Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 20 de 471
Filtrar
1.
Mayo Clin Proc ; 94(11): 2272-2276, 2019 11.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31685153

RESUMO

The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors requires authors to disclose all financial conflicts of interest (COI) that can be perceived as influencing the related trials. Undisclosed financial COI may influence the perception of the authors' scientific impartiality and erode the public trust in the reported results. Data regarding completeness of COI disclosure in high-impact-factor general medicine journals are limited. We compared payments disclosed by US-based physicians who were first or last authors of clinical drug trials published between August 2016 and August 2018 in the New England Journal of Medicine, JAMA, and Lancet, to payments reported by industry to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Open Payments Database. Of 247 included authors, 198 (80%) have not disclosed some or all received payments. The median undisclosed sum was $8409 (US Dollars) (interquartile range [IQR] $123 to $44,890). Most authors (n=170, 69%) have received more than $10,000 per year (median $120,403, IQR $58,905 to $242,014). The median undisclosed sum for these authors was $26,530 (IQR $7462 to $71,562). Median undisclosed sums for authors of papers from studies performed with and without industry funding were $20,899 (IQR $4191 to $59,883) and $149 (IQR $0 to $3276), respectively. In 10 (8%) of 125 industry-funded trials, the first or last author had not disclosed personal payments from the study sponsor (median $9741, IQR $4508 to $101,484). These findings could raise concerns about the authors' equipoise toward the trial results and influence the public perception of the credibility of reported data. Health care professionals, reviewers, and journal editors should demand more transparent reporting of financial COI.


Assuntos
Autoria/normas , Compensação e Reparação/ética , Conflito de Interesses/economia , Publicações Periódicas como Assunto/normas , Médicos/psicologia , Estudos de Coortes , Políticas Editoriais , Humanos , Médicos/economia , Médicos/normas
3.
Pan Afr Med J ; 33: 298, 2019.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31692770

RESUMO

In Africa, training programmes as well as institutional policies on research integrity are lacking. Institutions have a responsibility to oversee research integrity through various efforts, including policies and training. We developed, implemented and evaluated an institutional approach to promote research integrity at African institutions, comprising a workshop for researchers ("bottom-up") and discussions with senior faculty on institutional policies ("top-down"). During the first day, we facilitated a workshop to introduce research integrity and promote best practices with regards to authorship, plagiarism, redundant publication and conflicts of interest. We used a variety of interactive teaching approaches to facilitate learning, including individual and group activities, small group discussions and case-based learning. We met with senior faculty on the following day to provide feedback and insights from the workshop, review current institutional policies and provide examples of what other research groups are doing. We evaluated the process. Participants actively engaged in discussions, recognised the importance of the topic and acknowledged that poor practices occurred at their institution. Discussions with senior researchers resulted in the establishment of a working group tasked with developing a publication policy for the institution. Our approach kick-started conversations on research integrity at institutions. There is a need for continued discussions, integrated training programmes and implementation of institutional policies and guidelines to promote good practices.


Assuntos
Política Organizacional , Pesquisadores/organização & administração , Pesquisa/normas , África , Autoria/normas , Humanos , Publicações/normas , Pesquisa/educação , Pesquisadores/educação
7.
Gac. sanit. (Barc., Ed. impr.) ; 33(3): 255-258, mayo-jun. 2019. tab
Artigo em Espanhol | IBECS | ID: ibc-183745

RESUMO

Objetivo: Examinar el apoyo a las guías de publicación para estudios de evaluación económica, como la declaración CHEERS (Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards), por parte de las revistas biomédicas españolas. Método: Análisis transversal de las normas de autoría de las revistas biomédicas españolas incluidas en Journal Citation Reports 2017. Dos autores examinaron y extrajeron la siguiente información: mención de alguna guía de publicación, declaración CHEERS, recomendaciones del International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) e iniciativa Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research (EQUATOR). Resultados: De las 28 revistas incluidas, 23 (82,1%; intervalo de confianza del 95% [IC95%]: 63,1-93,9%) mencionaron alguna guía. Una única revista mencionó la declaración CHEERS para estudios de evaluación económica. Veinticuatro revistas (85,7%; IC95%: 67,3-96,0%) mencionaron las recomendaciones del ICMJE y 8 (28,6%; IC95%: 13,2-48,7%) la red EQUATOR. La declaración CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) para ensayos clínicos fue la guía más mencionada (n=21; 75,0%; IC95%: 55,1-89,3%). Discusión: La mayoría de las normas de autoría no incorporan información sobre cómo presentar evaluaciones económicas. Las revistas deberían apoyar el cumplimiento de las guías de publicación por parte de las personas autoras y revisoras


Objective: To examine the endorsement of reporting guidelines for economic evaluation studies, such as the CHEERS (Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards) statement, by Spanish biomedical journals. Method: Cross-sectional analysis of the instructions to authors of Spanish biomedical journals included in the Journal Citation Reports 2017. Two authors examined and extracted the following information: mention of any reporting guideline, the CHEERS statement, the recommendations of the International Committee of Medical Journal Directors (ICMJE) and the Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research (EQUATOR) network. Results: Of the 28 journals included, 23 (82.1%; 95% confidence interval [95%CI]: 63.1-93.9%) mentioned at least one reporting guideline in the instructions to authors. Only one journal mentioned the CHEERS statement for health economic evaluations. Twenty-four journals (85.7%; 95%CI: 67.3-96.0%) mentioned the ICMJE recommendations and 8 (28.6%; 95%CI: 13.2-48.7%) mentioned the EQUATOR network. The CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) statement for clinical trials was the most- mentioned reporting guideline (n=21; 75.0%; 95%CI: 55.1-89.3%). Discussion: Most of the instructions to authors do not provide guidance on how to report economic evaluations. Journals should support compliance with reporting guidelines by authors and peer-reviewers


Assuntos
Humanos , Avaliação em Saúde/métodos , Publicações Periódicas como Assunto/normas , Autoria/normas , Políticas Editoriais , Estudos Transversais , Publicações Periódicas como Assunto/estatística & dados numéricos , Avaliação de Custo-Efetividade
9.
Rev Med Chil ; 147(2): 238-242, 2019 Feb.
Artigo em Espanhol | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31095173

RESUMO

Young authors may benefit by some advices on how to proceed when they decide to write a manuscript and submit it to a medical journal. They should start by selecting the journal considering the topic and nature of their study, how relevant the results seem and the interest it may have in editors and readers. A reasonable choice should consider new journals that publish good papers selected after external peer review. Then they should study and follow the Instructions to Authors of the chosen journal. A strong call is given to recognize and avoid "predatory journals". Specific statements refer to Instructions to Authors and language requirements by the journal, the need to follow "ICMJE Recommendations", the correct assignment of authorship, and a strict observance of ethical regulations in biomedical and clinical research. Special mention is given to provide a good abstract, in English, either descriptive or structured depending on the nature of their study. These advices may be useful as well as a reminder to older authors on how to improve their manuscripts before submitting them to a mainstream medical journal.


Assuntos
Autoria/normas , Jornalismo Médico/normas , Editoração/normas , Manuscritos Médicos como Assunto , Editoração/ética , Redação/normas
11.
J Vasc Surg ; 69(5): 1559-1565, 2019 May.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31010519

RESUMO

OBJECTIVE: Advancement in academic medicine is multifactorial. Our objectives were to characterize academic appointments in vascular surgery and to investigate what factors, particularly publications, influenced academic appointment. METHODS: Academic vascular surgeons at Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education vascular training programs or at primary sites of U.S. allopathic medical schools were included. Those with qualified titles, such as "adjunct" or a "clinical" prefix, were excluded. Sex, education, region, board certification, and affiliation details were recorded. Web of Science was queried for publication details and h-index. The h-index is a "personal impact factor" defined as "x" number of publications cited at least "x" number of times. After surgeons' information was deidentified, univariate and multivariable analyses were completed for academic appointment and appointment as division chief. RESULTS: There were 642 vascular surgeons who met criteria: 297 (46.3%) assistant professors, 150 (23.4%) associate professors, and 195 (30.4%) professors. There were 96 (15%) division chiefs and 10 (1.6%) chairs of surgery, and 83.2% were male. Surgeons worked in the Northeast (33.5%), Southern (32.6%), Central (20.1%), and Western (13.9%) United States. The mean (±standard deviation) number of publications was 13.7 ± 15.4 for assistant professors, 33.9 ± 28.8 for associate professors, and 86.8 ± 63.6 for professors (P < .001). Mean number of first or last author publications was 5.3 ± 6.4 for assistant professors, 12.2 ± 12.7 for associate professors, and 38.7 ± 35.3 for professors (P < .001). Mean h-index was 5.9 ± 5.4 for assistant professors, 12 ± 7.7 for associate professors, and 24.9 ± 12.6 for professors (P < .001). In multivariable analysis, vascular surgery board certification (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 6.08; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.15-32.2; P = .03), academic appointment at a public medical school (OR, 1.99; 95% CI, 1.18-3.37; P = .01), years since medical school graduation (OR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.09-1.18; P < .001, per year), and number of publications (OR, 1.05; 95% CI, 1.03-1.06; P < .001, per publication) were independently associated with associate professor. Factors independently associated with professor were years since medical school graduation (OR, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.12-1.24; P < .001, per year) and number of first or last author publications (OR, 1.05; 95% CI, 1.02-1.09; P = .003, per publication). Appointment as division chief was independently associated with h-index (OR, 1.04; 95% CI, 1.01-1.08; P = .016, per point). CONCLUSIONS: Total number of publications was independently associated with associate professor, with number of first or last author publications particularly important for professor. The h-index was not independently associated with academic appointment, but it was for appointment as division chief. This study provides relevant data for promotional guidance in academic vascular surgery.


Assuntos
Docentes de Medicina/normas , Publicações Periódicas como Assunto/normas , Seleção de Pessoal/normas , Cirurgiões/normas , Procedimentos Cirúrgicos Vasculares/normas , Autoria/normas , Bibliometria , Mobilidade Ocupacional , Comportamento de Escolha , Feminino , Humanos , Masculino , Estudos Retrospectivos , Estados Unidos
13.
Basic Res Cardiol ; 114(3): 23, 2019 04 08.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30963299

RESUMO

The Editors' Network of the European Society of Cardiology provides a dynamic forum for editorial discussions and endorses the recommendations of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) to improve the scientific quality of biomedical journals. Authorship confers credit and important academic rewards. Recently, however, the ICMJE emphasized that authorship also requires responsibility and accountability. These issues are now covered by the new (fourth) criterion for authorship. Authors should agree to be accountable and ensure that questions regarding the accuracy and integrity of the entire work will be appropriately addressed. This review discusses the implications of this paradigm shift on authorship requirements with the aim of increasing awareness on good scientific and editorial practices.


Assuntos
Autoria/normas , Cardiologia/organização & administração , Políticas Editoriais , Responsabilidade Social
14.
PLoS One ; 14(3): e0202712, 2019.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30917110

RESUMO

Bibliometric indicators are increasingly used to evaluate individual scientists-as is exemplified by the popularity of the many other publication and citation-based indicators used in evaluation. These indicators, however, cover at best some of the quality dimensions relevant for assessing a researcher: productivity and impact. At the same time, research quality has more dimensions than productivity and impact alone. As current bibliometric indicators are not covering various important quality dimensions, we here contribute to developing better indicators for those quality dimensions not yet addressed. One of the quality dimensions lacking valid indicators is an individual researcher's independence. We propose indicators to measure different aspects of independence: two assessing whether a researcher has developed an own collaboration network and two others assessing the level of thematic independence. Taken together they form an independence indicator. We illustrate how these indicators distinguish between researchers that are equally productive and have a considerable impact. The independence indicator is a step forward in evaluating individual scholarly quality.


Assuntos
Bibliometria , Avaliação de Desempenho Profissional/métodos , Pesquisadores/estatística & dados numéricos , Pesquisadores/normas , Autoria/normas , Avaliação de Desempenho Profissional/estatística & dados numéricos , Humanos , Colaboração Intersetorial
16.
Acad Med ; 94(5): 645-650, 2019 05.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30681451

RESUMO

Electronic health records (EHRs) have become ubiquitous tools and represent the standard of care for 96% of hospitals and 86% of ambulatory physicians in the United States. With adoption of EHRs came the promise of improved efficiency, higher-quality care, and lower costs. Unfortunately, some clinicians are now spending twice as much time on documentation as they spend seeing patients, and the documentation paradigm of problem-oriented medical records is contributing to this imbalance. It is time to consider new innovations. The collaborative wiki format offers many opportunities to ease the burden of documentation as well as to increase the usefulness of the recorded clinical data. Wikis support multiple authorship, have built-in features to track edits and changes, allow for contextual linkages (e.g., linking medical problems to their treatment), and support new technologies such as application programming interfaces, which allow for safe and secure exchange of information. In this Perspective, the authors describe the rationale for considering this approach to clinical documentation and propose a pilot to learn about its effectiveness. They believe wiki-based documentation will become increasingly attractive, especially as new legislation and directives from policymakers seek to reduce the crushing documentation burden and as the U.S. health care system transitions from an episode-based payment structure to a value-based, outcomes-focused system.


Assuntos
Autoria/normas , Registros Eletrônicos de Saúde/normas , Guias como Assunto , Melhoria de Qualidade/normas , Humanos , Colaboração Intersetorial , Estados Unidos
19.
Muscle Nerve ; 59(2): 147-148, 2019 02.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30549059
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA