL, EMBASE, Scopus and LILACS from 01 January 2019 to 24 February 2020. Study selection, data extraction and risk of bias assessment were performed by two independent reviewers. Qualitative synthesis and meta-analysis were conducted using the clinical and laboratory data, and random-effects models were applied to estimate pooled results. A total of 61 studies were included (59,254 patients). The most common disease-related symptoms were fever (82%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 56%-99%; n = 4410), cough (61%, 95% CI 39%-81%; n = 3985), muscle aches and/or fatigue (36%, 95% CI 18%-55%; n = 3778), dyspnea (26%, 95% CI 12%-41%; n = 3700), headache in 12% (95% CI 4%-23%, n = 3598 patients), sore throat in 10% (95% CI 5%-17%, n = 1387) and gastrointestinal symptoms in 9% (95% CI 3%-17%, n = 1744). Laboratory findings were described in a lower number of patients and revealed lymphopenia (0.93 × 109/L, 95% CI 0.83-1.03 × 109/L, n = 464) and abnormal C-reactive protein (33.72 mg/dL, 95% CI 21.54-45.91 mg/dL; n = 1637). Radiological findings varied, but mostly described ground-glass opacities and consolidation. Data on treatment options were limited. All-cause mortality was 0.3% (95% CI 0.0%-1.0%; n = 53,631). Epidemiological studies showed that mortality was higher in males and elderly patients. The majority of reported clinical symptoms and laboratory findings related to SARS-CoV-2 infection are non-specific. Clinical suspicion, accompanied by a relevant epidemiological history, should be followed by early imaging and virological assay.