Correction: A survey of biomedical journals to detect editorial bias and nepotistic behavior.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.3001133.].

A survey of biomedical journals to detect editorial bias and nepotistic behavior.

Alongside the growing concerns regarding predatory journal growth, other questionable editorial practices have gained visibility recently. Among them, we explored the usefulness of the Percentage of Papers by the Most Prolific author (PPMP) and the Gini index (level of inequality in the distribution of authorship among authors) as tools to identify journals that may show favoritism in accepting articles by specific authors. We examined whether the PPMP, complemented by the Gini index, could be useful for identifying cases of potential editorial bias, using all articles in a sample of 5,468 biomedical journals indexed in the National Library of Medicine. For articles published between 2015 and 2019, the median PPMP was 2.9%, and 5% of journal exhibited a PPMP of 10.6% or more. Among the journals with the highest PPMP or Gini index values, where a few authors were responsible for a disproportionate number of publications, a random sample was manually examined, revealing that the most prolific author was part of the editorial board in 60 cases (61%). The papers by the most prolific authors were more likely to be accepted for publication within 3 weeks of their submission. Results of analysis on a subset of articles, excluding nonresearch articles, were consistent with those of the principal analysis. In most journals, publications are distributed across a large number of authors. Our results reveal a subset of journals where a few authors, often members of the editorial board, were responsible for a disproportionate number of publications. To enhance trust in their practices, journals need to be transparent about their editorial and peer review practices.

Psychotherapy for comorbid depression and somatic disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The treatment of depression in patients with somatic disorders is crucial, given its negative impact on quality of life (QoL), functioning, and even on the somatic disease prognosis. We aimed to examine the most updated evidence on the effects of psychotherapy in patients with depression and somatic disorders, including HIV, oncological, cardiometabolic, and neurological disorders. METHODS: We conducted a meta-analysis of 75 randomized trials (8209 participants) of psychotherapy for adults with somatic disorders and a diagnosis or elevated symptoms of depression. Outcomes included depression, QoL, somatic health-related outcomes, and mortality. RESULTS: Psychotherapy significantly reduced the severity of depression at post-treatment across all categories of somatic disorders (Hedges'g = 0.65; 95% CI 0.52-0.79), with sustained effects at 6-11 months (g = 0.38; 95% CI 0.22-0.53) and at 12 months follow-up or longer (g = 0.13; 95% CI 0.04-0.21). Psychotherapy also showed significant effects on QoL (g = 0.26; 95% CI 0.17-0.35), maintained up to 11 months follow-up (g = 0.25; 95% CI 0.16-0.34). No significant effects were observed on the most frequently reported somatic health-related outcomes (glycemic control, pain), and neither on mortality. Heterogeneity in most analyses was very high, and only 29 (38%) trials were rated at low risk of bias (RoB). CONCLUSIONS: Psychotherapy may be an effective treatment option for patients with depression and somatic disorders, with long-term effects on depression severity and QoL. However, these results should be interpreted with caution due to heterogeneity and RoB.

Which psychotherapy is most effective and acceptable in the treatment of adults with a (sub)clinical borderline personality disorder? A systematic review and network meta-analysis.

A broad range of psychotherapies have been proposed and evaluated in the treatment of borderline personality disorder (BPD), but the question which specific type of psychotherapy is most effective remains unanswered. In this study, two network meta-analyses (NMAs) were conducted investigating the comparative effectiveness of psychotherapies on (1) BPD severity and (2) suicidal behaviour (combined rate). Study drop-out was included as a secondary outcome. Six databases were searched until 21 January 2022, including RCTs on the efficacy of any psychotherapy in adults (⩾18 years) with a diagnosis of (sub)clinical BPD. Data were extracted using a predefined table format. PROSPERO ID:CRD42020175411. In our study, a total of 43 studies (N = 3273) were included. We found significant differences between several active comparisons in the treatment of (sub)clinical BPD, however, these findings were based on very few trials and should therefore be interpreted with caution. Some therapies were more efficacious compared to GT or TAU. Furthermore, some treatments more than halved the risk of attempted suicide and committed suicide (combined rate), reporting RRs around 0.5 or lower, however, these RRs were not statistically significantly better compared to other therapies or to TAU. Study drop-out significantly differed between some treatments. In conclusion, no single treatment seems to be the best choice to treat people with BPD compared to other treatments. Nevertheless, psychotherapies for BPD are perceived as first-line treatments, and should therefore be investigated further on their long-term effectiveness, preferably in head-to-head trials. DBT was the best connected treatment, providing solid evidence of its effectiveness.

Prophylactic Enoxaparin Against Catheter-Associated Thrombosis in Postoperative Cardiac Children: An Interrupted Time Series Analysis.

