Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 20 de 7.144
Filtrar
1.
PLoS Biol ; 19(4): e3000959, 2021 04.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33798194

RESUMO

The world continues to face a life-threatening viral pandemic. The virus underlying the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), has caused over 98 million confirmed cases and 2.2 million deaths since January 2020. Although the most recent respiratory viral pandemic swept the globe only a decade ago, the way science operates and responds to current events has experienced a cultural shift in the interim. The scientific community has responded rapidly to the COVID-19 pandemic, releasing over 125,000 COVID-19-related scientific articles within 10 months of the first confirmed case, of which more than 30,000 were hosted by preprint servers. We focused our analysis on bioRxiv and medRxiv, 2 growing preprint servers for biomedical research, investigating the attributes of COVID-19 preprints, their access and usage rates, as well as characteristics of their propagation on online platforms. Our data provide evidence for increased scientific and public engagement with preprints related to COVID-19 (COVID-19 preprints are accessed more, cited more, and shared more on various online platforms than non-COVID-19 preprints), as well as changes in the use of preprints by journalists and policymakers. We also find evidence for changes in preprinting and publishing behaviour: COVID-19 preprints are shorter and reviewed faster. Our results highlight the unprecedented role of preprints and preprint servers in the dissemination of COVID-19 science and the impact of the pandemic on the scientific communication landscape.


Assuntos
Disseminação de Informação/métodos , Editoração/tendências , Pesquisa Biomédica/tendências , Comunicação , Humanos , Publicação de Acesso Aberto/tendências , Pandemias , Revisão da Pesquisa por Pares/tendências , Pré-Publicações como Assunto , /patogenicidade
2.
Biol Lett ; 17(4): 20210079, 2021 03.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33823645
5.
Anaesthesia ; 76 Suppl 4: 32-38, 2021 04.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33682100

RESUMO

Despite increasing numbers of women entering anaesthesia, they remain persistently under-represented within academic anaesthesia and research. Gender discordance is seen across multiple aspects of research, including authorship, editorship, peer review, grant receipt, speaking and leading. Women are also under-represented at higher faculty ranks and in department chair positions. These inequities are further magnified for women with intersectional identities, such as those who identify as Black, indigenous and women of colour. Several barriers to participation in research have been identified to date, including a disproportionate amount of family responsibilities, a disproportionate burden of clinical service, gender bias, sexual harassment and the gender pay gap. Several strategies to improve gender equity have been proposed. Increasing access to formal mentorship of women in academic medicine is frequently cited and has been used by healthcare institutions and medical societies. Senior faculty and leaders must also be conscious of including women in sponsorship and networking opportunities. Institutions should provide support for parents of all genders, including supportive parental leave policies and flexible work models. Women should also be materially supported to attend formal educational conferences targeted for women, aimed at improving networking, peer support and professional development. Finally, leaders must display a clear intolerance for sexual harassment and discrimination to drive culture change. Peers and leaders alike, of all genders, can act as upstanders and speak up on behalf of targets of discrimination, both in the moment or after the fact. Gender inequities have persisted for far too long and can no longer be ignored. Diversifying the anaesthesia research community is essential to the future of the field.


Assuntos
Equidade de Gênero , Pesquisa , Anestesiologia , Autoria , Humanos , Liderança , Revisão da Pesquisa por Pares , Sexismo , Rede Social , Apoio Social
6.
Recenti Prog Med ; 112(3): 173-181, 2021 03.
Artigo em Italiano | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33687354

RESUMO

When a pandemic occurs, scientific research moves fast in order to achieve readily results, such as effective therapies to fight the SARS-CoV-2 and vaccines. But this high-speed science, engaged by the emergency and characterized by the explosion of online publications in preprint form not subject to scrutiny by peer reviewers, carries some risks. And it represents a challenge to maintain research integrity and to comply with those globally recognized standard principles of fairness. Competition and the pressure to publish immediately - a way of encouraging rapid data sharing - can favor the dissemination of incomplete if not erroneous results obtained from partial studies, which feed false news, such as the benefits of a drug, and illusory hopes. It is commonly through press releases that "speed science" disseminates information to an audience that wants to be informed and reassured. Financial and political interests often mix with the urgency to find solutions. Covid-19 has highlighted in particular the risk of a politicization of science at the expense of transparency.


