Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 20 de 7.215
Filtrar
3.
BMC Med ; 19(1): 46, 2021 02 23.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33618741

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Following the initial identification of the 2019 coronavirus disease (covid-19), the subsequent months saw substantial increases in published biomedical research. Concerns have been raised in both scientific and lay press around the quality of some of this research. We assessed clinical research from major clinical journals, comparing methodological and reporting quality of covid-19 papers published in the first wave (here defined as December 2019 to May 2020 inclusive) of the viral pandemic with non-covid papers published at the same time. METHODS: We reviewed research publications (print and online) from The BMJ, Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), The Lancet, and New England Journal of Medicine, from first publication of a covid-19 research paper (February 2020) to May 2020 inclusive. Paired reviewers were randomly allocated to extract data on methodological quality (risk of bias) and reporting quality (adherence to reporting guidance) from each paper using validated assessment tools. A random 10% of papers were assessed by a third, independent rater. Overall methodological quality for each paper was rated high, low or unclear. Reporting quality was described as percentage of total items reported. RESULTS: From 168 research papers, 165 were eligible, including 54 (33%) papers with a covid-19 focus. For methodological quality, 18 (33%) covid-19 papers and 83 (73%) non-covid papers were rated as low risk of bias, OR 6.32 (95%CI 2.85 to 14.00). The difference in quality was maintained after adjusting for publication date, results, funding, study design, journal and raters (OR 6.09 (95%CI 2.09 to 17.72)). For reporting quality, adherence to reporting guidelines was poorer for covid-19 papers, mean percentage of total items reported 72% (95%CI:66 to 77) for covid-19 papers and 84% (95%CI:81 to 87) for non-covid. CONCLUSIONS: Across various measures, we have demonstrated that covid-19 research from the first wave of the pandemic was potentially of lower quality than contemporaneous non-covid research. While some differences may be an inevitable consequence of conducting research during a viral pandemic, poor reporting should not be accepted.


Assuntos
/epidemiologia , Publicações Periódicas como Assunto/normas , Qualidade da Assistência à Saúde/normas , Pesquisa Biomédica , Humanos , Projetos de Pesquisa/normas , Relatório de Pesquisa
4.
PLoS One ; 16(2): e0246427, 2021.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33529266

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has yielded an unprecedented quantity of new publications, contributing to an overwhelming quantity of information and leading to the rapid dissemination of less stringently validated information. Yet, a formal analysis of how the medical literature has changed during the pandemic is lacking. In this analysis, we aimed to quantify how scientific publications changed at the outset of the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional bibliometric study of published studies in four high-impact medical journals to identify differences in the characteristics of COVID-19 related publications compared to non-pandemic studies. Original investigations related to SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 published in March and April 2020 were identified and compared to non-COVID-19 research publications over the same two-month period in 2019 and 2020. Extracted data included publication characteristics, study characteristics, author characteristics, and impact metrics. Our primary measure was principal component analysis (PCA) of publication characteristics and impact metrics across groups. RESULTS: We identified 402 publications that met inclusion criteria: 76 were related to COVID-19; 154 and 172 were non-COVID publications over the same period in 2020 and 2019, respectively. PCA utilizing the collected bibliometric data revealed segregation of the COVID-19 literature subset from both groups of non-COVID literature (2019 and 2020). COVID-19 publications were more likely to describe prospective observational (31.6%) or case series (41.8%) studies without industry funding as compared with non-COVID articles, which were represented primarily by randomized controlled trials (32.5% and 36.6% in the non-COVID literature from 2020 and 2019, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: In this cross-sectional study of publications in four general medical journals, COVID-related articles were significantly different from non-COVID articles based on article characteristics and impact metrics. COVID-related studies were generally shorter articles reporting observational studies with less literature cited and fewer study sites, suggestive of more limited scientific support. They nevertheless had much higher dissemination.


Assuntos
Bibliometria , Publicações Periódicas como Assunto , Comunicação , Estudos Transversais , Humanos , Pandemias , Revisão da Pesquisa por Pares , Publicações Periódicas como Assunto/normas , Análise de Componente Principal
5.
Nucleic Acids Res ; 49(D1): D1-D9, 2021 01 08.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33396976

RESUMO

The 2021 Nucleic Acids Research database Issue contains 189 papers spanning a wide range of biological fields and investigation. It includes 89 papers reporting on new databases and 90 covering recent changes to resources previously published in the Issue. A further ten are updates on databases most recently published elsewhere. Seven new databases focus on COVID-19 and SARS-CoV-2 and many others offer resources for studying the virus. Major returning nucleic acid databases include NONCODE, Rfam and RNAcentral. Protein family and domain databases include COG, Pfam, SMART and Panther. Protein structures are covered by RCSB PDB and dispersed proteins by PED and MobiDB. In metabolism and signalling, STRING, KEGG and WikiPathways are featured, along with returning KLIFS and new DKK and KinaseMD, all focused on kinases. IMG/M and IMG/VR update in the microbial and viral genome resources section, while human and model organism genomics resources include Flybase, Ensembl and UCSC Genome Browser. Cancer studies are covered by updates from canSAR and PINA, as well as newcomers CNCdatabase and Oncovar for cancer drivers. Plant comparative genomics is catered for by updates from Gramene and GreenPhylDB. The entire Database Issue is freely available online on the Nucleic Acids Research website (https://academic.oup.com/nar). The NAR online Molecular Biology Database Collection has been substantially updated, revisiting nearly 1000 entries, adding 90 new resources and eliminating 86 obsolete databases, bringing the current total to 1641 databases. It is available at https://www.oxfordjournals.org/nar/database/c/.


Assuntos
Bases de Dados de Ácidos Nucleicos , Biologia Molecular/estatística & dados numéricos , Ácidos Nucleicos , Publicações Periódicas como Assunto/estatística & dados numéricos , Pesquisa/estatística & dados numéricos , /genética , /epidemiologia , /virologia , Biologia Computacional/métodos , Epidemias , Genômica/métodos , Humanos , Internet , Biologia Molecular/métodos , Biologia Molecular/normas , Publicações Periódicas como Assunto/normas , Pesquisa/normas , /fisiologia
8.
Medicine (Baltimore) ; 99(51): e23801, 2020 Dec 18.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33371154

RESUMO

OBJECTIVES: To clarify the styles used in background sections of systematic reviews (SR) and to identify which styles if any were related to the publication in high-impact-factor (HIF) medical journals. METHOD: This was a cross-sectional study for original SR articles published in top 50 journals in MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL category in Journal Citation Reports 2018. We randomly included 90 articles from top 10 HIF journals and 90 from others, respectively. We conducted a content analysis to classify the background styles. We assessed the factors associated with the publication in HIF journals. RESULTS: We found 6 categories. We defined 6 categories as follows: Update of prior SR, New in scope than prior SR, Higher quality than prior SR, Completely new SR, Limitations of primary studies only, and Not presenting unknown in prior SR or primary studies. All 6 categories were not related to the publication in HIF journals. CONCLUSIONS: We found 6 categories of styles in background sections of SR, none of which however were related to publication in HIF journals. SR authors may wish to use any of these categories to communicate the importance of their research questions.


Assuntos
Fator de Impacto de Revistas , Publicações Periódicas como Assunto/normas , Revisões Sistemáticas como Assunto/métodos , Estudos Transversais , Estudos Epidemiológicos , Humanos , Publicações Periódicas como Assunto/tendências
9.
Clin Sci (Lond) ; 134(24): 3233-3235, 2020 12 23.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33313696

RESUMO

As this extraordinary year, blemished by COVID-19, comes to an end, I look back as Editor-in-Chief to the many great successes and new initiatives of Clinical Science. Despite the challenges we all faced during 2020, our journal has remained strong and vibrant. While we have all adapted to new working conditions, with life very different to what it was pre-COVID-19, the one thing that remains intact and secure is the communication of scientific discoveries through peer-reviewed journals. I am delighted to share with you some of the many achievements of our journal over the past year and to highlight some exciting new activities planned for 2021.


Assuntos
Pesquisa Biomédica/normas , Políticas Editoriais , Publicações Periódicas como Assunto/normas , Pesquisa Biomédica/estatística & dados numéricos , Pesquisa Biomédica/tendências , /imunologia , /administração & dosagem , Previsões , Humanos , Pandemias/prevenção & controle , Publicações Periódicas como Assunto/estatística & dados numéricos , Publicações Periódicas como Assunto/tendências , /fisiologia
10.
PLoS One ; 15(11): e0241826, 2020.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33152034

