Determining optimal air leak resolution criteria when using digital pleural drainage device after lung resection.

Objective: There is limited clinical evidence to support any specific parenchymal air leak resolution criteria when using digital pleural drainage devices following lung resection. The aim of this study is to determine an optimal air leak resolution criteria, where duration of chest tube drainage is minimized while avoiding complications from premature chest tube removal. Methods: Airflow data averaged at 10-minute intervals was collected prospectively using a digital pleural drainage device (Thopaz; Medela) in 400 patients from 2015 to 2019. All permutations of air leak resolution criteria from <10 to 100 mL/minute for 4 to 12 hours were applied retrospectively to the pleural drainage data to determine air leak duration, and air leak recurrence frequency and volume. Air leak recurrence indicates potential for rather than occurrence of adverse events. Descriptive statistics were used to identify the optimal criteria based on patient safety (low frequency and volume of air leak recurrences), and efficiency (shortest initial air leak duration). Results: The majority of the 400 patients underwent lobectomy (57% [227 out of 400]), wedge resections (29% [115 out of 400]), or segmentectomies (8% [32 out of 400]) for lung cancer (90% [360 out of 400]). An airflow threshold <50 mL/minute resulted in longer air leak duration before meeting the criteria for air leak resolution (P < .0001). Air leak recurrence frequency and volume were greater in patients with a monitoring period <8 consecutive hours (P < .0001). Conclusions: When using a digital pleural drainage device, a postoperative air leak resolution criteria <50 mL/minute for 8 consecutive hours was associated with the best safety and efficiency profile.

Cardiology researchers' practices and perceived barriers to open science: an international survey.

OBJECTIVE: Open science is a movement and set of practices to conduct research more transparently. Implementing open science will significantly improve public access and supports equity. It also has the potential to foster innovation and reduce duplication through data and materials sharing. Here, we survey an international group of researchers publishing in cardiovascular journals regarding their perceptions and practices related to open science. METHODS: We identified the top 100 'Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine' subject category journals from the SCImago journal ranking platform. This is a publicly available portal that draws from Scopus. We then extracted the corresponding author's name and email from all articles published in these journals between 1 March 2021 and 1 March 2022. Participants were sent a purpose-built survey about open science. The survey contained primarily multiple choice and scale-based questions for which we report count data and percentages. For the few text-based responses we conducted thematic content analysis. RESULTS: 198 participants responded to our survey. Participants had a mean response of 6.8 (N=197, SD=1.8) on a 9-point scale with endpoints, not at all familiar (1) and extremely familiar (9), when indicating how familiar they were with open science. When asked about where they obtained open science training, most participants indicated this was done on the job self-initiated while conducting research (n=103, 52%), or that they had no formal training with respect to open science (n=72, 36%). More than half of the participants indicated they would benefit from practical support from their institution on how to perform open science practices (N=106, 54%). A diversity of barriers to each of the open science practices presented to participants were acknowledged. Participants indicated that funding was the most essential incentive to adopt open science. CONCLUSIONS: It is clear that policy alone will not lead to the effective implementation of open science. This survey serves as a baseline for the cardiovascular research community's open science performance and perception and can be used to inform future interventions and monitoring.

Knowledge and motivations of training in peer review: An international cross-sectional survey.

BACKGROUND: Despite having a crucial role in scholarly publishing, peer reviewers do not typically require any training. The purpose of this study was to conduct an international survey on the current perceptions and motivations of researchers regarding peer review training. METHODS: A cross-sectional online survey was conducted of biomedical researchers. A total of 2000 corresponding authors from 100 randomly selected medical journals were invited via email. Quantitative items were reported using frequencies and percentages or means and SE, as appropriate. A thematic content analysis was conducted for qualitative items in which two researchers independently assigned codes to the responses for each written-text question, and subsequently grouped the codes into themes. A descriptive definition of each category was then created and unique themes-as well as the number and frequency of codes within each theme-were reported. RESULTS: A total of 186 participants completed the survey of which 14 were excluded. The majority of participants indicated they were men (n = 97 of 170, 57.1%), independent researchers (n = 108 of 172, 62.8%), and primarily affiliated with an academic organization (n = 103 of 170, 62.8%). A total of 144 of 171 participants (84.2%) indicated they had never received formal training in peer review. Most participants (n = 128, 75.7%) agreed-of which 41 (32.0%) agreed strongly-that peer reviewers should receive formal training in peer review prior to acting as a peer reviewer. The most preferred training formats were online courses, online lectures, and online modules. Most respondents (n = 111 of 147, 75.5%) stated that difficulty finding and/or accessing training was a barrier to completing training in peer review. CONCLUSION: Despite being desired, most biomedical researchers have not received formal training in peer review and indicated that training was difficult to access or not available.

Limited online training opportunities exist for scholarly peer reviewers.

OBJECTIVES: To create a comprehensive list of all openly available online trainings in scholarly peer review and to analyze their characteristics. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: A systematic review of online training material in scholarly peer review openly accessible between 2012 and 2022. Training characteristics were presented in evidence tables and summarized narratively. A risk of bias tool was purpose-built for this study to evaluate the included training material as evidence-based. RESULTS: Fourty-two training opportunities in manuscript peer review were identified, of which only twenty were openly accessible. Most were online modules (n = 12, 60%) with an estimated completion time of less than 1 hour (n = 13, 65%). Using our ad hoc risk of bias tool, four sources (20%) met our criteria of evidence-based. CONCLUSION: Our comprehensive search of the literature identified 20 openly accessible online training materials in manuscript peer review. For such a crucial step in the dissemination of literature, a lack of training could potentially explain disparities in the quality of scholarly publishing.