Study of Predatory Open Access Nursing Journals.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to identify predatory journals in nursing, describe their characteristics and editorial standards, and document experiences of authors, peer reviewers, and editors affiliated with these journals. DESIGN: Using two sources that list predatory journals, the research team created a list of nursing journals. In Phase One, the team collected data on characteristics of predatory nursing journals such as types of articles published, article processing charge, and peer review process. In Phase Two, the team surveyed a sample of authors, reviewers, and editors to learn more about their experiences with their affiliated journals. METHODS: Data from the review of predatory nursing journals were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Written comments were summarized and categorized. FINDINGS: There were 140 predatory nursing journals from 75 publishers. Most journals were new, having been inaugurated in the past 1 to 2 years. One important finding was that many journals only published one or two volumes and then either ceased publishing or published fewer issues and articles after the first volume. Journal content varied widely, and some journals published content from dentistry and medicine, as well as nursing. Qualitative findings from the surveys confirmed previously published anecdotal evidence, including authors selecting journals based on spam emails and inability to halt publication of a manuscript, despite authors' requests to do so. CONCLUSIONS: Predatory journals exist in nursing and bring with them many of the "red flags" that have been noted in the literature, including lack of transparency about editorial processes and misleading information promoted on websites. The number of journals is high enough to warrant concern in the discipline about erosion of our scholarly literature. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Nurses rely on the published literature to provide evidence for high-quality, safe care that promotes optimal patient outcomes. Research published in journals that do not adhere to the highest standards of publishing excellence have the potential to compromise nursing scholarship and is an area of concern.

Retooling institutional support infrastructure for clinical research.

Clinical research activities at academic medical centers are challenging to oversee. Without effective research administration, a continually evolving set of regulatory and institutional requirements can divert investigator and study team attention away from a focus on scientific gain, study conduct, and patient safety. However, even when the need for research administration is recognized, there can be struggles over what form it should take. Central research administration may be viewed negatively, with individual groups preferring to maintain autonomy over processes. Conversely, a proliferation of individualized approaches across an institution can create inefficiencies or invite risk. This article describes experiences establishing a unified research support office at the Duke University School of Medicine based on a framework of customer support. The Duke Office of Clinical Research was formed in 2012 with a vision that research administration at academic medical centers should help clinical investigators navigate the complex research environment and operationalize research ideas. The office provides an array of services that have received high satisfaction ratings. The authors describe the ongoing culture change necessary for success of the unified research support office. Lessons learned from implementation of the Duke Office of Clinical Research may serve as a model for other institutions undergoing a similar transition.

Induction therapy for poor-prognosis anal canal carcinoma: a phase II study of the cancer and Leukemia Group B (CALGB 9281).

PURPOSE: Although most patients with anal canal cancer are cured with sphincter-preserving, nonsurgical, combined-modality therapy, those with large tumors and lymph node involvement have a poor prognosis. To establish the safety and efficacy of induction chemotherapy with infusional fluorouracil (FU) plus cisplatin followed by FU plus mitomycin C with concurrent radiation in patients with poor-prognosis squamous cell cancers of the anal canal. METHODS: Patients with previously untreated anal canal cancers with T3 or T4 tumors and/or extensive nodal involvement (bulky N2 or N3) received two 28-day cycles of induction treatment with infusional FU plus cisplatin followed by two 28-day cycles of FU plus mitomycin C with concurrent split-course radiation. A third cycle of FU and cisplatin with radiation boost was given to patients with persistent primary site disease or bulky N2 or N3 disease at presentation. RESULTS: Forty-five assessable patients received protocol therapy. Treatment was generally well tolerated, and gastrointestinal and hematologic toxicities were the most common. Induction chemotherapy resulted in eight complete and 21 partial responses. After induction, combined-modality, and boost therapy, 37 (82%) of 45 assessable high-risk patients achieved a complete response. After 4 years of follow-up, 68% of patients are alive, 61% are disease-free, and 50% are colostomy- and disease-free. CONCLUSION: A combined-modality approach that includes induction treatment with FU and cisplatin followed by combined-modality therapy with FU, mitomycin C, and concurrent radiation results in long-term disease control in the majority of patients with poor-prognosis anal canal cancer.

Improved surgeon performance in clinical trials: an analysis of quality assurance audits from the American College of Surgeons Oncology Group.

BACKGROUND: The American College of Surgeons Oncology Group (ACOSOG) represents an organized effort by surgeons to participate in clinical trials research. To assess the quality of trial conduct by surgeons on a national level and the feasibility of improvement through education, this study examined the findings of the Quality Assurance Audit Program of the ACOSOG over time. STUDY DESIGN: Outcomes of 249 routine audits conducted from 2001 to 2004 were reviewed for major and minor deficiencies and overall performance (acceptable versus unacceptable) in compliance with regulatory requirements (REG) and patient case review (PCR). RESULTS: From 2001 to 2004, active trials have increased. Major deficiencies in REG fell from 31% to 20% for IRB documentation (p = 0.002) and from 31% to 9% for informed consent (p < 0.001). The major deficiency rates in PCR decreased from 21% to 6% (patient consent), 16% to 7% (eligibility), 13% to 7% (treatment), 34% to 6% (outcomes), 6% to 1% (toxicity), and 16% to 3% (data). During 2001 to 2004, the overall acceptable performance rates were 82%, 72%, 84%, and 92%, respectively, in REG (p = 0.093), and significantly improved in PCR (47%, 55%, 77%, 94%, respectively; p < 0.001). No difference was detected in acceptable rates between academic versus community sites, for either REG (86% versus 76%, respectively; odds ratio: 1.91; 95% CI: 0.87 to 4.19) or PCR (63% versus 68%, respectively; odds ratio: 0.81; 95% CI: 0.42 to 1.53). CONCLUSIONS: Despite initial deficiencies, surgical trials are now conducted with high standards nationwide. In response to educational programs, surgeon performance in clinical trials has measurably improved. Quality assurance audits have served both surveillance and educational roles.

A randomized trial of aspirin to prevent colorectal adenomas in patients with previous colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Experimental studies in animals and observational studies in humans suggest that regular aspirin use may decrease the risk of colorectal adenomas, the precursors to most colorectal cancers. METHODS: We conducted a randomized, double-blind trial to determine the effect of aspirin on the incidence of colorectal adenomas. We randomly assigned 635 patients with previous colorectal cancer to receive either 325 mg of aspirin per day or placebo. We determined the proportion of patients with adenomas, the number of recurrent adenomas, and the time to the development of adenoma between randomization and subsequent colonoscopic examinations. Relative risks were adjusted for age, sex, cancer stage, the number of colonoscopic examinations, and the time to a first colonoscopy. The study was terminated early by an independent data and safety monitoring board when statistically significant results were reported during a planned interim analysis. RESULTS: A total of 517 randomized patients had at least one colonoscopic examination a median of 12.8 months after randomization. One or more adenomas were found in 17 percent of patients in the aspirin group and 27 percent of patients in the placebo group (P=0.004). The mean (+/-SD) number of adenomas was lower in the aspirin group than the placebo group (0.30+/-0.87 vs. 0.49+/-0.99, P=0.003 by the Wilcoxon test). The adjusted relative risk of any recurrent adenoma in the aspirin group, as compared with the placebo group, was 0.65 (95 percent confidence interval, 0.46 to 0.91). The time to the detection of a first adenoma was longer in the aspirin group than in the placebo group (hazard ratio for the detection of a new polyp, 0.64; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.43 to 0.94; P=0.022). CONCLUSIONS: Daily use of aspirin is associated with a significant reduction in the incidence of colorectal adenomas in patients with previous colorectal cancer.