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: A debate about the scientific quality of COVID-19 themed research has emerged. We explored whether the quality of evidence of COVID-19 publications is lower when compared to nonCOVID-19 publications in the three highest ranked scientific medical journals. METHODS: We searched the PubMed Database from March 12 to April 12, 2020 and identified 559 publications in the New England Journal of Medicine, the Journal of the American Medical Association, and The Lancet which were divided into COVID-19 (cases, n = 204) and nonCOVID-19 (controls, n = 355) associated content. After exclusion of secondary, unauthored, response letters and non-matching article types, 155 COVID-19 publications (including 13 original articles) and 130 nonCOVID-19 publications (including 52 original articles) were included in the comparative analysis. The hierarchical level of evidence was determined for each publication included and compared between cases and controls as the main outcome. A quantitative scoring of quality was carried out for the subgroup of original articles. The numbers of authors and citation rates were also compared between groups. RESULTS: The 130 nonCOVID-19 publications were associated with higher levels of evidence on the level of evidence pyramid, with a strong association measure (Cramer's V: 0.452, P <0.001). The 155 COVID-19 publications were 186-fold more likely to be of lower evidence (95% confidence interval [CI] for odds ratio, 7.0-47; P <0.001). The quantitative quality score (maximum possible score, 28) was significantly different in favor of nonCOVID-19 (mean difference, 11.1; 95% CI, 8.5-13.7; P <0.001). There was a significant difference in the early citation rate of the original articles that favored the COVID-19 original articles (median [interquartile range], 45 [30-244] vs. 2 [1-4] citations; P <0.001). CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that the quality of COVID-19 publications in the three highest ranked scientific medical journals is below the quality average of these journals. These findings need to be verified at a later stage of the pandemic.


Assuntos
Betacoronavirus , Infecções por Coronavirus , Escrita Médica , Pandemias , Publicações Periódicas como Assunto/normas , Pneumonia Viral , Publicações/normas
13.
PLoS One ; 15(10): e0239598, 2020.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33002031

RESUMO

Scientific claims in biomedical research are typically derived from statistical analyses. However, misuse or misunderstanding of statistical procedures and results permeate the biomedical literature, affecting the validity of those claims. One approach journals have taken to address this issue is to enlist expert statistical reviewers. How many journals do this, how statistical review is incorporated, and how its value is perceived by editors is of interest. Here we report an expanded version of a survey conducted more than 20 years ago by Goodman and colleagues (1998) with the intention of characterizing contemporary statistical review policies at leading biomedical journals. We received eligible responses from 107 of 364 (28%) journals surveyed, across 57 fields, mostly from editors in chief. 34% (36/107) rarely or never use specialized statistical review, 34% (36/107) used it for 10-50% of their articles and 23% used it for all articles. These numbers have changed little since 1998 in spite of dramatically increased concern about research validity. The vast majority of editors regarded statistical review as having substantial incremental value beyond regular peer review and expressed comparatively little concern about the potential increase in reviewing time, cost, and difficulty identifying suitable statistical reviewers. Improved statistical education of researchers and different ways of employing statistical expertise are needed. Several proposals are discussed.


Assuntos
Publicações Periódicas como Assunto , Estatística como Assunto , Pesquisa Biomédica/métodos , Pesquisa Biomédica/normas , Pesquisa Biomédica/estatística & dados numéricos , Interpretação Estatística de Dados , Políticas Editoriais , Humanos , Revisão por Pares , Publicações Periódicas como Assunto/normas , Publicações Periódicas como Assunto/estatística & dados numéricos , Reprodutibilidade dos Testes , Estatística como Assunto/métodos , Estatística como Assunto/normas , Inquéritos e Questionários
14.
Rheumatol Int ; 40(12): 2023-2030, 2020 12.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33048199

RESUMO

The evolving research landscape in the time of the Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic calls for greater understanding of the perceptions of scholars regarding the current state and future of publishing. An anonymised and validated e-survey featuring 30 questions was circulated among rheumatologists and other specialists over social media to understand preferences while choosing target journals, publishing standards, commercial editing services, preprint archiving, social media and alternative publication activities. Of 108 respondents, a significant proportion were clinicians (68%), researchers (60%) and educators (47%), with median 23 publications and 15 peer-review accomplishments. The respondents were mainly rheumatologists from India, Ukraine and Turkey. While choosing target journals, relevance to their field (69%), PubMed Central archiving (61%) and free publishing (59%) were the major factors. Thirty-nine surveyees (36%) claimed that they often targeted local journals for publishing their research. However, only 18 (17%) perceived their local society journals as trustworthy. Occasional publication in the so-called predatory journals (5, 5%) was reported and obtaining support from commercial editing agencies to improve English and data presentation was not uncommon (23, 21%). The opinion on preprint archiving was disputed; only one-third believed preprints were useful. High-quality peer review (56%), full and immediate open access (46%) and post-publication social media promotion (32%) were identified as key anticipated features of scholarly publishing in the foreseeable future. These perceptions of surveyed scholars call for greater access to free publishing, attention to proper usage of English and editing skills, and a larger role for engagement over social media.


Assuntos
Infecções por Coronavirus , Pandemias , Publicações Periódicas como Assunto/normas , Pneumonia Viral , Comunicação Acadêmica/normas , Adulto , Betacoronavirus , Humanos , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Publicação de Acesso Aberto/normas , Reumatologia , Inquéritos e Questionários
15.
Gac. sanit. (Barc., Ed. impr.) ; 34(5): 430-434, sept.-oct. 2020. tab
Artigo em Inglês | IBECS | ID: ibc-198864

RESUMO

OBJECTIVE: To describe the biomedical journal characteristics that are associated with the retraction of papers. METHOD: A descriptive cross-sectional study was conducted. All papers retracted and indexed in PubMed from January 1st 2013 to December 31st, 2016 were included. We used nine main categories to classify retractions: aspects related with data, authors issues, plagiarism, unethical research, journal issues, review process, conflict of interest, other, and unknown. These categories were further classified as: misconduct, suspicion of misconduct, or no misconduct. RESULTS: The proportion of retraction was 2.5 per 10,000 publications. Retractions appeared in 611 journals. During the study period, retraction due to misconduct was more frequent among journals with low-impact factor. Within these retracted publications, among low-impact journals the presence of misconduct was higher with a 73% compared to 61% for the high-impact journals (p = 0.001). There were differences in the percentage of retractions due to misconduct regarding the journal classification category (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Retraction of publications is present in both high- and low-impact factor biomedical journals, but misconduct is more frequent among the papers retracted from lower impact journals. Measures before and after publication should be taken to limit misconduct


OBJETIVO: Describir qué características de las revistas científicas biomédicas se asocian con la retractación de artículos. MÉTODO: Se realizó un estudio transversal en el que se incluyeron todos los artículos retractados e indexados en PubMed del 1 de enero de 2013 al 31 de diciembre de 2016. Las retractaciones también se clasificaron de forma más detallada: problemas con los datos o manejo de datos; aspectos de autoría; plagio; investigación no ética; aspectos relacionados con la revista; problemas con el proceso de revisión; conflicto de intereses o razones desconocidas. Posteriormente se clasificaron como mala conducta, sospecha de mala conducta o sin mala conducta. RESULTADOS: La proporción de retractaciones fue de 2,5 por cada 10.000 publicaciones. Hubo retractaciones en 611 revistas. Durante el periodo de estudio, la retractación por mala conducta fue más frecuente en revistas con bajo factor de impacto, y entre los artículos retractados, hubo más mala conducta (73%) entre las revistas de bajo factor de impacto, en comparación con las revistas con alto factor de impacto (61%) (p = 0,001). También se observan diferencias en el porcentaje de retractaciones debidas a mala conducta según la categoría de clasificación del Journal Citation Report (p <0,001). CONCLUSIONES: La retractación de publicaciones está presente tanto en revistas de alto como de bajo factor de impacto, pero la retractación por mala conducta es más habitual en revistas biomédicas de bajo impacto. Deben tomarse medidas antes y después de la publicación para limitar la mala conducta científica


Assuntos
Humanos , Retratação de Publicação como Assunto , Má Conduta Científica/ética , Revisão por Pares/normas , Plágio , Fator de Impacto de Revistas , Estudos Transversais , Publicações Periódicas como Assunto/normas , Políticas Editoriais
20.
PLoS One ; 15(9): e0238908, 2020.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32915901

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: The development of deep learning (DL) algorithms is a three-step process-training, tuning, and testing. Studies are inconsistent in the use of the term "validation", with some using it to refer to tuning and others testing, which hinders accurate delivery of information and may inadvertently exaggerate the performance of DL algorithms. We investigated the extent of inconsistency in usage of the term "validation" in studies on the accuracy of DL algorithms in providing diagnosis from medical imaging. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We analyzed the full texts of research papers cited in two recent systematic reviews. The papers were categorized according to whether the term "validation" was used to refer to tuning alone, both tuning and testing, or testing alone. We analyzed whether paper characteristics (i.e., journal category, field of study, year of print publication, journal impact factor [JIF], and nature of test data) were associated with the usage of the terminology using multivariable logistic regression analysis with generalized estimating equations. Of 201 papers published in 125 journals, 118 (58.7%), 9 (4.5%), and 74 (36.8%) used the term to refer to tuning alone, both tuning and testing, and testing alone, respectively. A weak association was noted between higher JIF and using the term to refer to testing (i.e., testing alone or both tuning and testing) instead of tuning alone (vs. JIF <5; JIF 5 to 10: adjusted odds ratio 2.11, P = 0.042; JIF >10: adjusted odds ratio 2.41, P = 0.089). Journal category, field of study, year of print publication, and nature of test data were not significantly associated with the terminology usage. CONCLUSIONS: Existing literature has a significant degree of inconsistency in using the term "validation" when referring to the steps in DL algorithm development. Efforts are needed to improve the accuracy and clarity in the terminology usage.


Assuntos
Algoritmos , Diagnóstico por Imagem/métodos , Aprendizado de Máquina , Publicações Periódicas como Assunto/normas , Humanos , Fator de Impacto de Revistas , Estudos de Validação como Assunto
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA
...