OBJECTIVES: The effectiveness of pharmacologic prophylaxis against catheter-associated thrombosis in children is unclear. We evaluated the compliance and outcomes associated with a prophylactic enoxaparin protocol in postoperative cardiac children. DESIGN: The protocol was implemented as a quality improvement initiative and then analyzed using interrupted time series method. Data collected from November 2014 to December 2018 were divided into preprotocol (period 1), protocol implementation (period 2), and protocol revision (period 3). SETTING: A 12-bed academic pediatric cardiac ICU. PATIENTS: Children less than or equal to 18 years old with congenital heart disease admitted postoperatively with central venous catheter in situ for greater than or equal to 1 day. INTERVENTIONS: Before 2016, prophylactic enoxaparin was administered according to physician preference. In January 2016, an enoxaparin protocol was implemented with a goal anti-Xa range of 0.25-0.49 international units/mL. Protocol was revised in February 2017 to increase the starting dose by 25% for infants less than 1 year old. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We analyzed 780 hospitalizations from 636 children. Median percentage of catheter-days on prophylactic enoxaparin was 33% (interquartile range [IQR], 23-47%), 42% (IQR, 30-51%), and 38% (IQR, 35-52%) in periods 1-3, respectively. Percentage of catheter-days on enoxaparin showed immediate increase of 90% (95% CI, 17-210%) between periods 1 and 2 and sustained increase of 2% (95% CI, 0.3-4%) between periods 2 and 3. Median rates of thrombosis per 1,000 catheter-days were 5.8 (IQR, 0-9.3), 3.8 (IQR, 0-12), and 0 (IQR, 0-5.3) in periods 1-3, respectively. Rate of thrombosis showed immediate decrease of 67% (95% CI, 12-87%) between periods 1 and 2 and sustained decrease of 11% (95% CI, 2-18%) between periods 1 and 3. CONCLUSIONS: The temporal association between increase in percentage of catheter-days on enoxaparin and decrease in rate of thrombosis suggests the effectiveness of prophylactic enoxaparin.

An open science pathway for drug marketing authorization-Registered drug approval.

Florian Naudet and co-authors propose a pathway involving registered criteria for evaluation and approval of new drugs.

The case for preregistering all region of interest (ROI) analyses in neuroimaging research.

In neuroimaging studies, small sample sizes and the resultant reduced statistical power to detect effects that are not large, combined with inadequate analytic choices, concur to produce inflated or false-positive findings. To mitigate these issues, researchers often restrict analyses to specific brain areas, using the region of interest (ROI) approach. Crucially, ROI analysis assumes the a priori justified definition of the target region. Nonetheless, reports often lack details about where in the timeline, ranging from study conception to the data analysis and interpretation of findings, were ROIs selected. Frequently, the rationale for ROI selection is vague or inadequately founded on the existing literature. These shortcomings have important implications for ROI-based studies, augmenting the risk that observed effects are inflated or even false positives. Tools like preregistration and registered reports could address this problem, ensuring the validity of ROI-based studies. The benefits could be enhanced by additional practices such as selection of ROIs using quantitative methods (i.e., meta-analysis) and the sharing of whole-brain unthresholded maps of effect size, as well as of binary ROIs, in publicly accessible repositories.

Care-as-usual control groups across different settings in randomized trials on psychotherapy for adult depression: a meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Care-as-usual (CAU) is often used as a control condition in psychotherapy research, but it may vary considerably what that entails, ranging from no treatment, to routine treatment in primary care, general medical care, perinatal care, and specialized mental health care. METHODS: We conducted a meta-analysis of trials comparing psychotherapy for depression to CAU, with a focus on the different categories of CAU and countries where the studies were conducted. We used an existing database of randomized trials on psychotherapy for depression that is updated every year. RESULTS: A total of 140 studies with 15 419 patients were included. We found no significant differences in effects between categories of CAU (effect sizes ranging from g = 0.43 for CAU in primary care to g = 0.73 for no treatment), but heterogeneity was high in all CAU categories. After stratifying effects across specific countries (within CAU categories) we found that heterogeneity was considerably lower and there were several significant differences between countries. Overall, effects were larger in non-Western countries (g = 0.84 to 1.28) compared to those in Western countries (g = 0.52; p for difference = 0.002). Effects were smaller in studies with risk of bias (p = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: There are no significant differences between major categories of CAU when compared to psychotherapy conditions in randomized trials. However, effects of psychotherapy differ considerably across CAU conditions in specific countries. CAU therefore is a heterogeneous control condition in psychotherapy research.

Assessing scientists for hiring, promotion, and tenure.

Assessment of researchers is necessary for decisions of hiring, promotion, and tenure. A burgeoning number of scientific leaders believe the current system of faculty incentives and rewards is misaligned with the needs of society and disconnected from the evidence about the causes of the reproducibility crisis and suboptimal quality of the scientific publication record. To address this issue, particularly for the clinical and life sciences, we convened a 22-member expert panel workshop in Washington, DC, in January 2017. Twenty-two academic leaders, funders, and scientists participated in the meeting. As background for the meeting, we completed a selective literature review of 22 key documents critiquing the current incentive system. From each document, we extracted how the authors perceived the problems of assessing science and scientists, the unintended consequences of maintaining the status quo for assessing scientists, and details of their proposed solutions. The resulting table was used as a seed for participant discussion. This resulted in six principles for assessing scientists and associated research and policy implications. We hope the content of this paper will serve as a basis for establishing best practices and redesigning the current approaches to assessing scientists by the many players involved in that process.

Psychological interventions using virtual reality for pain associated with medical procedures: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Virtual reality (VR) may enhance the effectiveness of psychological interventions for acute pain. We conducted a meta-analysis to assess the efficacy and safety of VR-based interventions for pain associated with medical procedures. METHODS: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and PsycINFO until June 17th 2018. We identified randomized controlled trials (RCTs), comparing VR-based psychological interventions to usual care, for pain intensity (primary outcome) or affective and cognitive components of pain (secondary outcomes), assessed real-time or retrospectively. Two independent reviewers performed study selection and data extraction. Risk of bias was independently evaluated by three raters using the revised Cochrane Collaboration tool. A random-effects model using the Paule and Mandel estimator was used for pooling effect sizes. RESULTS: 27 RCTs (1452 patients) provided enough data for meta-analysis. Compared to usual care, VR-based interventions reduced pain intensity both real-time (9 RCTs, Hedges' g = 0.95, 95% CI 0.32-1.57) and retrospectively (22 RCTs, g = 0.87, 95% CI 0.54-1.21). Results were similar for cognitive (8 RCTs, g = 0.82, 95% CI 0.39-1.26) and affective pain components (14 RCTs, g = 0.55, 95% CI 0.34-0.77). There was marked heterogeneity, which remained similarly high in sensitivity analyses. Across domains, few trials were rated as low risk of bias and there was evidence of publication bias. Adverse events were rare. CONCLUSIONS: Though VR-based interventions reduced pain for patients undergoing medical procedures, inferring clinical effectiveness is precluded by the predominance of small trials, with substantial risk of bias, and by incomplete reporting.

Eye movement desensitization and reprocessing for mental health problems: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

There is no comprehensive meta-analysis of randomised trials examining the effects of Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing (EMDR) on post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and no systematic review at all of the effects of EMDR on other mental health problems. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of 76 trials. Most trials examined the effects on PTSD (62%). The effect size of EMDR compared to control conditions was g = 0.93 (95% CI: 0.67-.18), with high heterogeneity (I2= 72%). Only four of 27 studies had low risk of bias, and there were indications for publication bias. EMDR was more effective than other therapies (g = 0.36; 95% CI: 0.14-0.57), but not in studies with low risk of bias. Significant results were also found for EMDR in phobias and test anxiety, but the number of studies was small and risk of bias was high. EMDR was examined in several other mental health problems, but for none of these problems, sufficient studies were available to pool outcomes. EMDR may be effective in the treatment of PTSD in the short term, but the quality of studies is too low to draw definite conclusions. There is not enough evidence to advise it for the use in other mental health problems.

Cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) for generalized anxiety disorder: Contrasting various CBT approaches in a randomized clinical trial.

OBJECTIVE: Cognitive-behavior therapy (CBT) is considered the "golden standard" psychotherapy for generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) but, at this point, we have little information about differences among various CBT approaches. METHOD: We conducted a randomized controlled trial to compare three CBT protocols for GAD: (a) Cognitive Therapy/Borkovec's treatment package; (b) Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy, and (c) Acceptance and Commitment Therapy/Acceptance-based behavioral therapy. A number of 75 patients diagnosed with GAD, aged between 20 and 51 (m = 27.13; standard deviation = 7.50), 60 women and 11 men, were randomized to the three treatment arms. RESULTS: All treatments were associated with large pre-post intervention reductions in GAD symptoms and dysfunctional automatic thoughts, with no significant differences between groups. Correlation analyses showed similar associations between changes in symptoms and changes in dysfunctional automatic thoughts. CONCLUSIONS: All three approaches appear to be similarly effective. Implications for the theoretical models underlying each of the three cognitive-behavior therapy approaches are discussed.

