Dataset Information

Systematic review on the primary and secondary reporting of the prevalence of ghostwriting in the medical literature.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Ghostwriting of industry-sponsored articles is unethical and is perceived to be common practice.

Objective

To systematically review how evidence for the prevalence of ghostwriting is reported in the medical literature.

Data sources

MEDLINE via PubMed 1966+, EMBASE 1966+, The Cochrane Library 1988+, Medical Writing 1998+, The American Medical Writers Association (AMWA) Journal 1986+, Council of Science Editors Annual Meetings 2007+, and the Peer Review Congress 1994+ were searched electronically (23 May 2013) using the search terms ghostwrit*, ghostauthor*, ghost AND writ*, ghost AND author*.

Eligibility criteria

All publication types were considered; only publications reporting a numerical estimate of possible ghostwriting prevalence were included.

Data extraction

Two independent reviewers screened the publications; discrepancies were resolved by consensus. Data to be collected included a numerical estimate of the prevalence of possible ghostwriting (primary outcome measure), definitions of ghostwriting reported, source of the reported prevalence, publication type and year, study design and sample population.

Results

Of the 848 publications retrieved and screened for eligibility, 48 reported numerical estimates for the prevalence of possible ghostwriting. Sixteen primary publications reported findings from cross-sectional surveys or descriptive analyses of published articles; 32 secondary publications cited published or unpublished evidence. Estimates on the prevalence of possible ghostwriting in primary and secondary publications varied markedly. Primary estimates were not suitable for meta-analysis because of the various definitions of ghostwriting used, study designs and types of populations or samples. Secondary estimates were not always reported or cited correctly or appropriately.

Conclusions

Evidence for the prevalence of ghostwriting in the medical literature is limited and can be outdated, misleading or mistaken. Researchers should not inflate estimates using non-standard definitions of ghostwriting nor conflate ghostwriting with other unethical authorship practices. Editors and peer reviewers should not accept articles that incorrectly cite or interpret primary publications that report the prevalence of ghostwriting.

SUBMITTER: Stretton S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4120312 | biostudies-literature | 2014 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Systematic review on the primary and secondary reporting of the prevalence of ghostwriting in the medical literature.

Stretton Serina S

BMJ open 20140714 7

<h4>Background</h4>Ghostwriting of industry-sponsored articles is unethical and is perceived to be common practice.<h4>Objective</h4>To systematically review how evidence for the prevalence of ghostwriting is reported in the medical literature.<h4>Data sources</h4>MEDLINE via PubMed 1966+, EMBASE 1966+, The Cochrane Library 1988+, Medical Writing 1998+, The American Medical Writers Association (AMWA) Journal 1986+, Council of Science Editors Annual Meetings 2007+, and the Peer Review Congress 19 ...[more]

PMID: 25023129

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundMany publications report the prevalence of chronic kidney disease (CKD) in the general population. Comparisons across studies are hampered as CKD prevalence estimations are influenced by study population characteristics and laboratory methods.MethodsFor this systematic review, two researchers independently searched PubMed, MEDLINE and EMBASE to identify all original research articles that were published between 1 January 2003 and 1 November 2014 reporting the prevalence of CKD in the European adult general population. Data on study methodology and reporting of CKD prevalence results were independently extracted by two researchers.ResultsWe identified 82 eligible publications and included 48 publications of individual studies for the data extraction. There was considerable variation in population sample selection. The majority of studies did not report the sampling frame used, and the response ranged from 10 to 87%. With regard to the assessment of kidney function, 67% used a Jaffe assay, whereas 13% used the enzymatic assay for creatinine determination. Isotope dilution mass spectrometry calibration was used in 29%. The CKD-EPI (52%) and MDRD (75%) equations were most often used to estimate glomerular filtration rate (GFR). CKD was defined as estimated GFR (eGFR) <60 mL/min/1.73 m(2) in 92% of studies. Urinary markers of CKD were assessed in 60% of the studies. CKD prevalence was reported by sex and age strata in 54 and 50% of the studies, respectively. In publications with a primary objective of reporting CKD prevalence, 39% reported a 95% confidence interval.ConclusionsThe findings from this systematic review showed considerable variation in methods for sampling the general population and assessment of kidney function across studies reporting CKD prevalence. These results are utilized to provide recommendations to help optimize both the design and the reporting of future CKD prevalence studies, which will enhance comparability of study results.

Project description:IntroductionPrimary hyperparathyroidism is increasingly an asymptomatic disease at diagnosis, but the recognized guidelines for management are based on evidence obtained from studies on patients with symptomatic disease, and surgery is not always indicated. Other patients are unable to undergo surgery, and thus a medical treatment is warranted. This systematic review provides an overview of the existing literature on contemporary pharmaceutical options available for the medical management of primary hyperparathyroidism.MethodsDatabases of medical literature were searched for articles including terms for primary hyperparathyroidism and each of the included drugs. Data on s-calcium, s-parathyroid hormone, bone turnover markers, bone mineral density (BMD) and hard endpoints were extracted and tabulated, and level of evidence was determined. Changes in s-calcium were estimated and a meta-regression analysis was performed.ResultsThe 1,999 articles were screened for eligibility and 54 were included in the review. Weighted mean changes calculated for each drug in s-total calcium (mean change from baseline ± SEM) were pamidronate (0.31 ± 0.034 mmol/l); alendronate (0.07 ± 0.05 mmol/l); clodronate (0.20 ± 0.040 mmol/l); mixed bisphosphonates (0.16 ± 0.049 mmol/l); and cinacalcet (0.37 ± 0.013 mmol/l). The meta-analysis revealed a significant decrease of effect on s-calcium with time for the bisphosphonates (Coef. -0.049 ± 0.023, p = 0.035), while cinacalcet proved to maintain its effect on s-calcium over time. Bisphosphonates improved BMD while cinacalcet had no effect.DiscussionThe included studies demonstrate advantages and drawbacks of the available pharmaceutical options that can prove helpful in the clinical setting. The great variation in how primary hyperparathyroidism is manifested requires that management should rely on an individual evaluation when counseling patients. Combining resorptive agents with calcimimetics could prove rewarding, but more studies are warranted.

Dataset Information

Systematic review on the primary and secondary reporting of the prevalence of ghostwriting in the medical literature.

Background

Objective

Data sources

Eligibility criteria

Data extraction

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Systematic review on the primary and secondary reporting of the prevalence of ghostwriting in the medical literature.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets