Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 20 de 3.336
Filtrar
1.
Bone Joint J ; 103-B(5): 898-901, 2021 May.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33934660

RESUMEN

AIMS: This study reviews the past 30 years of research from the Canadian Orthopedic Trauma Society (COTS), to identify predictive factors that delay or accelerate the course of randomized controlled trials in orthopaedic trauma. METHODS: We conducted a methodological review of all papers published through the Canadian Orthopaedic Trauma Society or its affiliates. Data abstracted included: year of publication; journal of publication; study type; number of study sites; sample size; and achievement of sample size goals. Information about the study timelines was also collected, including: the date of study proposal to COTS; date recruitment began; date recruitment ended; and date of publication. RESULTS: In total, 22 studies have been published through the COTS working group, 13 of which are randomized controlled trials (RCTs). In total, 1,423 individual patients have been involved in COTS studies, a mean of 110 patients per trial (22 to 424). Each study was conducted across a mean of approximately six centres (1 to 11) and took nearly ten years (mean 119.9 months (59 to 188)) from presentation of concept to publication. The mean length of enrolment was 63 months (26 to 113) and the mean time from cessation of enrolment to publication 51 months (19 to 78). Regardless of sample size, the only factor associated with a decreased length of enrolment was a higher number of clinical sites (p = 0.041). Neither study sample size nor length of enrolment were associated with total time to publication. CONCLUSION: Over the last three decades, COTS has developed a multinational strategy to produce high-quality evidence in the field of orthopaedic trauma through 13 multicentre RCTs. Future efficiencies can be realized by recruitment of more clinical sites, improving connectivity between the sites, and the promotion of national streamlined ethics processes. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(5):898-901.


Asunto(s)
Ortopedia , Publicaciones Periódicas como Asunto , Edición/estadística & datos numéricos , Traumatología , Canadá , Humanos , Ensayos Clínicos Controlados Aleatorios como Asunto , Sociedades Médicas
2.
Br J Radiol ; 94(1121): 20200115, 2021 May 01.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33861141

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVES: We aimed at describing and assessing the quality of reporting in all published prospective trials about radiosurgery (SRS) and stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT). METHODS: The Medline database was searched for. The reporting of study design, patients' and radiotherapy characteristics, previous and concurrent cancer treatments, acute and late toxicities and assessment of quality of life were collected. RESULTS: 114 articles - published between 1989 and 2019 - were analysed. 21 trials were randomised (18.4%). Randomisation information was unavailable in 59.6% of the publications. Data about randomisation, ITT analysis and whether the study was multicentre or not, had been significantly less reported during the 2010-2019 publication period than before (respectively 29.4% vs 57.4% (p < 0.001), 20.6% vs 57.4% (p < 0.001), 48.5% vs 68.1% (p < 0.001). 89.5% of the articles reported the number of included patients. Information about radiation total dose was available in 86% of cases and dose per fraction in 78.1%. Regarding the method of dose prescription, the prescription isodose was the most reported information (58.8%). The reporting of radiotherapy characteristics did not improve during the 2010 s-2019s. Acute and late high-grade toxicity was reported in 37.7 and 30.7%, respectively. Their reporting decreased in recent period, especially for all-grade late toxicities (p = 0.044). CONCLUSION: It seems necessary to meet stricter specifications to improve the quality of reporting. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: Our work results in one of the rare analyses of radiosurgery and SBRT publications. Literature must include necessary information to first, ensure treatments can be compared and reproduced and secondly, to permit to decide on new standards of care.


Asunto(s)
Neoplasias/radioterapia , Edición/normas , Radiocirugia/normas , Ensayos Clínicos Fase III como Asunto/estadística & datos numéricos , Humanos , Estudios Multicéntricos como Asunto/estadística & datos numéricos , Estudios Prospectivos , Edición/estadística & datos numéricos , Edición/tendencias , Calidad de Vida , Radiocirugia/efectos adversos , Radiocirugia/estadística & datos numéricos , Dosificación Radioterapéutica , Ensayos Clínicos Controlados Aleatorios como Asunto/estadística & datos numéricos , Factores de Tiempo
4.
J Med Internet Res ; 23(4): e25379, 2021 04 12.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33735097

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Gender imbalances in academia have been evident historically and persist today. For the past 60 years, we have witnessed the increase of participation of women in biomedical disciplines, showing that the gender gap is shrinking. However, preliminary evidence suggests that women, including female researchers, are disproportionately affected by the COVID-19 pandemic in terms of unequal distribution of childcare, elderly care, and other kinds of domestic and emotional labor. Sudden lockdowns and abrupt shifts in daily routines have had disproportionate consequences on their productivity, which is reflected by a sudden drop in research output in biomedical research, consequently affecting the number of female authors of scientific publications. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to test the hypothesis that the COVID-19 pandemic has had a disproportionate adverse effect on the productivity of female researchers in the biomedical field in terms of authorship of scientific publications. METHODS: This is a retrospective observational bibliometric study. We investigated the proportion of male and female researchers who published scientific papers during the COVID-19 pandemic, using bibliometric data from biomedical preprint servers and selected Springer-Nature journals. We used the ordinary least squares regression model to estimate the expected proportions over time by correcting for temporal trends. We also used a set of statistical methods, such as the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test and regression discontinuity design, to test the validity of the results. RESULTS: A total of 78,950 papers from the bioRxiv and medRxiv repositories and from 62 selected Springer-Nature journals by 346,354 unique authors were analyzed. The acquired data set consisted of papers that were published between January 1, 2019, and August 2, 2020. The proportion of female first authors publishing in the biomedical field during the pandemic dropped by 9.1%, on average, across disciplines (expected arithmetic mean yest=0.39; observed arithmetic mean y=0.35; standard error of the estimate, Sest=0.007; standard error of the observation, σx=0.004). The impact was particularly pronounced for papers related to COVID-19 research, where the proportion of female scientists in the first author position dropped by 28% (yest=0.39; y=0.28; Sest=0.007; σx=0.007). When looking at the last authors, the proportion of women dropped by 7.9%, on average (yest=0.25; y=0.23; Sest=0.005; σx=0.003), while the proportion of women writing about COVID-19 as the last author decreased by 18.8% (yest=0.25; y=0.21; Sest=0.005; σx=0.007). Further, by geocoding authors' affiliations, we showed that the gender disparities became even more apparent when disaggregated by country, up to 35% in some cases. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings document a decrease in the number of publications by female authors in the biomedical field during the global pandemic. This effect was particularly pronounced for papers related to COVID-19, indicating that women are producing fewer publications related to COVID-19 research. This sudden increase in the gender gap was persistent across the 10 countries with the highest number of researchers. These results should be used to inform the scientific community of this worrying trend in COVID-19 research and the disproportionate effect that the pandemic has had on female academics.


Asunto(s)
Autoria , Bibliometría , Investigación Biomédica/estadística & datos numéricos , Edición/estadística & datos numéricos , Investigadores/estadística & datos numéricos , Distribución por Sexo , /epidemiología , Eficiencia , Femenino , Humanos , Masculino , Pandemias , Estudios Retrospectivos , Factores Sexuales
7.
Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol ; 259(3): 733-744, 2021 Mar.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33537883

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic increased the gender gap in academic publishing. This study assesses COVID-19's impact on ophthalmology gender authorship distribution and compares the gender authorship proportion of COVID-19 ophthalmology-related articles to previous ophthalmology articles. METHODS: This cohort study includes authors listed in all publications related to ophthalmology in the COVID-19 Open Research Dataset and CDC COVID-19 research database. Articles from 65 ophthalmology journals from January to July 2020 were selected. All previous articles published in the same journals were extracted from PubMed. Gender-API determined authors' gender. RESULTS: Out of 119,457 COVID-19-related articles, we analyzed 528 ophthalmology-related articles written by 2518 authors. Women did not exceed 40% in any authorship positions and were most likely to be middle, first, and finally, last authors. The proportions of women in all authorship positions from the 2020 COVID-19 group (29.6% first, 31.5% middle, 22.1% last) are significantly lower compared to the predicted 2020 data points (37.4% first, 37.0% middle, 27.6% last) (p < .01). The gap between the proportion of female authors in COVID-19 ophthalmology research and the 2020 ophthalmology-predicted proportion (based on 2002-2019 data) is 6.1% for overall authors, 7.8% for first authors, and 5.5% for last and middle authors. The 2020 COVID-19 authorship group (1925 authors) was also compared to the 2019 group (33,049 authors) based on journal category (clinical/basic science research, general/subspecialty ophthalmology, journal impact factor). CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 amplified the authorship gender gap in ophthalmology. When compared to previous years, there was a greater decrease in women's than men's academic productivity.


Asunto(s)
Autoria , Factor de Impacto de la Revista , Oftalmología/tendencias , Edición/estadística & datos numéricos , Distribución por Sexo , Bases de Datos Factuales , Femenino , Humanos , Masculino , Publicaciones Periódicas como Asunto/estadística & datos numéricos , Médicos Mujeres/estadística & datos numéricos
8.
Neurology ; 96(13): 617-626, 2021 03 30.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33568550

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: To determine the publication rate of motor-rehabilitation trials poststroke and the consistency between registry records and their corresponding main publications in trial design, primary objectives and outcomes, eligibility criteria, and sample size. METHODS: We searched 18 clinical trial registries to identify randomized controlled trials of motor-based stroke rehabilitation registered after July 2005 and completed before April 2017. Eligible trials included adults with stroke, with at least one outcome measure related to motor function. Information in the registry records was compared with that of their main publications, if any. RESULTS: Three hundred twenty-three trials met our eligibility criteria; we were unable to find a peer-reviewed publication reporting the main findings for 46% (150/323) of these. Of the 169 trials with peer-reviewed articles published in English, 141 (83%) were consistent with the registry record in trial design, 100 (59%) were consistent in primary objectives, 71 (42%) were consistent in primary outcomes, 28 (17%) were consistent in eligibility criteria, and 74 (44%) were consistent in sample size. CONCLUSIONS: Approximately half of motor-based stroke rehabilitation trials were not published, even more than 3 years after the end of the trial. When main publications were found, they substantially deviated from information in the registry record. These findings highlight the importance of trial registries for identifying unpublished stroke rehabilitation trials and of searching trial registries when conducting systematic reviews and meta-analysis to help ensure that reviews are unbiased.


Asunto(s)
Ensayos Clínicos como Asunto , Edición/estadística & datos numéricos , Sistema de Registros , Rehabilitación de Accidente Cerebrovascular , Accidente Cerebrovascular/fisiopatología , Humanos , Destreza Motora , Rendimiento Físico Funcional
11.
Antimicrob Resist Infect Control ; 10(1): 10, 2021 01 12.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33436062

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Translating research into practice is a central priority within the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Roadmap. The underlying aim of the NIH Roadmap is to accelerate the movement of scientific findings into practical health care provisions through translational research. MAIN TEXT: Despite the advances in health sciences, emerging infectious diseases have become more frequent in recent decades. Furthermore, emerging and reemerging pathogens have led to several global public health challenges. A question, and to an extent a concern, arises from this: Why our health care system is experiencing several challenges in encountering the coronavirus outbreak, despite the ever-growing advances in sciences, and the exponential rise in the number of published articles in the first quartile journals and even the ones among the top 1%? CONCLUSION: Two responses could be potentially provided to the above question: First, there seems to be a significant gap between our theoretical knowledge and practice. And second that many scholars and scientists publish papers only to have a longer list of publications, and therefore publishing is viewed as a personal objective, rather than for improving communities' public health.


Asunto(s)
/virología , Publicaciones/estadística & datos numéricos , /fisiología , Investigación Biomédica/normas , Investigación Biomédica/estadística & datos numéricos , Humanos , Políticas , Publicaciones/normas , Edición/normas , Edición/estadística & datos numéricos , /genética
13.
Maturitas ; 144: 1-3, 2021 Feb.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33358200

RESUMEN

In the past decade, the leading international cardiology societies have released statements that emphasize the importance of sex-specific reporting of the findings of clinical trials in cardiovascular research. To find out whether this has led to improvement, we compared sex-specific reporting of efficacy and safety outcomes for trials of cardiovascular drug interventions presented at the major clinical trials sessions of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC), American Heart Association (AHA) and the American College of Cardiology (ACC) before and after publication of these statements. We found that sex-specific efficacy and safety outcomes of the most influential cardiovascular intervention trials are still not systematically presented.


Asunto(s)
Fármacos Cardiovasculares/uso terapéutico , Enfermedades Cardiovasculares/tratamiento farmacológico , Edición/estadística & datos numéricos , Caracteres Sexuales , Femenino , Humanos , Masculino , Ensayos Clínicos Controlados Aleatorios como Asunto , Resultado del Tratamiento
16.
Educ Health (Abingdon) ; 33(2): 46-50, 2020.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33318453

RESUMEN

Background: Research has become a key pillar of academic medicine and a cornerstone of residency training; however, there continues to be significant barriers to ensuring research productivity for residents. We implemented a novel tiered team approach which aimed to increase research productivity and promote collaboration during residency training. Methods: This was a retrospective study that evaluated the implementation of a novel tiered team research approach at a single institution between 2009 and 2013. Analytical software was used to visualize and display the research interconnections among the authors of the captured publications. In addition to using Gephi to determine the research interconnections, the growth in research capability of the tiered team and its individual members were also graphically depicted. Results: The research team produced a total of 77 publications during the study period (2009-2013). Significant and frequent collaboration and coauthorship was noted as the years progressed following implementation of tiered team research. Discussion: Tiered team research can be readily implemented at most institutions and can lead to increases in productivity of published research. It can also promote collaboration and peer mentorship among those involved.


Asunto(s)
Investigación Biomédica , Conducta Cooperativa , Internado y Residencia , Cirujanos Ortopédicos/educación , Educación de Postgrado en Medicina , Humanos , Mentores , Evaluación de Programas y Proyectos de Salud , Edición/estadística & datos numéricos , Estudios Retrospectivos
SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA
...