Mystical and Affective Aspects of Psychedelic Use in a Naturalistic Setting: A Linguistic Analysis of Online Experience Reports.

Analyzing online retrospective experience reports of psychedelic use can provide valuable insight into their acute subjective effects. Such reports are unexplored in relation to mystical states, which are thought to be a therapeutic mechanism within psychedelic-assisted psychotherapy. We created a set of words that, when encountered in an experience report, indicate the occurrence of mystical elements within the experience. We used the Shroomery.org website to retrieve 7317 publicly available retrospective psychedelic experience reports of psychedelic use, primarily of psilocybin, and have a designated experience intensity level self-assessed by the text authors during submission of the report. We counted the mystical language words using Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count (LIWC) software and additionally performed sentiment analysis of all reports. We found that the occurrence of mystical language grew with increased self-reported experience intensity. We also found that negative sentiment increased, and positive sentiment decreased as self-reported psychedelic experience intensity increased. These two findings raise the question of whether mystical experiences can co-exist with challenging elements within the psychedelic experience, a consideration for future qualitative studies. We present a new mystical language dictionary measure for further use and expansion, with some suggestions on how it can be used in future studies.

First-year nursing students' attitudes towards artificial intelligence: Cross-sectional multi-center study.

AIM: To assess the attitudes of nursing students toward artificial intelligence. BACKGROUND: Possible applications of artificial intelligence-powered systems in nursing cover all aspects of nursing care, from patient care to risk management. Although the final acceptance of artificial intelligence in practice will depend on positive 'nurses' attitudes toward artificial intelligence, those attitudes have gained little attention so far. DESIGN: A cross-sectional multicenter study. METHODS: The study was performed at nursing schools of four Croatian universities, surveying a total of 336 first-year nursing students (response rate 69.7%) enrolled in 2021. A validated instrument, the General Attitudes towards Artificial Intelligence Scale, consisting of 20 Likert-type items, was chosen for the study. Where applicable, the items were contextualized for nursing. Four sub-scales were identified based on the outcomes of the factor analysis. RESULTS: The average attitude score was (mean ± standard deviation) 64.5 ± 11.7, out of a maximum of 100, which was significantly higher than the neutral score of 60.0 (p < 0.001). The attitude towards AI did not differ across the universities and was not associated with students' age. Male students scored slightly higher than their female colleagues. Scores on subscales "Benefits of artificial intelligence in nursing", "Willingness to use artificial intelligence in nursing practice", and "Dangers of artificial intelligence" were favorable of artificial intelligence-based solutions. However, scores on the subscale "Practical advantages of artificial intelligence" were somewhat unfavorable. CONCLUSIONS: First-year nursing students had slightly positive attitudes towards artificial intelligence in nursing, which should make it easier for the new generations of nurses to embrace and implement artificial intelligence systems. Reservations about artificial intelligence in daily nursing practice indicate that nursing students might benefit from education focused specifically on applications of artificial intelligence in nursing.

Validation of a new instrument for assessing attitudes on psychedelics in the general population.

Although there is research interest to assess attitudes on psychedelics, no validated instrument exists for this purpose. We aimed to develop and examine the psychometric properties of the Attitudes on Psychedelics Questionnaire (APQ) in a sample of the Croatian general population. A cross-sectional, web-based survey among the general population was conducted on 1153 participants (62.1% female, 77.7% with a graduate or high school degree, 15.1% health care workers). We assessed participants' ability to recognize psychedelic substances using a short knowledge test. The APQ consists of 20 items with four sub-scales: Legal Use of Psychedelics, Effects of Psychedelics, Risk Assessment of Psychedelics, and Openness to Psychedelics. This model demonstrated best fit in a confirmatory factor analysis. Total scale reliability was excellent (McDonald's ω = 0.949, 95% CI = 0.944-0.953). A strong correlation with a similar unvalidated measure (r = 0.885, P < 0.001) demonstrated convergent validity. We observed an association between attitudes and knowledge on psychedelics (r = 0.494, P < 0.001). Younger age, male gender, and lower educational status were associated with higher APQ scores. The APQ is valid, reliable, and could be applied in assessing educational interventions, patients' treatment outcomes, and the attitudes of different groups of experts. We encourage further validation of the APQ in English.

Decision making processes underlying avoidance of mandatory child vaccination in Croatia - a qualitative study.

Despite extensive research evidencing child vaccination is safe and effective, we are witnessing a trend of increasing vaccine hesitancy which is listed among the top ten global health threats. Although some countries incorporate mandatory vaccination programs, no particularly efficient strategies for addressing vaccine avoidance have so far been identified. Within this study we investigated perceptions and reasoning of vaccine hesitant parents from Croatia where child vaccination is mandatory. The aims were to reveal different strategies by which they avoid mandatory vaccination schedules and hypothetical situations in which they would reconsider vaccinating, as well as to identify features of related decision-making. We conducted 25 semi-structured interviews with vaccine hesitant parents and analyzed the data using the framework of thematic analyses. The identified themes were related to the parents' decision-making process, reflection as well as justification of their decision, avoidance behavior of mandatory vaccination schedules and related consequences, dealing with outcomes of the decision and reconsidering vaccinating. The results support and extend previous findings regarding vaccine reasoning, linking hesitancy with the experientially intuitive thinking style and social intuitionist model of moral reasoning. The findings provide important insights into vaccination avoidance and potential for reconsideration, as well as dealing with related risks. Furthermore, we offer a general framework as well as practical guidelines that may help the development of strategies aimed at increasing vaccination rates.

A retrospective analysis of the peer review of more than 75,000 Marie Curie proposals between 2007 and 2018.

Most funding agencies rely on peer review to evaluate grant applications and proposals, but research into the use of this process by funding agencies has been limited. Here we explore if two changes to the organization of peer review for proposals submitted to various funding actions by the European Union has an influence on the outcome of the peer review process. Based on an analysis of more than 75,000 applications to three actions of the Marie Curie programme over a period of 12 years, we find that the changes - a reduction in the number of evaluation criteria used by reviewers and a move from in-person to virtual meetings - had little impact on the outcome of the peer review process. Our results indicate that other factors, such as the type of grant or area of research, have a larger impact on the outcome.

Cognitive levels in testing knowledge in evidence-based medicine: a cross sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Knowledge assessment in evidence-based medicine (EBM) is usually performed by the measurement of memorised facts, understanding of EBM concepts and application of learned knowledge in familiar situations, all of which are considered lower-level educational objectives. The aim of this study was to assess EBM knowledge both on higher and lower cognitive levels across EBM topics. METHODS: In order to assess knowledge on different EBM topics across learning levels, we created a knowledge test (Six Progressive Levels in Testing - SPLIT instrument), which consists of 36 multiple choice items and measures knowledge in EBM at six cognitive levels (Remembering, Understanding, Applying, Analysing, Evaluating and Creating) and addresses six EBM topics (Evidence-based practice, Internal validity, Clinical importance, Study design, Sources of evidence, Diagnostic studies). Three independent assessors defined the minimum passing score (MPS) for the overall test, based on the first-year course content and educational objectives. The instrument was assessed in a sample of first- (n = 119) and third-year medical students (n = 70) and EBM experts (n = 14). RESULTS: The MPS was 16 correct answers out of total 36 questions, and was achieved by 21 out of 119 first-year students, 14 out of 70 third-year students and 9 out of 14 EBM experts (χ2 = 13.3; P < 0.001, with significantly higher proportion of experts passing compared to students). Although experts had the highest scores overall, none of the groups outperformed others on individual cognitive levels, but the experts outperformed students in EBM topics of Study design and Sources of evidence (P = 0.002 and 0.004, respectively, Kruskal-Wallis test). First- and third-year students performed better on specific course topics taught in that study year (Diagnostic studies and Clinical relevance, respectively). CONCLUSION: EBM knowledge of students and experts differ according to the specificities of their education/expertise, but neither group had excellent knowledge in all areas. It may be difficult to develop a knowledge test that includes different EBM topics at different cognitive levels to follow the development of specific and general aspects of EBM knowledge.

Key stakeholders' perspectives and experiences with defining, identifying and displaying gaps in health research: a qualitative study.

INTRODUCTION: Mapping the current body of evidence including what is missing helps provide a better understanding of what research is available, ongoing and needed and should be prioritised. Identifying research gaps can inform the design and conduct of health research by providing additional context information about the body of evidence in a given topic area. Despite the commonly used term 'research gap' in scientific literature, little is written on how to find a 'research gap' in the first place. Moreover, there is no clear methodological guidance to identify and display gaps. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to explore how key stakeholders define research gaps and characterise methods/practices used to identify and display gaps in health research to further advance efforts in this area. DESIGN: This was an exploratory qualitative study using semistructured in-depth interviews. The study sample included the following stakeholder groups: researchers, funders, healthcare providers, patients/public and policy-makers. Interview transcripts were subjected to thematic analysis. RESULTS: Among the 20 interviews conducted (20 participants), a variety of research gap definitions were expressed (ie, five main themes, including gaps in information, knowledge/evidence gaps, uncertainties, quality and patient perspective). We identified three main themes for methods used to identify gaps (primary, secondary and both primary and secondary) and finally six main themes for the methods to display gaps (forest plots, diagrams/illustrations, evidence maps, mega maps, 3IE gap maps and info graphics). CONCLUSION: This study provides insights into issues related to defining research gaps and methods used to identify and display gaps in health research from the perspectives of key stakeholders involved in the process. Findings will be used to inform methodological guidance on identifying research gaps.

Perception of Organizational Ethical Climate by University Staff and Students in Medicine and Humanities: A Cross Sectional Study.

We assessed students' and employees' perception of ethical climate at a university school of medicine compared to that of social sciences and humanities, as well as temporal changes in the employees' perception of ethical climate. We also explored potential predictors of ethical climate, including moral foundations. This cross-sectional questionnaire study was conducted at the University of Split School of Medicine and the Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, in Croatia, from April to September 2019. We used 36-item Ethical Climate Questionnaire and 22-item Moral Foundation Questionnaire to survey employees, senior and doctoral students. We collected responses using ballot boxes as well as online survey. We collected 449 complete responses (response rate 36.8%). The dominant ethical climates at two schools were "Company rules and procedures" and "Laws and professional codes". We compared our results with a study conducted in 2012 and found that the perception of ethical climate had not changed dramatically in last 8 years. Ethical climate, or shared social and work-related behaviours, does not seem to change in these institutions even when students and staff are included with faculty in surveys. We provide further discussion of why this seems to be the case.

Journal editors' perspectives on the communication practices in biomedical journals: a qualitative study.

OBJECTIVE: To generate an understanding of the communication practices that might influence the peer-review process in biomedical journals. METHOD: Recruitment was based on purposive maximum variation sampling. We conducted semistructured interviews. Data were analysed using thematic analysis method. PARTICIPANTS: 56 journal editors from general medicine (n=13) and specialty (n=43) biomedical journals. Most were editor-in-chiefs (n=39), men (n=40) and worked part time (n=50). RESULTS: Our analysis generated four themes (1) providing minimal guidance to peer reviewers-two subthemes described the way journal editors rationalised their behaviour: (a) peer reviewers should know without guidelines how to review and (b) detailed guidance and structure might have a negative effect; (2) communication strategies of engagement with peer reviewers-two opposing strategies that journal editors employed to handle peer reviewers: (a) use of direct and personal communication to motivate peer reviewers and (b) use of indirect communication to avoid conflict; (3) concerns about impact of review model on communication-maintenance of anonymity as a means of facilitating critical and unburdened communication and minimising biases and (4) different practices in the moderation of communication between authors and peer reviewers-some journal editors actively interjected themselves into the communication chain to guide authors through peer reviewers' comments, others remained at a distance, leaving it to the authors to work through peer reviewers' comments. CONCLUSIONS: These journal editors' descriptions reveal several communication practices that might have a significant impact on the peer-review process. Editorial strategies to manage miscommunication are discussed. Further research on these proposed strategies and on communication practices from the point of view of authors and peer reviewers is warranted.

Development of ARCADIA: a tool for assessing the quality of peer-review reports in biomedical research.

OBJECTIVE: To develop a tool to assess the quality of peer-review reports in biomedical research. METHODS: We conducted an online survey intended for biomedical editors and authors. The survey aimed to (1) determine if participants endorse the proposed definition of peer-review report quality; (2) identify the most important items to include in the final version of the tool and (3) identify any missing items. Participants rated on a 5-point scale whether an item should be included in the tool and they were also invited to comment on the importance and wording of each item. Principal component analysis was performed to examine items redundancy and a general inductive approach was used for qualitative data analysis. RESULTS: A total of 446 biomedical editors and authors participated in the survey. Participants were mainly male (65.9%), middle-aged (mean=50.3, SD=13) and with PhD degrees (56.4%). The majority of participants (84%) agreed on the definition of peer-review report quality we proposed. The 20 initial items included in the survey questionnaire were generally highly rated with a mean score ranging from 3.38 (SD=1.13) to 4.60 (SD=0.69) (scale 1-5). Participants suggested 13 items that were not included in the initial list of items. A steering committee composed of five members with different expertise discussed the selection of items to include in the final version of the tool. The final checklist includes 14 items encompassed in five domains (Importance of the study, Robustness of the study methods, Interpretation and discussion of the study results, Reporting and transparency of the manuscript, Characteristics of peer reviewer's comments). CONCLUSION: Assessment of Review reports with a Checklist Available to eDItors and Authors tool could be used regularly by editors to evaluate the reviewers' work, and also as an outcome when evaluating interventions to improve the peer-review process.

Online survey about the STROBE statement highlighted diverging views about its content, purpose, and value.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The endorsement rates of The STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement are low and little is known about authors' opinions about this reporting guideline. We conducted an online survey with observational study authors on attitude toward and experiences with the STROBE Statement with the aim of understanding how to effectively implement STROBE. METHODS: A thematic analysis on the responses to an open-ended question was conducted using inductive coding. Two coders classified responses independently into themes using a codebook. The inter-rater agreement ranged from 87.7 to 99.9%. RESULTS: 15% (n = 150) of survey participants (n = 1,015) shared perceptions and insights on STROBE. We established four themes: 1) perceptions of the checklist, 2) academic confidence, 3) use in education and training, and 4) journal endorsement and use in peer review. Views were diverse and revealed multiple misunderstandings about the checklist's purpose and content, and lack of incentives for its use. CONCLUSIONS: Better communication efforts are needed when disseminating STROBE and other reporting guidelines. These should focus on content, education for early career researchers, and encouragement of critical self-reflection on one's own work. In addition, results emphasized the need for better incentive and enforcement mechanisms.

A survey exploring biomedical editors' perceptions of editorial interventions to improve adherence to reporting guidelines.

Background: Improving the completeness of reporting of biomedical research is essential for improving its usability. For this reason, hundreds of reporting guidelines have been created in the last few decades but adherence to these remains suboptimal. This survey aims to inform future evaluations of interventions to improve adherence to reporting guidelines. In particular, it gathers editors' perceptions of a range of interventions at various stages in the editorial process.   Methods: We surveyed biomedical journal editors that were knowledgeable about this topic. The questionnaire included open and closed questions that explored (i) the current practice of their journals, (ii) their perceptions of the ease of implementation and the potential effectiveness of different interventions, (iii) the barriers and facilitators associated with these interventions, and (iv) suggestions for future interventions and incentives. Results: Of the 99 editors invited, 24 (24%) completed the survey. Involving trained editors or administrative staff was deemed the potentially most effective intervention but, at the same time, it was considered moderately difficult to implement due to logistic and resource issues. Participants believed that checking adherence to guidelines goes beyond the role of peer reviewers and could decrease the overall quality of reviews. Journals incentivising adherence, and publishers and medical institutions encouraging journals to adopt strategies to boost adherence were two recurrent themes. Conclusions: Further evaluation of interventions are required. These evaluations could take into account the points raised in this survey.

Journal editors' perspectives on the roles and tasks of peer reviewers in biomedical journals: a qualitative study.

