Goals of Morbidity and Mortality meetings in paediatric acute care. A qualitative case study.

Morbidity and Mortality meetings are conducted in varied clinical contexts including paediatrics. Widely cited as an educational or quality improvement tool, the reality is more complex. In this qualitative study, the aim was to explore the perceived goals of the paediatric acute care Morbidity and Morbidity meeting. This study used semi-structured interviews and observation within a qualitative case study methodology. Data were collected in a large paediatric quaternary hospital. Analysis generated themes related to meeting observations and the participant's interpretation of meeting goals. A total of 44 interviews were conducted with 14 nurses, 29 doctors, and 1 allied health professional. Thirty-two meetings in six clinical departments were observed. Two themes were developed: complex and nuanced goals; and tensions and contest between and within goals. Meeting goals to evaluate care, learn, support, adhere, and change and respond were sometimes in competition and had varied interpretations. Morbidity and Mortality meetings in this setting are valued and occupy a complex role which reaches beyond identification of measurable patient safety interventions. Understanding goals more fully can lead to optimised conduct and meaningful measurement of efficacy. The strength in these meetings may be the way they promote an embedded safety culture, and an informed and skilled workforce.

Unlocking Peer Review: Elevating Scholarly Writing and Research Competence in Urology Residency.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: It is incumbent upon training programs to set the foundation for evidence-based practices and to create opportunities for trainees to develop into academic leaders. As dedicated resident research time and funding have declined in recent years, residency programs and the field at large will need to create new ways to incorporate scholarly activity into residency curricula. RECENT FINDINGS: Literature across specialties demonstrates barriers to resident involvement including lack of time, cost, and absent scholarly mentorship. Peer review stands as a ready-made solution that can be formalized into a collaborative relationship with journals. A formal relationship between professional societies, academic journals, and residencies can facilitate the use of peer review as a teaching tool for residency programs.

How to be a good reviewer: A step-by-step guide for approaching peer review of a scientific manuscript.

Objectives: The peer review process is critical to maintaining quality, reliability, novelty, and innovation in the scientific literature. However, the teaching of scientific peer review is rarely a component of formal scientific or clinical training, and even the most experienced peer reviewers express interest in continuing education. The objective of this review article is to summarize the collective perspectives of experienced journal editors about how to be a good reviewer in a step-by-step guide that can serve as a resource for the performance of peer review of a scientific manuscript. Methods: This is a narrative review. Results: A review of the history and an overview of the modern-day peer review process are provided with attention to the role played by the reviewer, including important reasons for involvement in scientific peer review. The general components of a scientific peer review are described, and a model for how to structure a peer review report is provided. These concepts are also summarized in a reviewer checklist that can be used in real-time to develop and double-check one's reviewer report before submitting it. Conclusions: Peer review is a critically important service for maintaining quality in the scientific literature. Peer review of a scientific manuscript and the associated reviewer's report should assess specific details related to the accuracy, validity, novelty, and interpretation of a study's results. We hope that this article will serve as a resource and guide for reviewers of all levels of experience in the performance of peer review of a scientific manuscript.

Effect of a workplace-based learning program on clerkship students' behaviors and attitudes toward evidence-based medicine practice.

In clinical clerkship (CC), medical students can practice evidence-based medicine (EBM) with their assigned patients. Although CC can be a valuable opportunity for EBM education, the impact of EBM training, including long-term behavioral changes, remains unclear. One hundred and nine fourth- and fifth-year medical students undergoing CC at a medical school in Japan attended a workplace-based learning program for EBM during CC (WB-EBM), which included the practice of the five steps of EBM. The program's effect on the students' attitudes toward EBM in CC was assessed through questionnaires. A total of 88 medical students participated in the program. Responses to the questionnaire indicated high satisfaction with the WB-EBM program. The most common theme in students' clinical problems with their assigned patients was the choice of treatment, followed by its effect. Based on the responses in the post-survey for the long-term effects of the program, the frequency of problem formulation and article reading tended to increase in the 'within six months' group comprising 18 students who participated in the WB-EBM program, compared with the control group comprising 34 students who did not. Additionally, the ability to self-assess problem formulation was significantly higher, compared with the control group. However, among 52 students who participated in the WB-EBM program more than six months later, EBM-related behavioral habits in CC and self-assessments of the five steps of EBM were not significantly different from those in the control group. The WB-EBM program was acceptable for medical students in CC. It motivated them to formulate clinical questions and enhanced their critical thinking. Moreover, the WB-EBM program can improve habits and self-evaluations about EBM. However, as its effects may not last more than six months, it may need to be repeated across departments throughout CC to change behavior in EBM practice.

