Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 5.340
Filter
1.
Br J Biomed Sci ; 81: 12054, 2024.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38952614

ABSTRACT

The peer review process is a fundamental aspect of modern scientific paper publishing, underpinning essential quality control. First conceptualised in the 1700s, it is an iterative process that aims to elevate scientific literature to the highest standards whilst preventing publication of scientifically unsound, potentially misleading, and even plagiarised information. It is widely accepted that the peer review of scientific papers is an irreplaceable and fundamental aspect of the research process. However, the rapid growth of research and technology has led to a huge increase in the number of publications. This has led to increased pressure on the peer review system. There are several established peer review methodologies, ranging from single and double blind to open and transparent review, but their implementation across journals and research fields varies greatly. Some journals are testing entirely novel approaches (such as collaborative reviews), whilst others are piloting changes to established methods. Given the unprecedented growth in publication numbers, and the ensuing burden on journals, editors, and reviewers, it is imperative to improve the quality and efficiency of the peer review process. Herein we evaluate the peer review process, from its historical origins to current practice and future directions.


Subject(s)
Peer Review, Research , Humans , Biomedical Research/trends , Biomedical Research/standards , History, 21st Century , Peer Review, Research/trends , Peer Review, Research/standards , Periodicals as Topic , Publishing/standards , Publishing/trends , Quality Control
2.
PLoS One ; 19(7): e0305707, 2024.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-39012857

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) has published Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals. These provide a global standard for writing and editing medical articles, including research integrity. However, no study has examined the research integrity-related content of Japanese medical journals' Instructions for Authors. We therefore compared research integrity content in ICMJE member journals with those in the English- and Japanese-language journals of the Japanese Association of Medical Sciences (JAMS). MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a descriptive literature study. We obtained Instructions for Authors from English- and Japanese-language journals listed on the JAMS website and the ICMJE member journals listed on the ICMJE website as of September 1, 2021. We compared the presence of 20 topics (19 in the ICMJE Recommendations plus compliance with ICMJE) in the Instructions for Authors, and analyzed the content of the conflict of interest disclosure. RESULTS: We evaluated 12 ICMJE member journals, and 82 English-language and 99 Japanese-language subcommittee journals. The median number of topics covered was 10.5 for ICMJE member journals, 10 for English-language journals, and three for Japanese-language journals. Compliance with ICMJE was mentioned by 10 (83%) ICMJE member journals, 75 (91%) English-language journals, and 29 (29%) Japanese-language journals. The ICMJE Conflicts of Interest Disclosure Form was requested by seven (64%) ICMJE member journals, 15 (18%) English-language journals, and one (1%) Japanese-language journal. CONCLUSIONS: Although the topics in the JAMS English-language journals resembled those in the ICMJE member journals, the median value of ICMJE-related topic inclusion was approximately one-third lower in JAMS Japanese-language journals than in ICMJE member journals. It is hoped that Japanese-language journals whose conflict of interest disclosure policies differ from ICMJE standards will adopt international standards to deter misconduct and ensure publication quality.


Subject(s)
Conflict of Interest , Editorial Policies , Periodicals as Topic , Japan , Periodicals as Topic/standards , Humans , Authorship , Biomedical Research/standards , Language , Disclosure , Scientific Misconduct , East Asian People
4.
BMJ Open ; 14(7): e081864, 2024 Jul 17.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-39019643

ABSTRACT

Clinical trials are essential for evaluating the efficacy and safety of new treatments and health interventions. However, while pharmacological trials are well-established, non-pharmacological trials face unique challenges related to their complexity and difficulties such as recruitment, retention, intervention standardisation, selection of outcome measures and blinding of clinicians, participants and data collectors. This communication paper describes the objectives, implementation steps and bylaws of the 'Trials foR heAlth Care inTerventIONs' Network (TRACTION), established by an international multiprofessional task force of experts to foster high-quality non-pharmacological research, ultimately improving patient care and healthcare outcomes.The TRACTION research network will provide information and resources through a collaborative hub for researchers, health professionals, patient research partners and stakeholders in diverse biomedical and healthcare areas, connecting people with different levels of expertise but with the same interests (eg, to evaluate the effect of non-pharmacological interventions, recruiting participants). This open network will support researchers in optimising trial design, participant recruitment, data management and analysis, and disseminating and implementing trial results.The network will also facilitate specialisation training and provide educational materials and mentoring.


Subject(s)
Clinical Trials as Topic , Humans , Clinical Trials as Topic/standards , Research Design , Patient Selection , International Cooperation , Biomedical Research/standards
5.
Nat Med ; 30(7): 1874-1881, 2024 Jul.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-39030405

ABSTRACT

Precision medicine should aspire to reduce error and improve accuracy in medical and health recommendations by comparison with contemporary practice, while maintaining safety and cost-effectiveness. The etiology, clinical manifestation and prognosis of diseases such as obesity, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, kidney disease and fatty liver disease are heterogeneous. Without standardized reporting, this heterogeneity, combined with the diversity of research tools used in precision medicine studies, makes comparisons across studies and implementation of the findings challenging. Specific recommendations for reporting precision medicine research do not currently exist. The BePRECISE (Better Precision-data Reporting of Evidence from Clinical Intervention Studies & Epidemiology) consortium, comprising 23 experts in precision medicine, cardiometabolic diseases, statistics, editorial and lived experience, conducted a scoping review and participated in a modified Delphi and nominal group technique process to develop guidelines for reporting precision medicine research. The BePRECISE checklist comprises 23 items organized into 5 sections that align with typical sections of a scientific publication. A specific section about health equity serves to encourage precision medicine research to be inclusive of individuals and communities that are traditionally under-represented in clinical research and/or underserved by health systems. Adoption of BePRECISE by investigators, reviewers and editors will facilitate and accelerate equitable clinical implementation of precision medicine.


Subject(s)
Checklist , Precision Medicine , Humans , Biomedical Research/standards , Research Design/standards , Guidelines as Topic , Clinical Relevance
6.
Nat Commun ; 15(1): 5574, 2024 Jul 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38956430

ABSTRACT

The biomedical research community addresses reproducibility challenges in animal studies through standardized nomenclature, improved experimental design, transparent reporting, data sharing, and centralized repositories. The ARRIVE guidelines outline documentation standards for laboratory animals in experiments, but genetic information is often incomplete. To remedy this, we propose the Laboratory Animal Genetic Reporting (LAG-R) framework. LAG-R aims to document animals' genetic makeup in scientific publications, providing essential details for replication and appropriate model use. While verifying complete genetic compositions may be impractical, better reporting and validation efforts enhance reliability of research. LAG-R standardization will bolster reproducibility, peer review, and overall scientific rigor.


Subject(s)
Animals, Laboratory , Guidelines as Topic , Animals , Animals, Laboratory/genetics , Reproducibility of Results , Research Design , Animal Experimentation/standards , Biomedical Research/standards
8.
J Huntingtons Dis ; 13(2): 119-131, 2024.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38968054

ABSTRACT

The field of Huntington's disease research covers many different scientific disciplines, from molecular biology all the way through to clinical practice, and as our understanding of the disease has progressed over the decades, a great deal of different terminology has accrued. The field is also renowned for its collaborative spirit and use of standardized reagents, assays, datasets, models, and clinical measures, so the use of standardized terms is especially important. We have set out to determine, through a consensus exercise involving basic and clinical scientists working in the field, the most appropriate language to use across disciplines. Nominally, this article will serve as the style guide for the Journal of Huntington's Disease (JHD), the only journal devoted exclusively to HD, and we lay out the preferred and standardized terminology and nomenclature for use in JHD publications. However, we hope that this article will also serve as a useful resource to the HD research community at large and that these recommended naming conventions will be adopted widely.


Subject(s)
Huntington Disease , Terminology as Topic , Huntington Disease/classification , Huntington Disease/diagnosis , Humans , Biomedical Research/standards
10.
J Neurosci Methods ; 409: 110209, 2024 Sep.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38964475

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Despite extensive investment, the development of effective treatments for Alzheimer's disease (AD) has been largely unsuccessful. To improve translation, it is crucial to ensure the quality and reproducibility of foundational evidence generated from laboratory models. Systematic reviews play a key role in providing an unbiased overview of the evidence, assessing rigour and reporting, and identifying factors that influence reproducibility. However, the sheer pace of evidence generation is prohibitive to evidence synthesis and assessment. NEW METHOD: To address these challenges, we have developed AD-SOLES, an integrated workflow of automated tools that collect, curate, and visualise the totality of evidence from in vivo experiments. RESULTS: AD-SOLES is a publicly accessible interactive dashboard aiming to surface and expose data from in vivo experiments. It summarises the latest evidence, tracks reporting quality and transparency, and allows research users to easily locate evidence relevant to their specific research question. COMPARISON WITH EXISTING METHODS: Using automated screening methodologies within AD-SOLES, systematic reviews can begin at an accelerated starting point compared to traditional approaches. Furthermore, through text-mining approaches within the full-text of publications, users can identify research of interest using specific models, outcomes, or interventions without relying on details in the title and/or abstract. CONCLUSIONS: By automating the collection, curation, and visualisation of evidence from in vivo experiments, AD-SOLES addresses the challenges posed by the rapid pace of evidence generation. AD-SOLES aims to offer guidance for research improvement, reduce research waste, highlight knowledge gaps, and support informed decision making for researchers, funders, patients, and the public.


Subject(s)
Alzheimer Disease , Humans , Animals , Biomedical Research/methods , Biomedical Research/standards , Data Mining/methods , Internet , Disease Models, Animal
12.
Int J Equity Health ; 23(1): 142, 2024 Jul 18.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-39026212

ABSTRACT

Consent bias is a type of selection bias in biomedical research where those consenting to the research differ systematically from those not consenting. It is particularly relevant in precision medicine research because the complexity of these studies prevents certain subgroups from understanding, trusting, and consenting to the research. Because consent bias distorts research findings and causes inequitable distribution of research benefits, scholars propose two types of schemes to reduce consent bias: reforming existing consent models and removing the consent requirement altogether. This study explores the possibility of waiving consent in observational studies using existing data, because they involve fewer risks to participants than clinical trials if privacy safeguards are strengthened. It suggests that data protection mechanisms such as security enhancement and data protection impact assessment should be conducted to protect data privacy of participants in observational studies without consent.


Subject(s)
Informed Consent , Precision Medicine , Humans , Informed Consent/standards , Biomedical Research/standards , Observational Studies as Topic , Bias , Selection Bias
14.
Health Expect ; 27(3): e14058, 2024 Jun.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38855830

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Meaningful involvement of adolescents in health research is their fundamental human right and has many benefits. A lack of awareness among researchers on how to meaningfully involve adolescents in health research has been linked to adolescent under involvement in health research. To address this barrier, studies have reported the need for more guidance. To inform the development of better guidelines on adolescent involvement, there is a need to first consolidate the currently available guidance on adolescent involvement in health research and to identify the gaps in these guidelines. This review aims to systematically identify all the currently available guidelines on adolescent involvement in health research and evaluate their scope, content, context, and quality. METHODS: This rapid review was pre-registered with PROSPERO #CRD42021293586. It included documents that incorporated tangible recommendations on the involvement of adolescents in health research. We searched six databases for peer-reviewed literature: MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and ERIC. We conducted a grey literature search in Google Scholar, Google, websites of 472 relevant organisations and sought expert input. The quality of the guidelines was assessed using the Appraisal of Guidelines for REsearch & Evaluation (AGREE-II) Instrument. Data was analysed using descriptive analyses and narrative synthesis. RESULTS: We found that the current guidelines on adolescent involvement in health research are often narrow in scope, targeting specific users and populations while focusing on limited research areas. The guidelines individually fail to provide comprehensive coverage of recommendations across all topics related to adolescent research involvement, that are collectively addressed across all included guidelines. Furthermore, these guidelines tend to be context-specific and are generally of low quality, often due to inadequate stakeholder involvement and a lack of rigorous development methods. CONCLUSION: This review provides a consolidated list of guidelines on adolescent involvement in health research along with their quality scores as a resource for researchers to select the guidelines suitable for their research topic, context, and scope for adolescent involvement. There is a need to develop a set of guidelines on adolescent involvement in research, which are comprehensive in scope, cover all key aspects of adolescent involvement in health research, can be adapted for different contexts, and which are based on rigorous and systematic methods. PATIENT AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT: Adolescent co-researchers D. B. and C. W. were involved at different stages of the review process. D. B. screened 25% of the peer-reviewed articles at the title and abstract screening stage and 10% at full-text screening stage. C. W. extracted data from 10% of the included guidelines. Both co-researchers reviewed and shared their feedback on the article and are co-authors on this paper. They will also be invited to contribute to further dissemination of the findings from this review.


Subject(s)
Guidelines as Topic , Humans , Adolescent , Patient Participation , Biomedical Research/standards
15.
Med Educ Online ; 29(1): 2370617, 2024 Dec 31.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38934534

ABSTRACT

While objective clinical structured examination (OSCE) is a worldwide recognized and effective method to assess clinical skills of undergraduate medical students, the latest Ottawa conference on the assessment of competences raised vigorous debates regarding the future and innovations of OSCE. This study aimed to provide a comprehensive view of the global research activity on OSCE over the past decades and to identify clues for its improvement. We performed a bibliometric and scientometric analysis of OSCE papers published until March 2024. We included a description of the overall scientific productivity, as well as an unsupervised analysis of the main topics and the international scientific collaborations. A total of 3,224 items were identified from the Scopus database. There was a sudden spike in publications, especially related to virtual/remote OSCE, from 2020 to 2024. We identified leading journals and countries in terms of number of publications and citations. A co-occurrence term network identified three main clusters corresponding to different topics of research in OSCE. Two connected clusters related to OSCE performance and reliability, and a third cluster on student's experience, mental health (anxiety), and perception with few connections to the two previous clusters. Finally, the United States, the United Kingdom, and Canada were identified as leading countries in terms of scientific publications and collaborations in an international scientific network involving other European countries (the Netherlands, Belgium, Italy) as well as Saudi Arabia and Australia, and revealed the lack of important collaboration with Asian countries. Various avenues for improving OSCE research have been identified: i) developing remote OSCE with comparative studies between live and remote OSCE and issuing international recommendations for sharing remote OSCE between universities and countries; ii) fostering international collaborative studies with the support of key collaborating countries; iii) investigating the relationships between student performance and anxiety.


Subject(s)
Bibliometrics , Clinical Competence , Education, Medical, Undergraduate , Educational Measurement , Humans , Educational Measurement/methods , Educational Measurement/standards , Education, Medical, Undergraduate/standards , Reproducibility of Results , Students, Medical/psychology , Students, Medical/statistics & numerical data , Biomedical Research/standards
18.
Ger Med Sci ; 22: Doc06, 2024.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38883338

ABSTRACT

In addition to patient care, physiotherapy is increasingly important in research at university hospitals. Genuine physiotherapy research plays a decisive role in this. This position statement describes the opportunities, benefits, framework conditions, challenges, and research priorities of genuine physiotherapy research at German university hospitals.


Subject(s)
Hospitals, University , Germany , Hospitals, University/standards , Humans , Physical Therapy Modalities/standards , Biomedical Research/standards , Physical Therapy Specialty/standards
20.
Am J Speech Lang Pathol ; 33(4): 1608-1618, 2024 Jul 03.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38889209

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: The speech-language-hearing sciences (SLHS) field relies on rigorous research to inform clinical practice and improve outcomes for individuals with communication, swallowing, and hearing needs. However, a significant challenge in our field is the lack of accessibility, transparency, and reproducibility of this research. Such insufficiencies limit the generalizability and impact of study findings, particularly intervention research, as it becomes difficult to replicate and use the interventions in both clinical practice and research. In this tutorial, we highlight one particularly useful tool, the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR; Hoffmann et al., 2014) checklist, which researchers can follow to improve reproducibility practices in SLHS. CONCLUSIONS: We provide an overview and guide on using the TIDieR checklist with a practical example of its implementation. Additionally, we discuss the potential benefits of increased transparency and reproducibility for SLHS, including improved clinical outcomes and increased confidence in the effectiveness of interventions. We also provide specific recommendations for scientists, journal reviewers, editors, and editorial boards as they seek to adopt, implement, and encourage using the TIDieR checklist.


Subject(s)
Checklist , Speech-Language Pathology , Humans , Reproducibility of Results , Speech-Language Pathology/methods , Research Design/standards , Biomedical Research/standards
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL