Reporting of academic degrees in high-impact medical journals.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Stankovic N
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7014575 | biostudies-literature | 2019
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Reporting of academic degrees in high-impact medical journals.
Stankovic Nikola N Nolan Jerry P JP Andersen Lars W LW
F1000Research 20191105
Academic degrees following author names are often included in medical research papers. However, it remains unclear how many journals choose to include academic degrees and whether this is more common in certain types of journals. We examined the 100 highest impact medical journals and found that only 24 medical journals reported academic degrees. Moreover, this was substantially more common in journals based in North America compared with Europe. Further research is required to explore the impli ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:Background: In articles reporting randomized controlled trials, professional medical writing support is associated with increased adherence to Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT). We set out to determine whether professional medical writing support was also associated with improved adherence to CONSORT for Abstracts. Methods: Using data from a previously published cross-sectional study of 463 articles reporting randomized controlled trials published between 2011 and 2014 in five top medical journals, we determined the association between professional medical writing support and CONSORT for Abstracts items using a Wilcoxon rank-sum test. Results: The mean proportion of adherence to CONSORT for Abstracts items reported was similar with and without professional medical writing support (64.3% vs 66.5%, respectively; p=0.30). Professional medical writing support was associated with lower adherence to reporting study setting (relative risk [RR]; 0.40; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.23-0.70), and higher adherence to disclosing harms/side effects (RR 2.04; 95% CI, 1.37-3.03) and funding source (RR 1.75; 95% CI, 1.18-2.60). Conclusions: Although professional medical writing support was not associated with increased overall adherence to CONSORT for Abstracts, important aspects were improved with professional medical writing support, including reporting of adverse events and funding source. This study identifies areas to consider for improvement.
| S-EPMC5615774 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesTo assess the frequency of reporting of ethnicity (or 'race') and socioeconomic status (SES) indicators in high-impact journals.DesignTargeted literature review.Data sourcesThe 10 highest ranked general medical journals using Google scholar h5 index.Eligibility criteriaInclusion criteria were, human research, reporting participant level data. Exclusion criteria were non-research article, animal/other non-human participant/subject or no participant characteristics reported.Data extraction and synthesisWorking backwards from 19 April 2021 in each journal, two independent reviewers selected the 10 most recent articles meeting inclusion/exclusion criteria, to create a sample of 100 articles. Data on the frequency of reporting of ethnicity (or 'race') and SES indicators were extracted and presented using descriptive statistics.ResultsOf 100 research articles included, 35 reported ethnicity and 13 SES. By contrast, 99 reported age, and 97 reported sex or gender. Among the articles not reporting ethnicity, only 3 (5%) highlighted this as a limitation, and only 6 (7%) where SES data were missing. Median number of articles reporting ethnicity per journal was 2.5/10 (range 0 to 9). Only two journals explicitly requested reporting of ethnicity (or race), and one requested SES.ConclusionsThe majority of research published in high-impact medical journals does not include data on the ethnicity and SES of participants, and this omission is rarely acknowledged as a limitation. This situation persists despite the well-established importance of this issue and International Committee of Medical Journal Editors recommendations to include relevant demographic variables to ensure representative samples. Standardised explicit minimum standards are required.
| S-EPMC9389090 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundTo inform training program development and curricular initiatives, quantitative descriptions of the disciplinary training of research teams publishing in top-tier clinical and epidemiological journals are needed. Our objective was to assess whether interdisciplinary academic training and teamwork of authors publishing original research in 15 top-tier journals varied by year of publication (2000/2010/2020), type of journal (epidemiological/general clinical/specialty clinical), corresponding author gender, and time since the corresponding author completed formal training relative to the article publication date (<5/≥5 years).Methods and findingsWe invited corresponding authors of original research articles to participate in an online survey (n = 103; response rate = 8.3% of 1240 invited authors). In bivariate analyses, year of publication, type of journal, gender, and recency of training were not significantly associated with interdisciplinary team composition, whether a co-author with epidemiological or biostatistical training was involved in any research stage (design/analysis/interpretation/reporting), or with participants' confidence in their own or their co-authors epidemiological or biostatistical expertise (p > 0.05 for each comparison). Exceptions were participants with more recent epidemiological training all had co-author(s) with epidemiological training contribute to study design and interpretation, and participants who published in 2020 were more likely to report being extremely confident in their epidemiological abilities.ConclusionsThis study was the first to quantify interdisciplinary training among research teams publishing in epidemiological and clinical journals. Our quantitative results show research published in top-tier journals generally represents interdisciplinary teamwork and that interdisciplinary training may provide publication type options. Our qualitative results show researchers view interdisciplinary training favorably.
| S-EPMC9337644 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo investigate the effect of the CONSORT for Abstracts guidelines, and different editorial policies used by five leading general medical journals to implement the guidelines, on the reporting quality of abstracts of randomised trials.DesignInterrupted time series analysis.SampleWe randomly selected up to 60 primary reports of randomised trials per journal per year from five high impact, general medical journals in 2006-09, if indexed in PubMed with an electronic abstract. We excluded reports that did not include an electronic abstract, and any secondary trial publications or economic analyses. We classified journals in three categories: those not mentioning the guidelines in their instructions to authors (JAMA and New England Journal of Medicine), those referring to the guidelines in their instructions to authors but with no specific policy to implement them (BMJ), and those referring to the guidelines in their instructions to authors with an active policy to implement them (Annals of Internal Medicine and Lancet). Two authors extracted data independently using the CONSORT for Abstracts checklist.Main outcomeMean number of CONSORT items reported in selected abstracts, among nine items reported in fewer than 50% of the abstracts published across the five journals in 2006.ResultsWe assessed 955 reports of abstracts of randomised trials. Journals with an active policy to enforce the guidelines showed an immediate increase in the level of mean number of items reported (increase of 1.50 items; P=0.0037). At 23 months after publication of the guidelines, the mean number of items reported per abstract for the primary outcome was 5.41 of nine items, a 53% increase compared with the expected level estimated on the basis of pre-intervention trends. The change in level or trend did not increase in journals with no policy to enforce the guidelines (BMJ, JAMA, and New England Journal of Medicine).ConclusionActive implementation of the CONSORT for Abstracts guidelines by journals can lead to improvements in the reporting of abstracts of randomised trials.
| S-EPMC3382226 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Selective outcome reporting is a significant methodological concern. Comparisons between the outcomes reported in clinical trial registrations and those later published allow investigators to understand the extent of selection bias among trialists. We examined the possibility of selective outcome reporting in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in neurology journals.We searched PubMed for randomized controlled trials from Jan 1, 2010 -Dec 31, 2015 published in the top 3 impact factor neurology journals. These articles were screened according to specific inclusion criteria. Each author individually extracted data from trials following a standardized protocol. A second author verified each extracted element and discrepancies were resolved. Consistency between registered and published outcomes was evaluated and correlations between discrepancies and funding, journal, and temporal trends were examined.180 trials were included for analysis. 10 (6%) primary outcomes were demoted, 38 (21%) primary outcomes were omitted from the publication, and 61 (34%) unregistered primary outcomes were added to the published report. There were 18 (10%) cases of secondary outcomes being upgraded to primary outcomes in the publication, and there were 53 (29%) changes in timing of assessment. Of 82 (46%) major discrepancies with reported p-values, 54 (66.0%) favored publication of statistically significant results.Across trials, we found 180 major discrepancies. 66% of major discrepancies with a reported p-value (n = 82) favored statistically significant results. These results suggest a need within neurology to provide more consistent and timely registration of outcomes.
| S-EPMC5519049 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveWe assessed how well articles in major medical and psychiatric journals followed best reporting practices in presenting results of intervention studies.MethodStandardised data collection was used to review studies in high-impact and widely read medical (JAMA, Lancet and New England Journal of Medicine) and psychiatric (American Journal of Psychiatry, JAMA Psychiatry, Journal of Clinical Psychiatry and Lancet Psychiatry) journals, published between 1 September 2018 and 31 August 2019. Two team members independently reviewed each article.MeasuresThe primary outcome measure was proportion of papers reporting consensus elements required to understand and evaluate the results of the intervention. The secondary outcome measure was comparison of complete and accessible reporting in the major medical versus the major psychiatric journals.ResultsOne hundred twenty-seven articles were identified for inclusion. At least 90% of articles in both medical and psychiatric journals included sample size, statistical significance, randomisation method, elements of study flow, and age, sex, and illness severity by randomisation group. Selected elements less frequently reported by either journal type were confidence intervals in the abstract, reported in 93% (95% CI 84% to 97%) of medical journal articles and 58% (95% CI 45% to 69%) of psychiatric journal articles, and sample size method (93%, 95% CI 84% to 97% medical; 69%, 95% CI 57% to 80% psychiatric), race and ethnicity by randomisation group (51%, 95% CI 40% to 63% medical; 73%, 95% CI 60% to 83% psychiatric), and adverse events (94%; 95% CI 86% to 98% medical; 80%, 95% CI 68% to 88% psychiatric) in the main text. CIs were included less often in psychiatric than medical journals (p<0.004 abstract, p=0.04 main text, after multiple-testing correction).ConclusionsRecommendations include standard inclusion of a table specifying the outcome(s) designated as primary, and the sample size, effect size(s), CI(s) and p value(s) corresponding to the primary test(s) for efficacy.
| S-EPMC9748970 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Comprehensive patient education is necessary for shared decision-making. While patient-provider conversations primarily drive patient education, patients also use published materials to enhance their understanding. In this investigation, we evaluated the readability of 2585 patient education materials published in high-impact medical journals from 1998 to 2018 and compared our findings to readability recommendations from national groups. For all materials, mean readability grade levels ranged from 11.2 to 13.8 by various metrics. Fifty-four (2.1%) materials met the American Medical Association recommendation of sixth grade reading level, and 215 (8.2%) met the National Institutes of Health recommendation of eighth grade level. When stratified by journal and material type, general medical education materials from Annals of Internal Medicine were the most readable (P < .001), with 79.8% meeting the eighth grade level. Readability did not differ significantly over time. Efforts to standardize publication practice with the incorporation of readability evaluation during the review process may improve patients' understanding of their disease processes and treatment options.
| S-EPMC8205335 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundTo assist educators and researchers in improving the quality of medical research, we surveyed the editors and statistical reviewers of high-impact medical journals to ascertain the most frequent and critical statistical errors in submitted manuscripts.FindingsThe Editors-in-Chief and statistical reviewers of the 38 medical journals with the highest impact factor in the 2007 Science Journal Citation Report and the 2007 Social Science Journal Citation Report were invited to complete an online survey about the statistical and design problems they most frequently found in manuscripts. Content analysis of the responses identified major issues. Editors and statistical reviewers (n = 25) from 20 journals responded. Respondents described problems that we classified into two, broad themes: A. statistical and sampling issues and B. inadequate reporting clarity or completeness. Problems included in the first theme were (1) inappropriate or incomplete analysis, including violations of model assumptions and analysis errors, (2) uninformed use of propensity scores, (3) failing to account for clustering in data analysis, (4) improperly addressing missing data, and (5) power/sample size concerns. Issues subsumed under the second theme were (1) Inadequate description of the methods and analysis and (2) Misstatement of results, including undue emphasis on p-values and incorrect inferences and interpretations.ConclusionsThe scientific quality of submitted manuscripts would increase if researchers addressed these common design, analytical, and reporting issues. Improving the application and presentation of quantitative methods in scholarly manuscripts is essential to advancing medical research.
| S-EPMC3224575 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Multivariable logistic regression (MLR) has been increasingly used in Chinese clinical medical research during the past few years. However, few evaluations of the quality of the reporting strategies in these studies are available.To evaluate the reporting quality and model accuracy of MLR used in published work, and related advice for authors, readers, reviewers, and editors.A total of 316 articles published in 5 leading Chinese clinical medical journals with high impact factor from January 2010 to July 2015 were selected for evaluation. Articles were evaluated according 12 established criteria for proper use and reporting of MLR models.Among the articles, the highest quality score was 9, the lowest 1, and the median 5 (4-5). A total of 85.1% of the articles scored below 6. No significant differences were found among these journals with respect to quality score (χ = 6.706, P = .15). More than 50% of the articles met the following 5 criteria: complete identification of the statistical software application that was used (97.2%), calculation of the odds ratio and its confidence interval (86.4%), description of sufficient events (>10) per variable, selection of variables, and fitting procedure (78.2%, 69.3%, and 58.5%, respectively). Less than 35% of the articles reported the coding of variables (18.7%). The remaining 5 criteria were not satisfied by a sufficient number of articles: goodness-of-fit (10.1%), interactions (3.8%), checking for outliers (3.2%), collinearity (1.9%), and participation of statisticians and epidemiologists (0.3%). The criterion of conformity with linear gradients was applicable to 186 articles; however, only 7 (3.8%) mentioned or tested it.The reporting quality and model accuracy of MLR in selected articles were not satisfactory. In fact, severe deficiencies were noted. Only 1 article scored 9. We recommend authors, readers, reviewers, and editors to consider MLR models more carefully and cooperate more closely with statisticians and epidemiologists. Journals should develop statistical reporting guidelines concerning MLR.
| S-EPMC5457877 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundA previous study found that 2 of 29 (6.9%) meta-analyses published in high-impact journals in 2009 reported included drug trials' funding sources, and none reported trial authors' financial conflicts of interest (FCOIs) or industry employment. It is not known if reporting has improved since 2009. Our objectives were to (1) investigate the extent to which pharmaceutical industry funding and author-industry FCOIs and employment from included drug trials are reported in meta-analyses published in high-impact journals and (2) compare current reporting with results from 2009.MethodsWe searched PubMed (January 2017-October 2018) for systematic reviews with meta-analyses including ≥ 2 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of patented drugs. We included 3 meta-analyses published January 2017-October 2018 from each of 4 high-impact general medicine journals, high-impact journals from 5 specialty areas, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, as in the previous study.ResultsAmong 29 meta-analyses reviewed, 13 of 29 (44.8%) reported the funding source of included trials compared to 2 of 29 (6.9%) in 2009, a difference of 37.9% (95% confidence interval, 15.7 to 56.3%); this included 7 of 11 (63.6%) from general medicine journals, 3 of 15 (20.0%) from specialty medicine journals, and 3 of 3 (100%) Cochrane reviews. Only 2 of 29 meta-analyses (6.9%) reported trial author FCOIs, and none reported trial author-industry employment.Protocol publicationA protocol was uploaded to the Open Science Framework prior to initiating the study. https://osf.io/8xt5p/ LIMITATIONS: We examined only a relatively small number of meta-analyses from selected high-impact journals and compared results to a similarly small sample from an earlier time period.ConclusionsReporting of drug trial sponsorship and author FCOIs in meta-analyses published in high-impact journals has increased since 2009 but is still suboptimal. Standards on reporting of trial funding described in the forthcoming revised PRISMA statement should be adapted and enforced by journals to improve reporting.
| S-EPMC7140556 | biostudies-literature