Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 20 de 6.776
Filtrar
1.
Adv Med Educ Pract ; 13: 755-763, 2022.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35915806

RESUMEN

Introduction: Increases in publication quantity and the onset of open access have increased the complexity of conducting a literature search. Bibliometric markers, like impact factor (IF), have traditionally been used to help identify high-quality research. These markers exist amongst a variety of other factors, which poses the following question: what factors are examined when considering articles for clinical and academic research? Objective: To determine what factors are involved when authors choose citations to include in their publications. Methods: A voluntary and anonymous questionnaire-based survey was distributed to medical students, residents, and faculty from multiple medical schools across Canada during the 2020/2021 academic year. Survey ratings were scored on a 5-point Likert scale and open word response. Results: The study collected 156 complete sets of responses including 78 trainees (61 medical students and 17 residents), and 78 faculty. Language of the article (3.93) and availability on PubMed/Medline (3.77) were found more important than country of origin (2.14), institution (2.26), and IF (2.97). Trainees found the following factors more important than faculty: year of publication (3.94 vs 3.47, p = 0.0016), availability on Google/Google Scholar (2.51 vs 1.88, p = 0.0013), Open-access (2.46 vs 1.87, p = 0.0011), and Free access (2.73 vs 2.31, p = 0.049). Conclusion: Our study identified differences in faculty and trainee literature search preferences, bias towards English language publications, and the movement towards online literature sources. This knowledge provides insight into what biases individuals may be exposed to based on their language and literature search preferences. Future areas of research include how trainees' opinions change over time, identifying trainee ability to recognize predatory journals, and the need for better online journal article translators to mitigate the language bias. We believe this will lead to higher quality evidence and optimal patient care amongst healthcare workers.

2.
Indian J Ophthalmol ; 70(8): 3144-3145, 2022 Aug.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35918993
3.
F1000Res ; 11: 341, 2022.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35919099

RESUMEN

Background: This study aims to identify the preferred sources for acquiring knowledge about COVID-19 and to evaluate basic knowledge on critical scientific literature appraisal in students from medical schools located in Spanish speaking countries in Latin America.  Methods: We designed an online survey of 15 closed-ended questions related to demographics, preferred resources for COVID-19 training, and items to assess critical appraisal skills. A snowball method was used for sampling. We conducted a descriptive analysis and Chi-squared tests to compare the proportion of correct identification of the concept of a preprint and a predatory journal when considering a) self-perceived level of knowledge, b) public vs private school, c) inclusion of a scientific literature appraisal subject in the curriculum, and d) progress in medical school. Results: Our sample included 770 valid responses, out of which most of the participants included were from Mexico (n=283, 36.8%) and Ecuador (n=229, 29.7%). Participants preferred using evidence-based clinical resources (EBCRs) to learn more about COVID-19 (n=182, 23.6%). The preferred study design was case report/series (n=218, 28.1%). We found that only 265 participants correctly identified the concept of a preprint (34.4%), while 243 students (31.6%) correctly identified the characteristics of a predatory journal. We found no significant differences in the proportion of correct answers regardless of the self-perceived level of knowledge, progress in medical school, or scientific literature critical appraisal classes. Conclusion: This study is novel in its approach of identifying sources of knowledge used by Latin American medical students and provides insights into the need to reinforce training in critical appraisal of scientific literature during medical school.

4.
Acta Neurol Scand ; 2022 Jul 15.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35841133

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVES: Unbiased and full disclosure of trial results is vital to evidence-based medicine. Non-publication and selective publication leads to publication bias and unrealistic risk-benefit ratio. In the present study, we aim to determine the publication rate of clinical trials related to neurology registered with the Clinical Trial Registry of India (CTRI), compare the characteristics of published and unpublished trials, and evaluate the adherence of investigators to ethics-approved criteria and outcomes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A cross-sectional search using the keyword "neurology" was carried out in CTRI registry. Two independent investigators searched Pubmed, Medline, Scopus, and Google Scholar for published manuscripts. The final literature search occurred in November 2021. RESULTS: Out of 325 trials, 102 trials were published (31.4%). Ninety-one trials were beyond 3 years of expected time of trial completion and were still unpublished. Randomized trials had a slightly higher publication rate than non-randomized ones (56% vs. 46%, p = .223); however the difference was not statistically significant. Majority of trials sponsored by pharmaceutical companies were not published, while majority of those sponsored by non-pharmaceutical institutions were published (34.5% vs. 69.3%, p < .001). Feedback to CTRI about trial status was particularly poor (31.5% - informed vs. 68.5% - not informed, p < .001). 52 (50.9%) and 65 (63.7%) of the 102 published trials had changed the registered inclusion and exclusion criteria, respectively, in the CTRI registry compared to those in the published manuscript. In 29 (28.3%) of the 102 trials, the primary outcome did not match with that registered in the CTRI and in 73 (57.8%) trials, the secondary outcomes did not match. CONCLUSION: A large proportion of neurology registered trials are still unpublished, with a majority of pharmaceutical company-sponsored trials not being published. There is scope for improving the provisions in CTRI for enlisting trial results, that may prevent publication bias and also ensure the investigators adhere to the pre-specified ethics approved trial procedures and outcomes.

5.
J Law Biosci ; 9(2): lsac020, 2022.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35855401

RESUMEN

This article posits that Australia, as an affluent country with increasing capacity to manufacture vaccines, has an obligation to assist its regional (and global) counterparts in implementing vaccination programs that protect their populations. First, the article explores the capacity of high-income nations to meet their obligations, assist their neighbours and refrain from vaccine nationalism. This inquiry involves an analysis of the optimal ethical strategy for distributing vaccines globally, and the role that Australia might play in this distribution strategy. Secondly, the article examines the intellectual property landscape for vaccines in Australia, focusing on the patents that cover vaccine compositions and manufacturing techniques (recognizing the potential for know-how and access to materials as well as patents to affect manufacturing capacity). This article then discusses the strategies the Australian Government has at its disposal to counter potential intellectual property impediments whilst complying with existing obligations under the Agreement on Trade-related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), as an ethically appropriate response to the pandemic. This article also considers whether a so-called TRIPS waiver could provide better options and concludes that the challenge of compelling disclosure of know-how remains.

6.
Tomography ; 8(4): 1851-1853, 2022 Jul 19.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35894020

RESUMEN

Nowadays, there is a progressive increase in pressure to publish as well as greater emphasis on publishing in high impact journals, even sometimes with significant financial incentives attached [...].


Asunto(s)
Mala Conducta Científica , Motivación , Edición , Informe de Investigación
7.
Account Res ; : 1-20, 2022 Aug 01.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35878075

RESUMEN

Predatory publishing has recently emerged as a menace in academia. University professors and researchers often exploit this practice for their economic gains and institutional prestige. The present study investigates such existing predatory publishing practices in Pakistani public sector universities drawing on the notion of symbolic violence. For this purpose, we analyzed 495 articles published by 50 university professors in the social sciences and humanities over the period 2017-2021. We also conducted semi-structured interviews with 20 postgraduate students to gather their perspectives on publishing practices. The study shows that 69% of the sample papers were published in predatory journals, as identified in Pakistan's Higher Education Commission's (HEC) online journal recognition system (HJRS). Postgraduate students' insights inform the study that the students misrecognize these malpractices in academia as a problem what is referred to as "symbolic violence." Consequently, they engage in the process to increase their publications. Such publications enable both the university professors and the students to achieve the desired benefit, such as promotions, tenure, and academic degrees. We recommend that this practice must be altered at the policy level since it not only violates the HEC's standards for quality research but also damages the researchers' credibility and country's scientific reputation.

8.
Biomed Res Int ; 2022: 6531748, 2022.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35872868

RESUMEN

Introduction. Brain metastases (BMs) are common in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), which leads to a poor prognosis. As the two most effective strategies available, the use of combination of epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors (EGFR-TKIs) and radiotherapy (RT) is still controversial. This protocol proposes a methodology for carrying out a systematic review and meta-analysis that is aimed at (1) focusing on the efficacy and safety role of EGFR-TKIs combined with RT for BMs from NSCLC and (2) displaying the difference in efficacy of EGFR-TKIs owing to the sites and number of BMs, different types of RT, EGFR mutation status, and the subtypes of EGFR mutations by subgroup analysis. Methods and Analysis. Electronic databases including PubMed, Embase, CENTRAL, Web of Science, CBM, CNKI, Wanfang database, and VIP database will be searched from their inception until May 2022. Only randomized controlled trials evaluating the clinical efficacy and safety of EGFR-TKIs combined with RT on BMs of NSCLC will be included. Two reviewers will select the articles, assess the risk of bias, and extract data independently and in duplicate. The RoB 2 tool will be used to assess the quality of included studies. The meta-analysis of data synthesis will be performed with Stata 16. Publication bias will be assessed with the funnel plot method and the Egger test. Quality of the evidence will be evaluated by the GRADE system. Discussion. The approval of an ethical committee is not required. All the included trials will comply with the current ethical standards and the Declaration of Helsinki. Given the ongoing controversies regarding the optimal sequencing of the available and expanding treatment options for EGFR-TKIs in NSCLC with BMs, a synthesis of available, high-quality clinical research evidence is essential to advance our understanding in the treatment of this complex and common disease. This systematic review will evaluate available evidence, will try to provide optimized advice in the applications of EGFR-TKIs, and will be published in a high-quality journal. This study is registered with PROSPERO registration number CRD42021291509.

9.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35895940

RESUMEN

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: High-quality research underpins the best healthcare practice. This article focuses on analyzing the current literature to promote research integrity across clinical trials. RECENT FINDINGS: Recent admissions of questionable practices by researchers have undermined practitioner and public confidence. There is limited evidence specifically for ethical and professional standards in clinical trials to guide researchers and institutions to embed integrity into research practice. SUMMARY: Unintentional errors and spin in research are not uncommon as training in design and conduct of clinical trials is not part of health education for medical and allied health professions. There is unfamiliarity with procedures, such as prospective registration, a priori documentation of statistical analysis plans, openness in data sharing, and so forth. This, combined with the academic culture of secrecy, has led to an environment where scientific suspicion, instead of trust, is the norm. Existing science integrity documents are devoid of specific recommendations about how to translate any guidance into clinical trial practice. There is a need for constructive, supportive and multidisciplinary approaches based on open dialogue and continuous training, targeting the research environment. Research integrity now needs to take centre stage to re-instill confidence in randomized trial evidence to inform clinical practice.

10.
PLoS One ; 17(7): e0270872, 2022.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35853087

RESUMEN

In this article, we present a methodology which takes as input a collection of retracted articles, gathers the entities citing them, characterizes such entities according to multiple dimensions (disciplines, year of publication, sentiment, etc.), and applies a quantitative and qualitative analysis on the collected values. The methodology is composed of four phases: (1) identifying, retrieving, and extracting basic metadata of the entities which have cited a retracted article, (2) extracting and labeling additional features based on the textual content of the citing entities, (3) building a descriptive statistical summary based on the collected data, and finally (4) running a topic modeling analysis. The goal of the methodology is to generate data and visualizations that help understanding possible behaviors related to retraction cases. We present the methodology in a structured step-by-step form following its four phases, discuss its limits and possible workarounds, and list the planned future improvements.


Asunto(s)
Mala Conducta Científica , Recolección de Datos
11.
J Clin Epidemiol ; 2022 Jul 15.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35850426

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: Fraudulent research exists but can be difficult to spot. Made-up studies and results can affect systematic reviews and clinical guidelines, causing harm through incorrect treatments and practices. Our aim was to explore indicators of research fraud that could be included in a screening tool to identify potentially problematic studies warranting closer scrutiny. STUDY DESIGN & SETTING: We conducted a qualitative international interview study, purposively recruiting participants with experience and/or expertise in: research integrity, systematic reviews, biomedical publishing, or whistle-blowing research fraud. We used thematic analysis to identify major concepts and ideas. RESULTS: We contacted 49 potential participants and interviewed 30 from 12 countries. Participants described research fraud as a growing concern, with a lack of widely accessible resources or education to assist in flagging problematic studies. They discussed early warning signs that could be contained in a screening tool for use either pre or post publication. We did not speak to participants from indexing services, information software/analytics companies, or the public. Our suggested screening tools are empirically derived but are preliminary and not validated. CONCLUSION: A practical tool of early warning signs for research fraud would be useful for peer reviewers, editors, publishers and systematic reviewers.

12.
Sci Eng Ethics ; 28(4): 31, 2022 07 07.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35796841

RESUMEN

In the last 20 years, there has been a sharp increase in the incidence of retractions of articles published in scientific journals, the majority of which are due to research misconduct. In some cases, researchers have revised and republished articles that were retracted due to misconduct, which raises some novel questions concerning authorship. Suppose that an article is retracted because one of the authors fabricated or falsified some data, but the researchers decide to salvage the useable data, make appropriate revisions, and resubmit the article for publication. If the person who committed misconduct has made a significant contribution to the research reported in the revised paper, should they be named as an author to recognize this contribution or should they be denied authorship because they committed misconduct? This is a challenging issue because it involves the confluence of two research ethics domains that are usually dealt with separately, i.e., resolution of authorship disputes and adjudication of misconduct findings, as well as potential conflicts among norms that underlie authorship practices and misconduct adjudication. In this paper, we (1) describe some actual cases involving articles that were retracted for misconduct and republished; (2) review policies from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, Committee on Publication Ethics, and top fifteen biomedical journals to determine whether they provide adequate guidance for cases like these; and (3) analyze the ethical and policy issues that may arise in these situations.


Asunto(s)
Investigación Biomédica , Mala Conducta Científica , Autoria , Ética en Investigación , Humanos
14.
Front Genet ; 13: 872211, 2022.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35774510

RESUMEN

What happens to patients with cancer engaged in biomedical research when intellectual property regimes and ethical regimes intersect? This qualitative historical study addresses this question by situating the experiences, hopes, and reasons of patients to enter clinical trials within the historical trajectory of informed consent and monoclonal antibodies, the biotechnology underpinning many targeted drugs used in oncological clinical trials and biobank research. Based on fieldwork we undertook in a German university hospital where we interviewed patients and the medical personnel, a historical review, and an ethical analysis we inquire into the effects that financial, legal, and technological changes connected to the relevant pharmaceutical research and commerce have on cancer patients engaged in clinical trials and biobank research. We find that the controversial aspects of monoclonal antibodies, especially those related to the commercial interests at stake, enter the informed consent process mainly in the form of informative gaps. We highlight how a qualitative analysis of the clinic, especially when it is situated against the backdrop of the history of related technological advancements and patent regime, it can serve the purpose of giving voice to subjects who are silenced by regimes of an ethical, epistemic, and commercial kind while pointing to informed consent as an unhelpful device for addressing risks arising from the commercial purposes of biomedical products and infrastructure.

15.
Int J Technol Assess Health Care ; 38(1): e61, 2022 Jun 28.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35761433

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVES: Publication bias has the potential to adversely impact clinical decision making and patient health if alternative decisions would have been made had there been complete publication of evidence. METHODS: The objective of our analysis was to determine if earlier publication of the complete evidence on rosiglitazone's risk of myocardial infarction (MI) would have changed clinical decision making at an earlier point in time. We tested several methods for adjustment of publication bias to assess the impact of potential time delays to identifying the MI effect. We then performed a cumulative meta-analysis (CMA) for both published studies (published-only data set) and all studies performed (comprehensive data set). We then created an adjusted data set using existing methods of adjustment for publication bias (Harbord regression, Peter's regression, and the nonparametric trim and fill method) applied to the limited data set. Finally, we compared the time to the decision threshold for each data set using CMA. RESULTS: Although published-only and comprehensive data sets did not provide notably different final summary estimates [OR = 1.4 (95 percent confidence interval [CI]: .95-2.05) and 1.42 (95 percent CI: 1.03-1.97)], the comprehensive data set reached the decision threshold 36 months earlier than the published-only data set. All three adjustment methods tested did not show a differential time to decision threshold versus the published-only data set. CONCLUSIONS: Complete access to studies capturing MI risk for rosiglitazone would have led to the evidence reaching a clinically meaningful decision threshold 3 years earlier.


Asunto(s)
Sesgo de Publicación , Humanos , Rosiglitazona/uso terapéutico
18.
Public Health Res Pract ; 32(2)2022 Jun 15.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35702747

RESUMEN

There is an increasing focus on co-production in public health research. By their very nature, such research endeavours involve a different set of relationships, goals, and values than traditional research. To date, ethical issues that arise during the co-production process are dealt with on an ad hoc and case-by-case basis. There is a need to make the ethical considerations of co-production explicit. This article outlines several ethical values that could be considered in co-production using two different ethical frameworks. It also draws upon practical co-production research that highlights some of the ethical issues that arise. It argues that all stakeholders in the co-production process have a responsibility to ensure that the knowledge they co-produce is as beneficial as possible. In doing so, they must adhere to a set of ethics surrounding the generation of such knowledge, including health equity, intellectual property considerations, and respect for the rights of individuals and groups.

19.
Account Res ; : 1-20, 2022 Jun 10.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35686819

RESUMEN

Information regarding the prevalence of plagiarism and its contributing factors are limited in Myanmar. We aimed to explore the knowledge, attitudes, and self-reported plagiarism practices of postgraduate students in Myanmar's universities and determine the factors associated with plagiarism. We conducted a cross-sectional questionnaire study during 2019-2020. The questionnaire contained: 1) demographics, 2) knowledge on plagiarism, 3) attitudes toward plagiarism, and 4) self-reported plagiarism practices. We calculated attitudes and plagiarism severity scores (PSS). We conducted multiple linear regression analyses and binary logistic regression analyses. A p-value <0.05 denoted statistical significance. We enrolled 217 participants. Of our participants, 37.6% self-reported at least one plagiarism act. The mean attitude score (S.D.) was 62.24 (10.44), (maximum score was 92, higher scores represent disapproval of plagiarism). This attitude score reflects only a moderate attitude toward disapproval of plagiarism. The attitude score was significantly higher for doctoral students (9.2%) than master students (90.8%); p = 0.003; and for participants with publications (13.4%) compared with those without publications (86.6%); p = 0.005. The attitude score was a significant predictor of the PSS. We conclude that there is evidence to suggest that plagiarism represents a significant ethical issue in Myanmar and recommend that Myanmar universities provide training in responsible conduct of research.

20.
Acad Radiol ; 2022 Jun 02.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35659853

RESUMEN

Junior Neuroradiology investigators face a rapidly expanding universe of potential journals for manuscript submission. Each journal possesses many unique features, including scope/breadth of research focus, willingness to accept specific types of articles (for example, Review Articles, or Case Reports), status of indexing on major academic indices, scholarly relevance (usually defined as Impact Factor) and access type (Open Access, subscription, or Hybrid Access). An uninformed choice of target journal can burden not only Editors and Reviewers but also increase the effort and frustration level of relatively inexperienced investigators and ultimately result in a worthy manuscript not getting published. In order to assist Junior Neuroradiology investigators in optimizing journal selection for manuscript submission, we provide a Primer that includes background information on all the journal features listed previously. We also provide detailed tabular data for all Radiology, Neuroradiology, and associated Neuroscience Clinical Journals that follow proper academic standards as a quick and useful reference guide for optimal journal selection.

SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA
...