Assuntos
Pandemias , Editoração/normas , Pesquisa/normas , Monofosfato de Adenosina/análogos & derivados , Monofosfato de Adenosina/economia , Monofosfato de Adenosina/provisão & distribução , Monofosfato de Adenosina/uso terapêutico , Alanina/análogos & derivados , Alanina/economia , Alanina/provisão & distribução , Alanina/uso terapêutico , Antivirais/economia , Antivirais/provisão & distribução , Antivirais/uso terapêutico , Surtos de Doenças , Aprovação de Drogas , União Europeia , Humanos , Influenza Humana/tratamento farmacológico , Influenza Humana/economia , Influenza Humana/epidemiologia , Influenza Humana/prevenção & controle , Disseminação de Informação , Consentimento Livre e Esclarecido , Oseltamivir/economia , Oseltamivir/provisão & distribução , Oseltamivir/uso terapêutico , Revisão da Pesquisa por Pares , Publicações Periódicas como Assunto , Política , Risco , Fatores de Tempo , Estados Unidos
7.
J Med Internet Res ; 23(3): e22219, 2021 03 02.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33600347

RESUMO

Coincident with the tsunami of COVID-19-related publications, there has been a surge of studies using real-world data, including those obtained from the electronic health record (EHR). Unfortunately, several of these high-profile publications were retracted because of concerns regarding the soundness and quality of the studies and the EHR data they purported to analyze. These retractions highlight that although a small community of EHR informatics experts can readily identify strengths and flaws in EHR-derived studies, many medical editorial teams and otherwise sophisticated medical readers lack the framework to fully critically appraise these studies. In addition, conventional statistical analyses cannot overcome the need for an understanding of the opportunities and limitations of EHR-derived studies. We distill here from the broader informatics literature six key considerations that are crucial for appraising studies utilizing EHR data: data completeness, data collection and handling (eg, transformation), data type (ie, codified, textual), robustness of methods against EHR variability (within and across institutions, countries, and time), transparency of data and analytic code, and the multidisciplinary approach. These considerations will inform researchers, clinicians, and other stakeholders as to the recommended best practices in reviewing manuscripts, grants, and other outputs from EHR-data derived studies, and thereby promote and foster rigor, quality, and reliability of this rapidly growing field.


Assuntos
/epidemiologia , Coleta de Dados/métodos , Registros Eletrônicos de Saúde , Coleta de Dados/normas , Humanos , Revisão da Pesquisa por Pares/normas , Editoração/normas , Reprodutibilidade dos Testes , /isolamento & purificação
10.
Mayo Clin Proc ; 96(2): 420-426, 2021 02.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33549260

RESUMO

Unpublished randomized controlled trial (RCT) frequency, correlates, and financial impact are not well understood. We sought to characterize the nonpublication of peer-reviewed manuscripts among interventional, therapeutic, multi-arm, phase 3 oncology RCTs. Trials were identified by searching ClinicalTrials.gov, while publications and abstracts were identified through PubMed and Google Scholar. Trial data were extracted from ClinicalTrials.gov and individual publications. Publication was defined as a peer-reviewed manuscript addressing the primary endpoint. Patient accrual cost was extrapolated from experimental data; investigators/sponsors were contacted to determine nonpublication reasons. Six hundred eighty-four completed RCTs met inclusion criteria, which accrued 434,610 patients from 1994 to 2015; 638 were published (93.3%) and 46 were unpublished (6.7%). Among the unpublished trials, the time difference from primary endpoint maturity to data abstraction was a median of 6 years (interquartile range, 4 to 8 years). On multiple binary logistic regression analysis, factors associated with unpublished trials included lack of cooperative group sponsorship (odds ratio, 5.91, 95% CI, 1.35 to 25.97; P=.019) and supportive care investigation (odds ratio, 2.90; 95% CI, 1.13 to 7.41; P=.027). The estimated inflation-adjusted average cost of patient accrual for all unpublished trials was $113,937,849 (range, $41,136,883 to $320,201,063). Direct contact with sponsors/investigators led to a 50.0% response rate (n=23 of 46); manuscript in preparation and/or in submission (n=10 of 23) was the most commonly cited reason for nonpublication. In conclusion, approximately 1 in 15 clinical oncology RCTs are unpublished and this has a profound impact on the research enterprise. The cooperative group infrastructure may serve as a blueprint to reduce nonpublication.


Assuntos
Ensaios Clínicos Fase III como Assunto , Oncologia , Editoração , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto , Humanos , Revisão da Pesquisa por Pares
11.
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
12.
Nat Commun ; 12(1): 943, 2021 02 11.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33574258

RESUMO

The COVID-19 pandemic began in early 2020 with major health consequences. While a need to disseminate information to the medical community and general public was paramount, concerns have been raised regarding the scientific rigor in published reports. We performed a systematic review to evaluate the methodological quality of currently available COVID-19 studies compared to historical controls. A total of 9895 titles and abstracts were screened and 686 COVID-19 articles were included in the final analysis. Comparative analysis of COVID-19 to historical articles reveals a shorter time to acceptance (13.0[IQR, 5.0-25.0] days vs. 110.0[IQR, 71.0-156.0] days in COVID-19 and control articles, respectively; p < 0.0001). Furthermore, methodological quality scores are lower in COVID-19 articles across all study designs. COVID-19 clinical studies have a shorter time to publication and have lower methodological quality scores than control studies in the same journal. These studies should be revisited with the emergence of stronger evidence.


Assuntos
Confiabilidade dos Dados , Publicações Periódicas como Assunto , Animais , Estudos Clínicos como Assunto , Humanos , Pandemias , Revisão da Pesquisa por Pares , Projetos de Pesquisa , Fatores de Tempo
14.
PLoS One ; 16(1): e0244501, 2021.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33395449

RESUMO

Cross-sector collaboration is needed to address root causes of persistent public health challenges. We conducted a systematic literature review to identify studies describing theories, models, frameworks and principles for cross-sector collaboration and synthesized collaboration constructs into the Consolidated Framework for Collaboration Research (CFCR). Ninety-five articles were included in the review. Constructs were abstracted from articles and grouped into seven domains within the framework: community context; group composition; structure and internal processes; group dynamics; social capital; activities that influence or take place within the collaboration; activities that influence or take place within the broader community; and activities that influence or take place both in the collaboration and in the community. Community engagement strategies employed by collaborations are discussed, as well as recommendations for using systems science methods for testing specific mechanisms of how constructs identified in the review influence one another. Researchers, funders, and collaboration members can use the consolidated framework to articulate components of collaboration and test mechanisms explaining how collaborations function. By working from a consolidated framework of collaboration terms and using systems science methods, researchers can advance evidence for the efficacy of cross-sector collaborations.


Assuntos
Comportamento Cooperativo , Modelos Teóricos , Bases de Dados Factuais , Humanos , Relações Interprofissionais , Revisão da Pesquisa por Pares
15.
Clin Exp Med ; 21(2): 161-165, 2021 May.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33417084

RESUMO

Thousands of articles have been published regarding the coronavirus disease of 2019 (COVID-19). Most of them are not original research articles but reviews and editorials, and therefore, the absence of evidence-based guidelines has been evident. In parallel, the quality of manuscripts is questionable since the number of preprints has increased due to the need of fast publication of COVID-19-related articles. Furthermore, the number of retracted articles during the pandemic is exceptionally high. Media have an important role in the distribution of incorrect information, nevertheless individual people and policy makers are also responsible. As misinformation thrives in crisis periods, well-designed studies are needed to flatten the infodemic curve regarding prevention, diagnosis, and long-term complications of COVID-19.


Assuntos
Comunicação , Revisão da Pesquisa por Pares , Pesquisa Biomédica/métodos , Políticas Editoriais , Medicina Baseada em Evidências/métodos , Humanos , Mídias Sociais
16.
Recenti Prog Med ; 112(1): 22-24, 2021 01.
Artigo em Italiano | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33512355

RESUMO

The output of medical and scientific literature is on the rise and the health emergency caused by the covid-19 pandemic has led to a further growth in the number of articles published each year in International medical journals. Finding your way around this ocean of information is very difficult: the critical evaluation of scientific documentation requires time and specific skills, which are not easy to acquire. In addition to doctors and nurses, hospital and clinical pharmacists also struggle to keep up to date. Also for this reason, many institutions and various players in the publishing arena are developing tools that enable health personnel to access the best scientific knowledge, minimizing the risk inherent in the individually performed evaluation of evidence. In any case, it is essential to reconsider and update the methods of continuous education of the hospital pharmacist, also considering the changes that have taken place in his role, now integrated into the clinical teams together with the other professionals who guarantee health care.


Assuntos
Educação Continuada , Educação em Farmácia , Comportamento de Busca de Informação , Pandemias , Farmacêuticos , Serviço de Farmácia Hospitalar , Educação em Farmácia/métodos , Medicina Baseada em Evidências , Pessoal de Saúde/educação , Humanos , Disseminação de Informação , Internet , Revisão da Pesquisa por Pares , Guias de Prática Clínica como Assunto , Editoração/normas , Editoração/tendências , Smartphone , Pensamento
17.
Health Res Policy Syst ; 19(1): 9, 2021 Jan 20.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33472643

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: The national Public Health Practice Evaluation Scheme (PHPES) is a response-mode funded evaluation programme operated by the National Institute for Health Research School for Public Health Research (NIHR SPHR). The scheme enables public health professionals to work in partnership with SPHR researchers to conduct rigorous evaluations of their interventions. Our evaluation reviewed the learning from the first five years of PHPES (2013-2017) and how this was used to implement a revised scheme within the School. METHODS: We conducted a rapid review of applications and reports from 81 PHPES projects and sampled eight projects (including unfunded) to interview one researcher and one practitioner involved in each sampled project (n = 16) in order to identify factors that influence success of applications and effective delivery and dissemination of evaluations. Findings from the review and interviews were tested in an online survey with practitioners (applicants), researchers (principal investigators [PIs]) and PHPES panel members (n = 19) to explore the relative importance of these factors. Findings from the survey were synthesised and discussed for implications at a national workshop with wider stakeholders, including public members (n = 20). RESULTS: Strengths: PHPES provides much needed resources for evaluation which often are not available locally, and produces useful evidence to understand where a programme is not delivering, which can be used to formatively develop interventions. Weaknesses: Objectives of PHPES were too narrowly focused on (cost-)effectiveness of interventions, while practitioners also valued implementation studies and process evaluations. Opportunities: PHPES provided opportunities for novel/promising but less developed ideas. More funded time to develop a protocol and ensure feasibility of the intervention prior to application could increase intervention delivery success rates. Threats: There can be tensions between researchers and practitioners, for example, on the need to show the 'success' of the intervention, on the use of existing research evidence, and the importance of generalisability of findings and of generating peer-reviewed publications. CONCLUSIONS: The success of collaborative research projects between public health practitioners (PHP) and researchers can be improved by funders being mindful of tensions related to (1) the scope of collaborations, (2) local versus national impact, and (3) increasing inequalities in access to funding. Our study and comparisons with related funding schemes demonstrate how these tensions can be successfully resolved.


Assuntos
Comportamento Cooperativo , Revisão da Pesquisa por Pares , Apoio à Pesquisa como Assunto , Faculdades de Saúde Pública , Academias e Institutos , Humanos , Entrevistas como Assunto , Projetos de Pesquisa , Reino Unido
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA
...