Is orthodontic research falling prey to obscure and predatory journals? A bibliometric study.

AIMS: To evaluate where orthodontic research papers are published and to explore potential relationships between the journal of publication and the characteristics of the research study and authorship. METHODS: An online literature search of seven research databases was undertaken to identify orthodontic articles published in English language over a 12-month period (1 January-31 December 2022) (last search: 12 June 2023). Data extracted included journal, article, and author characteristics. Journal legitimacy was assessed using a ternary classification scheme including available blacklists and whitelists, cross-checking of indexing claims and history of sending unsolicited emails. The level of evidence (LOE) of all included studies was assessed using a modified Oxford LOE classification scale. Univariable and multivariable ordinal logistic regression analyses were performed to examine possible associations between the level of evidence, journal discipline, and authorship characteristics. RESULTS: A total of 753 studies, published by 246 unique journal titles, were included and further assessed. Nearly two-thirds of orthodontic papers were published in non-orthodontic journals (62.8%) and over half (55.6%) of the articles were published in open-access policy journals. About a fifth of the articles (21.2%) were published either in presumed predatory journals or in journals of uncertain legitimacy. Journal discipline was significantly associated with the level of evidence. Higher-quality orthodontic studies were more likely published in established orthodontic journals (likelihood ratio test P < .001). LIMITATIONS: The identification and classification of predatory journals are challenging due to their covert nature. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of orthodontic articles were published in non-orthodontic journals. In addition, approximately one in five orthodontic studies were published in presumed predatory journals or in journals of uncertain legitimacy. Studies with higher levels of evidence were more likely to be published in established orthodontic journals.

Step 3: Critically Appraising Evidence: Systematic Review or Metasynthesis of Qualitative Studies.

Critical appraisal of the evidence is the third step in the evidence-based practice (EBP) process. Many questions in nursing cannot be answered using quantitative methods. We often desire a better understanding of people's lived experiences. In the NICU, these questions may be related to the experiences of families or staff. Qualitative research can provide a deeper understanding of lived experiences. This column, the fifth in a multipart series describing the critical appraisal process focuses on the critical appraisal of a systematic review of qualitative studies.

Step 3: Critically Appraising Evidence: Case-Control Studies.

Critical appraisal of the evidence is the Step 3 in the evidence-based practice (EBP) process. This column, the fourth in a multipart series to describe the critical appraisal process, focuses on the critical appraisal of a case-control study.

Step 3, Critically Appraising Evidence: Quantitative Evidence-Randomized Controlled Trials.

Critical appraisal of the evidence is the third step in the evidence-based practice process. This column, the third in a multipart series to describe the critical appraisal process, focuses on critical appraisal of randomized control trials.

Step 3, Critically Appraising Evidence: Quantitative Evidence-Systematic Reviews or Meta-Analyses.

Critical appraisal of the evidence is the third step in the evidence-based practice process. This column, the second in a multipart series to describe the critical appraisal process, focuses on critical appraisal of systematic reviews or meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials.

Critically Appraising Evidence, Step 3: Quantitative Evidence-Quasi-Experimental or Nonrandomized Experimental Studies.

Critical appraisal of the evidence is the third step in the evidence-based practice process. This column, the third in a multipart series to describe the critical appraisal process, focuses on critical appraisal of quasi-experimental or nonrandomized experimental studies.

Step 3: Critically Appraising Evidence.

Critical appraisal of the evidence is the third step in the evidence-based practice process. This column, the first in a multipart series to describe the critical appraisal process, defines and provides examples of the levels of evidence and tools to begin the appraisal process using a rapid critical appraisal technique.

Trends in the quality of work presented at the society of british neurological surgeons meetings: 1975 to 2010.

BACKGROUND: The quality of scientific publications in clinical journals is well studied but the quality of work presented at medical conferences less so. AIMS: To describe trends in the quality of presentations at the Society of British Neurological Surgeons [SBNS] conference between 1975 and 2010 and the factors associated with higher quality work in order to consider what might improve publication rates. METHODS: Analysis was conducted in 5-year time periods (i.e. 1975-1979, 1985-1989, 1995-1999, 2005-2009). Published abstracts were used to identify conference presentations. Quality metrics included level of evidence of the presentation and eventual publication within 5 years. Publication 5-year citation count and destination journal impact factor were further used to assess publication quality. Statistical analysis was carried out using SPSS. RESULTS: Of the 1711 presentations in total, 479 (28%) were published. The British Journal of Neurosurgery (93, 19%) was the favoured destination. Although the total number of publications has increased, given the increase in the number of presentations, the proportion of work published has decreased (80/179; 45% in the 1970s to 113/721; 16% in the 2000s). The growth in the impact factor of published work was better than that found in leading neurosurgical journals, but lower than for leading medical journals. In a multivariate model, presentations using a higher level of evidence increased the likelihood of publication (AOR 6.7 95% CI 3.7, 12.1), whilst presenting at conferences after the 1970s reduced the likelihood of publication; 1985-1989 (AOR 0.3, 95% CI 0.2, 0.4), 1995-1999 (0.4, 95% CI 0.3, 0.7) and 2005-2009 (0.1, 95% CI 0.1, 0.2). CONCLUSION: SBNS conferences today contain more presentations and yield more publications than ever before. However, the increased volume may dilute the quality of work presented.

[CCAFU evidence-based Clinical Practice Guidelines 2016-2018]. / Référentiel national de bonnes pratiques cliniques du Comité de Cancérologie de l'AFU (CCAFU) 2016-2018 : Méthodologie.

The purpose of this paper is to report the updating process of the CCAFU evidence-based Clinical Practice Guideline (CPG), on urinary and genital tracts management, which was edited in 2013. Updating of CPG is a continuous process based on systematic search of the scientific literature aiming to identify clinical questions to be updated. The CPGs were defined following the RPC methodology based on evidence synthesis and explicit and transparent experts'opinion and on the ADAPTE methodology when good quality guidelines were available. In summary, a literature search was performed in Medline® database and on EBM web sites, using a defined search strategy, to identify all available publications published since 2013 related to the specific topic. Papers were then selected and classified according to predefined selection criteria. Subsequently, critical appraisal of the new data were done and recommandations and their levels of evidence were updated according to the new conclusions and to the CCAFU members'opinion. This project results of a collaborative work with members from the CCAFU committee and other learned societies (urologists, oncologists, radiotherapists, radiologists, pathologists,…). The document was reviewed by independent experts and their comments were incorporated in the final version. These updated guidelines will be submitted to French cancer institute (INCa) for quality approbation and labelling after a national peer-reviewing process according to the AGREE grid. Implementation of the recommendations, their dissemination to practitioners, and assessment of their impact on clinical practice as well as their future actualisation (every 1 to 3 years) are all objectives that have to be achieved. © 2016 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.

A comprehensive analysis of pectoralis major transfer for long thoracic nerve palsy.

BACKGROUND: In the treatment of long thoracic nerve palsy with pectoralis major transfer, it remains unknown whether direct transfer of the pectoralis to the scapula or indirect transfer with an interpositional graft provides superior outcomes. METHODS: A 3-tiered study was performed to gain a comprehensive understanding. (1) A survey of the membership of the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) was conducted to reach a Level V consensus. (2) A systematic review was conducted to identify all series evaluating direct and indirect transfer of the pectoralis major tendon to create a Level IV consensus. (3) A retrospective review was performed to provide Level III evidence. RESULTS: (1) Surgeons were evenly split between whole and split tendon transfers, direct and indirect transfers, and graft types. More experienced surgeons were more likely to prefer an indirect transfer. (2) Analysis of 10 Level IV studies (131 shoulders) revealed that patients who underwent indirect transfer were significantly more likely to develop recurrent winging (P = .009) and had lower active forward elevation (P < .001) and ASES scores (P = .0016). (3) Twenty-four patients were included in our retrospective review with a mean follow-up of 4.3 years (77% follow-up), of whom 14 underwent indirect transfer and 10 underwent direct transfer. There were no significant differences in recurrence of winging, range of motion, or ASES scores. CONCLUSIONS: Level V and III evidence suggests that there is no functional difference between direct and indirect transfer. Level IV evidence must be interpreted with caution.

The Developmental Brain Disorders Database (DBDB): a curated neurogenetics knowledge base with clinical and research applications.

The number of single genes associated with neurodevelopmental disorders has increased dramatically over the past decade. The identification of causative genes for these disorders is important to clinical outcome as it allows for accurate assessment of prognosis, genetic counseling, delineation of natural history, inclusion in clinical trials, and in some cases determines therapy. Clinicians face the challenge of correctly identifying neurodevelopmental phenotypes, recognizing syndromes, and prioritizing the best candidate genes for testing. However, there is no central repository of definitions for many phenotypes, leading to errors of diagnosis. Additionally, there is no system of levels of evidence linking genes to phenotypes, making it difficult for clinicians to know which genes are most strongly associated with a given condition. We have developed the Developmental Brain Disorders Database (DBDB: https://www.dbdb.urmc.rochester.edu/home), a publicly available, online-curated repository of genes, phenotypes, and syndromes associated with neurodevelopmental disorders. DBDB contains the first referenced ontology of developmental brain phenotypes, and uses a novel system of levels of evidence for gene-phenotype associations. It is intended to assist clinicians in arriving at the correct diagnosis, select the most appropriate genetic test for that phenotype, and improve the care of patients with developmental brain disorders. For researchers interested in the discovery of novel genes for developmental brain disorders, DBDB provides a well-curated source of important genes against which research sequencing results can be compared. Finally, DBDB allows novel observations about the landscape of the neurogenetics knowledge base.

[uPA/PAI-1, Oncotype DX™, MammaPrint(®). Prognosis and predictive values for clinical utility in breast cancer management]. / uPA/PAI-1, Oncotype DX™, Mammaprint(®). Valeurs pronostique et prédictive pour une utilité clinique dans la prise en charge du cancer du sein.

CONTEXT AND AIMS: Breast cancer prognosis and predictive biomarkers development would allow sparing some patients from chemotherapy or identifying patients for whom chemotherapy would be indicated. In this context, in 2009, the French National Cancer Institute, a National Health and Science Agency dedicated to cancer, in collaboration with the French society of senology and breast pathology (SFSPM) published a report on the assessment of the prognostic and the predictive clinical validity of tissular biomarkers, uPA/PAI-1, Oncotype DX™ and MammaPrint(®), in breast cancer management. They concluded that only the uPA/PAI-1 prognosis value reached the highest level of evidence (LOE I according to Hayes 1998 classification). In 2012, it was decided to update this report since new data have emerged and because information disparities among clinicians have been identified. This article aims to present the main conclusions together with the levels of evidence associated with those conclusions. METHODS: The updating process was based on literature published since 2009 appraisal and on multidisciplinary and independent experts' opinion. The levels of evidence (LOE) used are those of the classification defined by Simon in 2009 (updated Hayes 1998 classification): LOE IA and LOE IB: high level of evidence; LOE IIB and LOE IIC: intermediate level of evidence; LOE IIIC and LOE IV-VD: low level of evidence. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients without lymph-node involvement, uPA/PAI-1, invasion process biomarkers, reach the highest level of evidence for 10 years recurrence free survival prognosis (LOE IA according to Simon). The predictive value to anthracyclins chemotherapy remains to be confirmed. Oncotype DX™ and MammaPrint(®) prognosis and predictive value do not reach the LOE I level. This updating' process confirms the 2009 levels of evidence for all the three biomarkers prognosis value. Besides, concerning Oncotype DX™ and MammaPrint(®), new data do not allow to conclude neither to their complementary clinical information to other clinicopathological existing biomarkers nor to a favorable cost-efficiency ratio in therapeutic decision making and this because of the methodological weakness and uncertainty that are identified in the selected studies. Practically, beyond the prognosis and predictive biomarkers validity, the clinical utility of a new biomarker for chemotherapy indication depends on its clinical added information with regard to validated biomarkers (HR, HER2 and Ki67) and to clinicopathological parameters. Since they are the sole validated biomarkers of the invasion process, uPA/PAI-1 could complete clinical information of other clinicopathological factors and consequently could confer an added clinical value. However, data concerning the impact of this information on chemotherapy clinical indication are lacking.

Systematic analysis of levels of evidence supporting Chinese clinical practice guidelines for gastrointestinal disease.

BACKGROUND: Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) inform healthcare decisions and improve patient care. However, an evaluation of guidelines on gastrointestinal diseases (GIDs) is lacking. This study aimed to systematically analyze the level of evidence (LOE) supporting Chinese CPGs for GIDs. METHODS: CPGs for GIDs were identified by systematically searching major databases. Data on LOEs and classes of recommendations (CORs) were extracted. According to the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation system, LOEs were categorized as high, moderate, low, or very low, whereas CORs were classified as strong or weak. Statistical analyses were conducted to determine the distribution of LOEs and CORs across different subtopics and assess changes in evidence quality over time. FINDINGS: Only 27.9% of these recommendations were supported by a high LOE, whereas approximately 70% were strong recommendations. There was a significant disparity among different subtopics in the proportion of strong recommendations supported by a high LOE. The number of guidelines has increased in the past 5 years, but there has been a concomitant decline in the proportion of recommendations supported by a high LOE. CONCLUSIONS: There is a general lack of high-quality evidence supporting Chinese CPGs for GIDs, and there are inconsistencies in strong recommendations that have not improved. This study identified areas requiring further research, emphasizing the need to bridge these gaps and promote the conduct of high-quality clinical trials. FUNDING: This study was supported by the National Key R&D Program of China (2022YFC2503604 and 2022YFC2503605) and Special Topics in Military Health Care (22BJZ25).

An Exploratory Analysis of Levels of Evidence for Articles Published in Indian Journal of Palliative Care in the years 2010-2011.

CONTEXT: Indian Journal of Palliative Care (IJPC) provides a comprehensive multidisciplinary evidence base for an evidence-informed clinical decision making. AIMS: To analyze the levels of evidence of articles published in IJPC in the years 2010-2011. SETTINGS AND DESIGN: Systematic review of palliative care journals. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Systematic review of articles was done and was scored according to Center for Evidence-Based Medicine levels of evidence into any of the five grades. The articles were categorized based upon article type, number of authors, study approach, age focus, population focus, disease focus, goals of care, domains of care, models of care, and year of publication. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS USED: All descriptive analysis was done using frequencies and percentiles, and association between all categorical variables was done using Chi-square test at 95% confidence interval (CI) using Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 16 for Windows (SPSS Inc, Chicago, IL). RESULTS: There was a greater prevalence of low level evidence (level 4: n = 46, 51%; level 5: n = 35, 39%) among the 90 selected articles, and article type (original articles with higher level of evidence, P = 0.000), article approach (analytical studies with higher level of evidence, P = 0.000), domains of palliative care (practice-related studies with higher level of evidence, P = 0.000) and models of care (biological or psychosocial model with higher level of evidence, P = 0.044) had a significant association with the grade of levels of evidence. Association with other factors was not statistically significant (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The levels of research evidence for palliative care provided by articles published in IJPC were predominantly level 4 and level 5, and there is scope for more high quality evidence to inform palliative care decisions in the developing countries.

The Quality of Otolaryngology- Head and Neck Surgery Literature over the Last Decade.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the changes in the quality of the Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery (OTOHNS) literature over the last decade, and compare it to other surgical-based fields. METHODS: Based on impact factors, the top eight clinical U.S. OTOHNS journals were selected, and articles were analyzed from 2020 (Oto 2020) and compared to 2010 (Oto 2010). This was done similarly for Neurosurgery, Orthopedic, Ophthalmology, and General Surgery journals in 2020 (non-Oto). To limit bias and account for random variability, the first 10 research articles from each journal in each group were included. Data regarding the study type, level of evidence, use of confidence intervals, and funding source were collected. RESULTS: Based on an a priori power analysis, 160 articles were analyzed for Oto 2010 and Oto 2020. Compared to Oto 2020, Oto 2010 had more level 1 and 2 evidence (12 vs. 4; p = 0.032) and less reporting of confidence intervals (10 vs. 32; p < 0.001). Comparing the top 160 articles from 2020 from Non-Oto and OTOHNS (Oto), Non-Oto had more level 1 and 2 evidence (19 vs. 6; p = 0.0047), more randomized controlled trials (8 vs. 1; p = 0.016), and less reporting of confidence intervals (42 vs. 58; p = 0.009). CONCLUSION: High quality studies remain relatively scarce in the OTOHNS literature. Although reporting of confidence intervals has improved over the last decade, aggregate levels of evidence and extramurally funded studies lag behind other surgical-based fields. Better study design will provide stronger evidence basis, in hopes of improving clinical care. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: N/A Laryngoscope, 133:1853-1856, 2023.

Recent Levels of Evidence in Otolaryngology Journals.

OBJECTIVE: The development of evidence-based medicine has contributed to improved patient outcomes. This study aims to identify the trends in levels of evidence in otolaryngology journals over time, as represented by the 4 most widely circulated peer-reviewed otolaryngology journals. METHODS: A review of all articles from 2007, 2010, 2013, 2016, and 2019, in 4 major otolaryngology journals. Data points included journal source, year of publication, country of origin, first author sex, and subspecialty category within otolaryngology. Level of evidence was determined based on the study's primary research question and was graded on a scale of 1 (strongest) to 4 (weakest) based on the Oxford Centre of Evidence-based Medicine - Levels of Evidence guideline. Comparison of levels of evidence was performed using Kruskal-Wallis analysis of variance for ordinal data. RESULTS: About 4297 articles were identified over 12 years. The number of research articles remained consistent over the 12 years of this study. Clinical research increased from 78.6% to 85.1%. Female first authorship increased from 20.3% in 2007 to 31.0% in 2019. Of 3558 articles that constituted clinical research from 2007 to 2019, level 1 studies increased from 0.9% to 3.6%, with level 4 studies remaining stable at an overall rate of 60.3%. Randomized controlled trials remained stable at 4.6% of all studies. Systematic reviews increased from 3.2% to 8.4%. CONCLUSION: This article provides an update on the levels of evidence to allow for an honest self-assessment of otolaryngology as a scientific field.

Categories of Evidence and Methods in Surgical Decision-Making.

Surgical decision-making is a continuum of judgments that take place during the preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative periods. The fundamental, and most challenging, step is determining whether a patient will benefit from an intervention given the dynamic interplay of diagnostic, temporal, environmental, patient-centric, and surgeon-centric factors. The myriad combinations of these considerations generate a wide spectrum of reasonable therapeutic approaches within the standards of care. Although surgeons may seek evidenced-based practices to support their decision-making, threats to the validity of evidence and appropriate application of evidence may influence implementation. Furthermore, a surgeon's conscious and unconscious biases may additionally determine individual practice.