Navigating the journey as a peer reviewer: a roadmap to success.

Peer review is an essential step in scientific progress and clinical improvement, providing opportunity for research to be critically evaluated and improved by one's colleagues. Pharmacists from all job settings are called to serve as peer reviewers in the ever-growing publication landscape of the profession. Despite challenges to engagement such as time and compensation, peer review provides considerable professional development for both authors and reviewers alike. This article will serve as a practical guide for peer reviewers, discussing best practices as well as the handling of different situations that may arise during the process.

Use of artificial intelligence and the future of peer review.

Conducting high-quality peer review of scientific manuscripts has become increasingly challenging. The substantial increase in the number of manuscripts, lack of a sufficient number of peer-reviewers, and questions related to effectiveness, fairness, and efficiency, require a different approach. Large-language models, 1 form of artificial intelligence (AI), have emerged as a new approach to help resolve many of the issues facing contemporary medicine and science. We believe AI should be used to assist in the triaging of manuscripts submitted for peer-review publication.

Development of a standardized peer review and oversight process in cases of suspected child physical abuse.

Peer review of medical opinions provided in cases of suspected child physical abuse is generally considered to be best practice for pediatricians engaged in this field. However, there are no published standardized guidelines on how pediatricians should undertake physical abuse peer review including case selection and process. Due to the high-stakes nature in the field of child abuse pediatrics, rigorous quality assurance practices and oversight mechanisms are essential to safeguard children, families, health care providers, and intersecting systems. The Suspected Child Abuse and Neglect program at The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, Canada developed a structured peer review process for cases of suspected physical abuse. Included in the process is an approach for the evaluation of institutional complaints received related to a child abuse pediatrician's medical opinion. This quality assurance process is presented so that other child abuse pediatricians and programs may replicate or adapt the protocol for their own local context.

Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Antiracism Research in Physical Therapy over the Last 25 Years: A Scoping Review.

OBJECTIVE: Discussions of the root causes of health disparities and educational inequities often neglect to identify racism as a primary factor. Researchers must take a systems perspective in order to identify the effects of racism and other forms of systemic oppression on health. It is unclear to what extent this perspective exists in the physical therapy research literature. We conducted a scoping review to quantify and describe the volume of research in physical therapy pertaining to diversity, equity, and inclusion that specifically examines race and/or ethnicity and references racism or antiracism. METHODS: A systematic search of PubMed and Scopus databases for articles published between 1997 and 2021 was conducted. Articles were screened to ensure they were focused exclusively or primarily on physical therapy and used diversity, equity, and inclusion terms in the context of personal identity factors. This resulted in 158 relevant articles. Each was tagged with an article type and personal identity factor focus. RESULTS: A majority of the included articles were descriptive/observational in nature. The included articles explored various personal identity factors, with race and ethnicity being the most common focus followed by culture, disability, and socioeconomic status. A small proportion of articles explicitly discussed racism or antiracism. CONCLUSION: These findings highlight the need in physical therapy research for greater attention to racism as a fundamental cause of health disparities and educational inequities. Addressing this gap is crucial for promoting diversity, equity, and inclusion within the field and ultimately achieving optimal health outcomes for marginalized populations. IMPACT: Including consideration of racism and other forms of systemic oppression in the motivation, design, and interpretation of research in physical therapy will help to make more visible the root causes of inequity and improve our ability to develop effective, multi-level interventions.

[The peer-review process: critical issues and challenges from an online survey]. / Il processo della revisione tra pari: criticità e sfide emerse da una survey online.

BACKGROUND: the peer-review process, which is the foundation of modern scientific production, represents one of its essential elements. However, despite numerous benefits, it presents several critical issues. OBJECTIVES: to collect the opinions of a group of researchers from the epidemiological scientific community on peer-review processes. DESIGN: cross-sectional study using a questionnaire evaluation. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: a 29-question survey was administered to 516 healthcare professionals through the SurveyMonkey platform. The questions focused on the individual characteristics of the respondents and their perceived satisfaction with some characteristics of the review process as well as their propensity of changing some aspects of it. In addition, three open-ended questions were included, allowing respondents to provide comments on the role that reviewers and the review process should play. Descriptive statistics were produced in terms of absolute frequencies and percentages for the information collected through the questionnaire. Secondly, a multiple logistic regression analysis was conducted to assess the willingness to change certain aspects of peer review, adjusting for covariates such as age, sex, being the author of at least one scientific work, being a reviewer of at least one scientific work, and belonging to a specific discipline. The results are expressed as odds ratios (ORs) and their 95% confidence intervals (95%CI). Text analysis and representation using word cloud were also used for an open-ended question. MAIN OUTCOMES MEASURES: level of satisfaction regarding some characteristics of the peer-review process. RESULTS: a total of 516 participants completed the questionnaire. Specifically, 87.2% (N. 450) of the participants were the authors of at least one scientific publication, 78.7% were first authors at least once (N. 406), and 71.5% acted as reviewers within the peer-review process (N. 369). The results obtained from the multiple logistic regression models did not highlight any significant differences in terms of propensity to change for age and sex categories, except for a lower propensity of the under 35 age group towards unmasking, defined as the presence of reviewers and editorial boards names on the publish article (OR <35 years vs 45-54 years: 0.51; 95%CI 0.29-0.89) and a higher propensity for post-formatting proposals, defined as the possibility of formatting the article following journal guidelines after the acceptance, among those under 45 (OR <35 years vs 45-54 years: 1.73; 95%CI 0.90-3.31; OR 35-44 years vs 45-54 years: 2.02; 95%CI 1.10-3.72). Finally, approximately 50% of respondents found it appropriate to receive credits for the revision work performed, while approximately 30% found it appropriate to receive a discount on publication fees for the same journal in which they acted as reviewers. CONCLUSIONS: the peer-review process is considered essential, but imperfect, by the professionals who participated in the questionnaire, thus providing a clear picture of the value that peer-review adds rigorously to each scientific work and the need to continue constructive dialogue on this topic within the scientific community.

Evaluation and Comparison of Academic Impact and Disruptive Innovation Level of Medical Journals: Bibliometric Analysis and Disruptive Evaluation.

BACKGROUND: As an important platform for researchers to present their academic findings, medical journals have a close relationship between their evaluation orientation and the value orientation of their published research results. However, the differences between the academic impact and level of disruptive innovation of medical journals have not been examined by any study yet. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to compare the relationships and differences between the academic impact, disruptive innovation levels, and peer review results of medical journals and published research papers. We also analyzed the similarities and differences in the impact evaluations, disruptive innovations, and peer reviews for different types of medical research papers and the underlying reasons. METHODS: The general and internal medicine Science Citation Index Expanded (SCIE) journals in 2018 were chosen as the study object to explore the differences in the academic impact and level of disruptive innovation of medical journals based on the OpenCitations Index of PubMed open PMID-to-PMID citations (POCI) and H1Connect databases, respectively, and we compared them with the results of peer review. RESULTS: First, the correlation coefficients of the Journal Disruption Index (JDI) with the Journal Cumulative Citation for 5 years (JCC5), Journal Impact Factor (JIF), and Journal Citation Indicator (JCI) were 0.677, 0.585, and 0.621, respectively. The correlation coefficient of the absolute disruption index (Dz) with the Cumulative Citation for 5 years (CC5) was 0.635. However, the average difference in the disruptive innovation and academic influence rankings of journals reached 20 places (about 17.5%). The average difference in the disruptive innovation and influence rankings of research papers reached about 2700 places (about 17.7%). The differences reflect the essential difference between the two evaluation systems. Second, the top 7 journals selected based on JDI, JCC5, JIF, and JCI were the same, and all of them were H-journals. Although 8 (8/15, 53%), 96 (96/150, 64%), and 880 (880/1500, 58.67%) of the top 0.1%, top 1%, and top 10% papers selected based on Dz and CC5, respectively, were the same. Third, research papers with the "changes clinical practice" tag showed only moderate innovation (4.96) and impact (241.67) levels but had high levels of peer-reviewed recognition (6.00) and attention (2.83). CONCLUSIONS: The results of the study show that research evaluation based on innovative indicators is detached from the traditional impact evaluation system. The 3 evaluation systems (impact evaluation, disruptive innovation evaluation, and peer review) only have high consistency for authoritative journals and top papers. Neither a single impact indicator nor an innovative indicator can directly reflect the impact of medical research for clinical practice. How to establish an integrated, comprehensive, scientific, and reasonable journal evaluation system to improve the existing evaluation system of medical journals still needs further research.