Component studies of psychological treatments of adult depression: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: A recent report from the US Institute of Medicine indicated that identifying core elements of psychosocial interventions is a key step in successfully bringing evidence-based psychosocial interventions into clinical practice. Component studies have the best design to examine these core elements. Earlier reviews resulted in heterogeneous sets of studies and probably missed many studies. METHODS: We conducted a comprehensive search of component studies on psychotherapies for adult depression and included 16 studies with 22 comparisons. RESULTS: Fifteen components were examined of which four were examined in more than one comparison. The pooled difference between the full treatments and treatments with one component removed was g = 0.21 (95% CI: 0.03∼0.39). One study had sufficient statistical power to detect a small effect size and found that adding emotion regulation skills increased the effects of CBT. None of the other studies had enough power to detect an effect size smaller than g = 0.55. Only one study had low risk of bias. CONCLUSIONS: The currently available component studies do not have the statistical power nor the quality to draw any meaningful conclusion about key ingredients of psychotherapies for adult depression.

Sponsorship bias in the comparative efficacy of psychotherapy and pharmacotherapy for adult depression: meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Sponsorship bias has never been investigated for non-pharmacological treatments like psychotherapy. AIMS: We examined industry funding and author financial conflict of interest (COI) in randomised controlled trials directly comparing psychotherapy and pharmacotherapy in depression. METHOD: We conducted a meta-analysis with subgroup comparisons for industry v. non-industry-funded trials, and respectively for trial reports with author financial COI v. those without. RESULTS: In total, 45 studies were included. In most analyses, pharmacotherapy consistently showed significant effectiveness over psychotherapy, g = -0.11 (95% CI -0.21 to -0.02) in industry-funded trials. Differences between industry and non-industry-funded trials were significant, a result only partly confirmed in sensitivity analyses. We identified five instances where authors of the original article had not reported financial COI. CONCLUSIONS: Industry-funded trials for depression appear to subtly favour pharmacotherapy over psychotherapy. Disclosure of all financial ties with the pharmaceutical industry should be encouraged.

Invited commentary on Confusing procedures with process in cognitive bias modification research†.

The notion that cognitive bias modification should be appraised exclusively on the basis of trials where its postulated mechanisms were successfully changed starkly contradicts the standards of evidence-based psychotherapy. In the laboratory or as a treatment, cognitive bias modification cannot continue to eschew the rigorous scrutiny applied to other interventions.

PSYCHOLOGICAL TREATMENT OF DEPRESSION IN COLLEGE STUDENTS: A METAANALYSIS.

BACKGROUND: Expanded efforts to detect and treat depression among college students, a peak period of onset, have the potential to bear high human capital value from a societal perspective because depression increases college withdrawal rates. However, it is not clear whether evidence-based depression therapies are as effective in college students as in other adult populations. The higher levels of cognitive functioning and IQ and higher proportions of first-onset cases might lead to treatment effects being different among college students relative to the larger adult population. METHODS: We conducted a metaanalysis of randomized trials comparing psychological treatments of depressed college students relative to control groups and compared effect sizes in these studies to those in trials carried out in unselected populations of depressed adults. RESULTS: The 15 trials on college students satisfying study inclusion criteria included 997 participants. The pooled effect size of therapy versus control was g = 0.89 (95% CI: 0.66∼1.11; NNT = 2.13) with moderate heterogeneity (I(2) = 57; 95% CI: 23∼72). None of these trials had low risk of bias. Effect sizes were significantly larger when students were not remunerated (e.g. money, credit), received individual versus group therapy, and were in trials that included a waiting list control group. No significant difference emerged in comparing effect sizes among college students versus adults either in simple mean comparisons or in multivariate metaregression analyses. CONCLUSIONS: This metaanalysis of trials examining psychological treatments of depression in college students suggests that these therapies are effective and have effect sizes comparable to trials carried out among depressed adults.

Efficacy of cognitive bias modification interventions in anxiety and depression: meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Cognitive bias modification (CBM) interventions are strongly advocated in research and clinical practice. AIMS: To examine the efficiency of CBM for clinically relevant outcomes, along with study quality, publication bias and potential moderators. METHOD: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of CBM interventions that reported clinically relevant outcomes assessed with standardised instruments. RESULTS: We identified 49 trials and grouped outcomes into anxiety and depression. Effect sizes were small considering all the samples, and mostly non-significant for patient samples. Effect sizes became non-significant when outliers were excluded and after adjustment for publication bias. The quality of the RCTs was suboptimal. CONCLUSIONS: CBM may have small effects on mental health problems, but it is also very well possible that there are no significant clinically relevant effects. Research in this field is hampered by small and low-quality trials, and by risk of publication bias. Many positive outcomes are driven by extreme outliers.