OBJECTIVE: Peer reviewers of biomedical journals are expected to perform a large number of roles and tasks, some of which are seemingly contradictory or demonstrate incongruities between the respective positions of peer reviewers and journal editors. Our aim was to explore the perspectives, expectations and understanding of the roles and tasks of peer reviewers of journal editors from general and specialty biomedical journals. DESIGN: Qualitative study. SETTING: Worldwide. PARTICIPANTS: 56 journal editors from biomedical journals, most of whom were editors-in-chief (n=39), male (n=40) and worked part-time (n=50) at journals from 22 different publishers. METHODS: Semistructured interviews with journal editors were conducted. Recruitment was based on purposive maximum variation sampling. Data were analysed thematically following the methodology by Braun and Clarke. RESULTS: Journal editors' understanding of the roles and partly of tasks of peer reviewers are profoundly shaped by each journal's unique context and characteristics, including financial and human resources and journal reputation or prestige. There was a broad agreement among journal editors on expected technical tasks of peer reviewers related to scientific aspects, but there were different expectations in the level of depth. We also found that most journal editors support the perspective that authorship experience is key to high-quality reviews, while formal training in peer reviewing is not. CONCLUSION: These journal editors' accounts reveal issues of a social nature within the peer-review process related to missed opportunities for journal editors to engage with peer reviewers to clarify the expected roles and tasks.Further research is needed on actual performance of peer reviewers looking into the content of peer-reviewer reports to inform meaningful training interventions, journal policies and guidelines.

Key stakeholders' perspectives and experiences with defining, identifying and displaying gaps in health research: a qualitative study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Identifying research gaps can inform the design and conduct of health research, practice and policies by informing the current body of evidence. Audiences including researchers, clinical guideline developers, clinicians, policymakers, research regulatory bodies, funders and patients/the public can also benefit from understanding the status of research and research gaps to make informed choices. This study aims to explore how key informants define research gaps and characterise methods/practices used to identify and display gaps in health research to inform future research practice and policies. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is an exploratory qualitative study using semi-structured in-depth interviews. The participants will be recruited by purposive sampling from initiatives and organisations previously identified in a scoping review on methods to identify, prioritise and display gaps in health research. We anticipate performing up to 28 interviews with the different key informant groups who are involved in using evidence to inform health policy, practice and research. Interviews will be thematically analysed as outlined by Braun and Clarke. The qualitative data-analysis software NVivo V.12 Pro will be used to aid data management and analysis. DISCUSSION: This is the protocol for a follow-up study that aims to complement and enrich the findings of the scoping review on methods to identify, prioritise and display gaps in health research. The overall project aims to develop methodological guidance for describing, identifying and displaying gaps in health research. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The research obtained ethical approval from the University of Liverpool, UK. The findings will be disseminated via conferences, meetings (organised by the Methods in Research on Research project), peer-reviewed publications and lay magazines because the study participants will include the public/patients.

Using the STROBE statement: survey findings emphasized the role of journals in enforcing reporting guidelines.

OBJECTIVES: The objective of the study was to identify factors affecting the use of the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement, specifically authors' attitudes toward and experiences with it. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: An online survey was distributed to authors of observational studies recruited via social media, personal network snowballing, and mass mailings using targeted search strategies. Data on demographics, awareness, motivators, and usage were collected in conjunction with a modified Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) scale on which confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was performed. RESULTS: One thousand fifteen participants completed the survey. Of these, 185 (18.2%) indicated they had never heard of STROBE nor used it previously, 195 (19.2%) had heard of it but never used it, and 635 (62.6%) had used it. Journals promoting STROBE were both key motivators and awareness mechanisms; peers and educational workshops were also important influencing factors to a lesser degree. The internal consistency of the modified UTAUT scale was strong (Cronbach's alpha = 0.94). CFA supported a four-factor model with 23 questions. CONCLUSION: The endorsement of STROBE by journals is key to authors' awareness and use of the guideline. We tested and validated our scale which can guide future research on reporting guidelines.

A scoping review on the roles and tasks of peer reviewers in the manuscript review process in biomedical journals.

BACKGROUND: Although peer reviewers play a key role in the manuscript review process, their roles and tasks are poorly defined. Clarity around this issue is important as it may influence the quality of peer reviewer reports. This scoping review explored the roles and tasks of peer reviewers of biomedical journals. METHODS: Comprehensive literature searches were conducted in Cochrane Library, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Educational Resources Information Center, EMBASE, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Scopus and Web of Science from inception up to May 2017. There were no date and language restrictions. We also searched for grey literature. Studies with statements mentioning roles, tasks and competencies pertaining to the role of peer reviewers in biomedical journals were eligible for inclusion. Two reviewers independently performed study screening and selection. Relevant statements were extracted, collated and classified into themes. RESULTS: After screening 2763 citations and 600 full-text papers, 209 articles and 13 grey literature sources were included. A total of 1426 statements related to roles were extracted, resulting in 76 unique statements. These were grouped into 13 emergent themes: proficient experts in their field (3 items), dutiful/altruistic towards scientific community (7 items), familiar with journal (2 items), unbiased and ethical professionals (18 items), self-critical professionals (4 items), reliable professionals (7 items), skilled critics (15 items), respectful communicators (6 items), gatekeepers (2 items), educators (2 items), advocates for author/editor/reader (3 items) and advisors to editors (2 items). Roles that do not fall within the remit of peer reviewers were also identified (5 items). We also extracted 2026 statements related to peer reviewers' tasks, resulting in 73 unique statements. These were grouped under six themes: organisation and approach to reviewing (10 items), make general comments (10 items), assess and address content for each section of the manuscript (36 items), address ethical aspects (5 items), assess manuscript presentation (8 items) and provide recommendations (4 items). CONCLUSIONS: Peer reviewers are expected to perform a large number of roles and tasks for biomedical journals. These warrant further discussion and clarification in order not to overburden these key actors.

Languages for different health information readers: multitrait-multimethod content analysis of Cochrane systematic reviews textual summary formats.

BACKGROUND: Although subjective expressions and linguistic fluency have been shown as important factors in processing and interpreting textual facts, analyses of these traits in textual health information for different audiences are lacking. We analyzed the readability and linguistic psychological and emotional characteristics of different textual summary formats of Cochrane systematic reviews. METHODS: We performed a multitrait-multimethod cross-sectional study of Press releases available at Cochrane web site (n = 162) and corresponding Scientific abstracts (n = 158), Cochrane Clinical Answers (n = 35) and Plain language summaries in English (n = 156), French (n = 101), German (n = 41) and Croatian (n = 156). We used SMOG index to assess text readability of all text formats, and natural language processing tools (IBM Watson Tone Analyzer, Stanford NLP Sentiment Analysis and Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count) to examine the affective states and subjective information in texts of Scientific abstracts, Plain language summaries and Press releases. RESULTS: All text formats had low readability, with SMOG index ranging from a median of 15.6 (95% confidence interval (CI) 15.3-15.9) for Scientific abstracts to 14.7 (95% CI 14.4-15.0) for Plain language summaries. In all text formats, "Sadness" was the most dominantly perceived emotional tone and the style of writing was perceived as "Analytical" and "Tentative". At the psychological level, all text formats exhibited the predominant "Openness" tone, and Press releases scored higher on the scales of "Conscientiousness", "Agreeableness" and "Emotional range". Press releases had significantly higher scores than Scientific abstracts and Plain language summaries on the dimensions of "Clout", and "Emotional tone". CONCLUSIONS: Although the readability of Plain language summaries was higher than that of text formats targeting more expert audiences, the required literacy was much higher than the recommended US 6th grade level. The language of Press releases was generally more engaging than that of Scientific abstracts and Plain language summaries, which are written by the authors of systematic reviews. Preparation of textual summaries about health evidence for different audiences should take into account readers' subjective experiences to encourage cognitive processing and reaction to the provided information.

Tools used to assess the quality of peer review reports: a methodological systematic review.

BACKGROUND: A strong need exists for a validated tool that clearly defines peer review report quality in biomedical research, as it will allow evaluating interventions aimed at improving the peer review process in well-performed trials. We aim to identify and describe existing tools for assessing the quality of peer review reports in biomedical research. METHODS: We conducted a methodological systematic review by searching PubMed, EMBASE (via Ovid) and The Cochrane Methodology Register (via The Cochrane Library) as well as Google® for all reports in English describing a tool for assessing the quality of a peer review report in biomedical research. Data extraction was performed in duplicate using a standardized data extraction form. We extracted information on the structure, development and validation of each tool. We also identified quality components across tools using a systematic multi-step approach and we investigated quality domain similarities among tools by performing hierarchical, complete-linkage clustering analysis. RESULTS: We identified a total number of 24 tools: 23 scales and 1 checklist. Six tools consisted of a single item and 18 had several items ranging from 4 to 26. None of the tools reported a definition of 'quality'. Only 1 tool described the scale development and 10 provided measures of validity and reliability. Five tools were used as an outcome in a randomized controlled trial (RCT). Moreover, we classified the quality components of the 18 tools with more than one item into 9 main quality domains and 11 subdomains. The tools contained from two to seven quality domains. Some domains and subdomains were considered in most tools such as the detailed/thorough (11/18) nature of reviewer's comments. Others were rarely considered, such as whether or not the reviewer made comments on the statistical methods (1/18). CONCLUSION: Several tools are available to assess the quality of peer review reports; however, the development and validation process is questionable and the concepts evaluated by these tools vary widely. The results from this study and from further investigations will inform the development of a new tool for assessing the quality of peer review reports in biomedical research.

A cross-sectional bibliometric study showed suboptimal journal endorsement rates of STROBE and its extensions.

OBJECTIVES: The STrengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement provides guidance on reporting observational studies. Many extensions have been created for specialized methods or fields. We determined endorsement prevalence and typology by journals in extension-related fields. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: A published protocol defined search strategies to identify journals publishing observational studies (2007-2017) across seven fields relating to STROBE extensions. We extracted text regarding STROBE, seven STROBE extensions, reporting guidelines Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses, and transparent reporting documents/groups: International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), and the Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research (EQUATOR) networks. Relationships between endorsing STROBE, endorsing other guidelines, and journal impact factor were tested using chi square and Mann-Whitney tests. RESULTS: Of 257 unique journals, 12 (5%) required STROBE on submission, 22 (9%) suggested use, 12 (5%) recommended a "relevant guideline," 72 (28%) mentioned it indirectly (via editorial policies or International Committee of Medical Journal Editors recommendations), and 139 (54%) did not mention STROBE. The relevant extension was required by 2 (<1%) journals; 4 (1%) suggested use. STROBE endorsement was not associated with journal impact indices but was with Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses endorsements. CONCLUSION: Reporting guideline endorsement rates are low; information is vague and scattered. Unambiguous language is needed to improve adherence to reporting guidelines and increase the quality of reporting.

Sport injuries in international masters rowers: a cross-sectional study.

AIM: To estimate the frequency and localization of acute (traumatic) and chronic (overuse) injuries in a population of masters rowers with respect to their age subgroups and assess the association between injury occurrence and different training modalities, rowing experience, previous competition level, and current rowing practice. METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted among 743 masters rowers who participated in the 34th International Federation of Rowing Associations (Fédération Internationale des Sociétés d'Aviron, FISA) World Rowing Masters Regatta held in Zagreb, September 2-9, 2007. A rowing-specific questionnaire was used, followed by an interview about the injuries sustained during the 12-month period before the competition. RESULTS: The mean injury rate per year was 0.48 injuries/masters rower (2.25 injuries/1000 training sessions/rower). The majority of injuries were chronic injuries (the ratio of acute to chronic injuries was 1:1.7), and did not lead to the loss of training/competition time. Of all acute injuries, 49.6% were acquired during rowing-specific training, 43.7% during cross-training, and 6.7% in the gym. The most commonly affected region was the low back (32.6%), followed by the knee (14.2%), shoulder/upper arm, and elbow (10.6% each). CONCLUSION: International masters rowers sustained predominantly chronic injuries of low severity, and the most commonly injured region was the low back. The mean injury rate per rower per year was lower than the rates previously reported for juniors and seniors.