Evaluating Peer Review of Palliative Radiation Plans at a Canadian Tertiary Care Cancer Center.

INTRODUCTION: Peer review (PR) of palliative-intent radiation plans is an important but understudied component of quality assurance. This retrospective review aims to improve our understanding of palliative PR by examining the characteristics of reviewed plans and peer feedback along with the associated time burden of two different types of PR processes. METHODS: This single-institution, quality assurance project assessed palliative PR between 2018 and 2020. Initially, the PR involved a multi-disciplinary team PR. Subsequently, it transitioned to independent PR by a single physician. Characteristics of reviewed plans and feedback on PR were captured and abstracted. Time requirements of PR were based on self-reported estimates and attendance records. RESULTS: A total of 1942 cases were reviewed, representing 85.7% (1942/2266) of all palliative-intent plans between 2018 and 2020. A total of 41.1% (n=799) were simple (2D/3D) radiation plans while 56.0% (n=1087) were complex (volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) or tomotherapy) plans. Approximately one-third (30.4%, n=590) of all plans were stereotactic treatments. The rate of any peer feedback was 2.3% (n=45), while the rate of a specific recommended or implemented change was 1.2% (n=24) and 0.9% (n=18), respectively. PR before the start of treatment was associated with more frequent recommended (p=0.005) and implemented changes (p=0.008). Most other factors, including plan complexity and use of stereotactic radiation, were not predictive in this analysis. Comparing the independent versus team PR approach, there was no significant difference in recommended or implemented changes. The mean±standard deviation (SD) staff time required per plan reviewed was 36±6 and 37±6 minutes, including 21±6 and 10±6 minutes of physician time, for team and independent PR, respectively. CONCLUSION: This work highlights the high frequency of complex and stereotactic radiation in the palliative setting, along with the importance of timely PR and the potential benefit of reviewing even simple, 2D/3D radiation plans. Additionally, from a process perspective, our work showed that independent PR may require less dedicated physician time.

Quality management system in forensic science: An African perspective.

Critical issues in forensic science quality management have emerged in recent decades. The debate on accrediting quality management systems of forensic laboratories is relevant to the African context. Neuteboom, Ross, Bugeja, Willis, Roux, and Lothridge (2022) have conducted a comprehensive survey exploring critical issues in their article "Quality Management in Forensic Science: A Closer Inspection." Their work is a crucial foundation for our discussion, urging the African forensic community to engage in more in-depth conversations. This letter briefly describes the survey, discussing embracing the Sydney Declaration (SD) for Forensic Sciences and issues of quality management systems comprising standards, accreditation, and potential regulation, and highlights the issue of cognitive competency from an African perspective. This underscores the urgent need for critical dialogue, emphasizing that the time for action is now, and urges practitioners, particularly in Africa, to enhance quality management systems to deliver superior forensic products.

So .You Want to be a Peer Reviewer?

Peer review is essential to preserving the integrity of the scientific publication process. Peer reviewers must adhere to the norms of the peer review process, including confidentiality, avoiding actual or apparent conflicts of interest, timeliness, constructiveness, and thoroughness. This mini review will discuss some of the different formats in which peer review might occur, as well as advantages and disadvantages of each. The topics then shift to providing advice for prospective reviewers, as well as a suggested format for use in writing a review.

Mitigating animal methods bias to reduce animal use and improve biomedical translation.

Nonanimal biomedical research methods have advanced rapidly over the last decade making them the first-choice model for many researchers due to improved translatability and avoidance of ethical concerns. Yet confidence in novel nonanimal methods is still being established and they remain a small portion of nonclinical biomedical research, which can lead peer reviewers to evaluate animal-free studies or grant proposals in a biased manner. This "animal methods bias" is the preference for animal-based research methods where they are not necessary or where nonanimal-based methods are suitable. It affects the fair consideration of animal-free biomedical research, hampering the uptake and dissemination of these approaches by putting pressure on researchers to conduct animal experiments and potentially perpetuating the use of poorly translatable model systems. An international team of researchers and advocates called the Coalition to Illuminate and Address Animal Methods Bias (COLAAB) aims to provide concrete evidence of the existence and consequences of this bias and to develop and implement solutions towards overcoming it. The COLAAB recently developed the first of several mitigation tools: the Author Guide for Addressing Animal Methods Bias in Publishing, which is described herein along with broader implications and future directions of this work.

Current trends in retraction of plastic surgery and reconstruction research.

BACKGROUND: Various studies regarding retractions of publications have determined the rate of retraction has increased in recent years. Although this trend may apply to any field, there is a paucity of literature exploring the publication of erroneous studies within plastic and reconstructive surgery. The present study aims to identify trends in frequency and reasons for retraction of plastic and reconstructive surgery studies, with analysis of subspecialty and journals. METHODS: A database search was conducted for retracted papers within plastic and reconstructive surgery. The initial search yielded 2347 results, which were analyzed by two independent reviewers. 77 studies were jointly identified for data collection. RESULTS: The most common reasons for retractions were duplication (n = 20, 25.9 %), request of author (n = 15, 19.5 %), plagiarism (n = 9, 11.6 %), error (n = 9, 11.6 %), fraud (n = 2, 2.6 %), and conflict of interest (n = 1, 1.3 %). 15 were basic science studies (19.4 %), 58 were clinical science studies (75.3 %), and 4 were not categorized (5.2 %). Subspecialties of retracted papers were maxillofacial (n = 29, 37.7 %), reconstructive (n = 17, 22.0 %), wound healing (n = 8, 10.4 %), burn (n = 6, 7.8 %), esthetics (n = 5, 6.5 %), breast (n = 3, 3.9 %), and trauma (n = 1, 1.3 %). Mean impact factor was 2.9 and average time from publication to retraction was 32 months. CONCLUSION: Analysis of retracted plastic surgery studies revealed a recent rise in frequency of retractions, spanning a wide spectrum of journals and subspecialties.

Critical appraisal of the Colombian clinical practice guide for the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of suicidal ideation and/or behaviour (adoption).

INTRODUCTION: Suicide is a complex, global public health problem. The Colombian clinical practice guideline provides relevant input for its prevention, diagnosis and treatment. The objective was to evaluate the methodological quality, credibility and applicability of the Colombian clinical practice guideline for suicidal behaviour. METHODS: An academic group of 12 evaluators was established to assess the guide and its recommendations in a standardised way, using the AGREE-II and AGREE-REX instruments. The evaluations were given in the range of 0.0-1.0 with 0.7 as a cut-off point for appropriate quality. RESULTS: The global assessment of the AGREE-II was greater than 0.7 in the dimensions: "scope and objective" (0.86), "clarity of presentation" (0.89), "applicability" (0.73) and "editorial independence" (0.89). The lowest scores were for "participation of those involved" (0.67) and "rigour in preparation" (0.69). With the AGREE-REX, the results in all dimensions were below 0.70, which indicates lower quality and suitability for use. CONCLUSIONS: The adoption process of the Colombian guideline for suicidal behaviour was a rigorous methodological process, while the practice recommendations were valued as of low applicability due to low support in local evidence. It is necessary to strengthen the generation and synthesis of evidence at the national level to give greater support and applicability to the practice recommendations.