Project description:ObjectivesRheumatology-related diseases remain a significant burden worldwide. However, little is known about the comparative status of rheumatology research between Mainland China (MC) and the world's leading countries. The aim of this study is to compare the quantity and quality of research output in the field of rheumatology that were written by researchers from MC, the USA, the UK, the Netherlands and France.MethodsBetween 2007 and 2017, all articles published in 30 rheumatology journals were identified via Science Citation Index Expanded database. The number of total and annual articles, article types (randomized controlled trials (RCTs), reviews, case reports, clinical trials and meta-analysis), impact factor (IF), citations, h-index and articles in the high-impact journals were collected for quantity and quality comparisons. The correlation of socioeconomic factors and annual publications was also analyzed.ResultsFrom 2007 to 2017, there were 53,439 articles published in rheumatology journals, of which researchers from the USA published 13,391 articles, followed by the UK, the Netherlands, France and MC with 6,179, 4,310, 4,066 and 2,898 articles, respectively. Publications from MC represented the ninth, but the number is growing rapidly. For total and average citations, MC still lags behind the other four countries in the study. Similar trends were observed in average IF, h-index and articles in the high-impact journals. In terms of article types, the USA occupies the dominant place, except for meta-analysis. The annual numbers of articles from MC and the USA were positively correlated with gross domestic product (p < 0.05).ConclusionsThe USA has played predominant role in rheumatology research for the last 11 years. The annual number of published articles from MC has increased notably from 2007 to 2017. Although MC has made progress in the number of published articles over the past decade, it still lags far behind the highly developed countries in most bibliometric indicators. Thus, the general quality of publications from MC needs further improvement.

Project description:ObjectiveA skewed percentage of industry payments goes to "key opinion leaders" (KOLs) whose prominence and influence has increased with time. Given that KOL is neither precisely defined nor quantifiable, we turned to the level of industry payments as a surrogate quantifiable metric and assessed the associations between industry payments to US rheumatologists and their authorships of publications in high-impact rheumatology journals.MethodsPayments to US rheumatologists during the 2015-2020 interval were obtained from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Open Payments database, and authorships were tallied for calendar year 2021 publications in the four rheumatology journals (Lancet Rheumatol, Nat Rev Rheumatol, Ann Rheum Dis, Arthritis Rheumatol) with the highest 2021 journal impact factors and journal citation indicators. Differences between groups were determined by chi-squared test, unpaired Student's t-test, one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), Mann-Whitney rank sum test, and Kruskal-Wallis one-way ANOVA on ranks. Correlations were calculated using Spearman rank order. A P value ≤0.05 was considered significant.ResultsThere were 278 individual US rheumatologists who received industry payments and served as authors of publications in the four high-impact rheumatology journals. Non-research-associated payments to these individuals strongly correlated with research-associated payments. Payments to male US rheumatologists were greater than those to their female counterparts, and payments strongly correlated with the number of publications among male authors but only weakly, and often not significantly, among female authors.ConclusionA substantial fraction of the authorships in calendar year 2021 publications in four high-impact rheumatology journals arose from a very small percentage of all US rheumatologists who had received industry payments during the 2015-2020 interval. Payments to male US rheumatologist-authors were strikingly different from those to female US rheumatologist-authors, and further investigation is needed to explain the glaring difference in payments.

Project description:ObjectiveTo develop an evidence-based guideline for the pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic treatment of psoriatic arthritis (PsA), as a collaboration between the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) and the National Psoriasis Foundation (NPF).MethodsWe identified critical outcomes in PsA and clinically relevant PICO (population/intervention/comparator/outcomes) questions. A Literature Review Team performed a systematic literature review to summarize evidence supporting the benefits and harms of available pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic therapies for PsA. GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) methodology was used to rate the quality of the evidence. A voting panel, including rheumatologists, dermatologists, other health professionals, and patients, achieved consensus on the direction and the strength of the recommendations.ResultsThe guideline covers the management of active PsA in patients who are treatment-naive and those who continue to have active PsA despite treatment, and addresses the use of oral small molecules, tumor necrosis factor inhibitors, interleukin-12/23 inhibitors (IL-12/23i), IL-17 inhibitors, CTLA4-Ig (abatacept), and a JAK inhibitor (tofacitinib). We also developed recommendations for psoriatic spondylitis, predominant enthesitis, and treatment in the presence of concomitant inflammatory bowel disease, diabetes, or serious infections. We formulated recommendations for a treat-to-target strategy, vaccinations, and nonpharmacologic therapies. Six percent of the recommendations were strong and 94% conditional, indicating the importance of active discussion between the health care provider and the patient to choose the optimal treatment.ConclusionThe 2018 ACR/NPF PsA guideline serves as a tool for health care providers and patients in the selection of appropriate therapy in common clinical scenarios. Best treatment decisions consider each individual patient situation. The guideline is not meant to be proscriptive and should not be used to limit treatment options for patients with PsA.

Project description:BackgroundRobust statistical designing, sound statistical analysis, and standardized presentation are important to enhance the quality and transparency of biomedical research. This systematic review was conducted to summarize the statistical reporting requirements introduced by biomedical research journals with an impact factor of 10 or above so that researchers are able to give statistical issues' serious considerations not only at the stage of data analysis but also at the stage of methodological design.MethodsDetailed statistical instructions for authors were downloaded from the homepage of each of the included journals or obtained from the editors directly via email. Then, we described the types and numbers of statistical guidelines introduced by different press groups. Items of statistical reporting guideline as well as particular requirements were summarized in frequency, which were grouped into design, method of analysis, and presentation, respectively. Finally, updated statistical guidelines and particular requirements for improvement were summed up.ResultsTotally, 21 of 23 press groups introduced at least one statistical guideline. More than half of press groups can update their statistical instruction for authors gradually relative to issues of new statistical reporting guidelines. In addition, 16 press groups, covering 44 journals, address particular statistical requirements. The most of the particular requirements focused on the performance of statistical analysis and transparency in statistical reporting, including "address issues relevant to research design, including participant flow diagram, eligibility criteria, and sample size estimation," and "statistical methods and the reasons."ConclusionsStatistical requirements for authors are becoming increasingly perfected. Statistical requirements for authors remind researchers that they should make sufficient consideration not only in regards to statistical methods during the research design, but also standardized statistical reporting, which would be beneficial in providing stronger evidence and making a greater critical appraisal of evidence more accessible.

Project description:BackgroundThe use of bronchial blockers has been increased for one-lung ventilation; however, the placement of bronchial blockers is time consuming. The objective of this study was to compare the novel extraluminal technique of Uniblocker placement supported by trachea length measurement on computerized tomography images with conventional intraluminal Uniblocker placement method.MethodsSeventy adult patients undergoing left side thoracic surgery were included in the study. All the patients were randomly assigned to one of two groups: conventional intraluminal intubation group (CV-IN group, n = 35) or extraluminal CT guided group (CT-EX group, n = 35). The primary endpoints were the optimal positions of Uniblocker and the injuries of bronchi and carina. The secondary outcomes included the time of Uniblocker placement, the adequacy of lung collapse, the incidences of Uniblocker displacement, sore throat, and hoarseness postoperative.ResultsIn the CV-IN group, 19 of 35 Uniblockers went to the left main-stem bronchus on the initial blind insertion and 15 of 35 Uniblockers were considered as in optimal depth, whereas in the CT-EX group, 32 of 35 Uniblockers went to the left main-stem bronchus on the initial blind insertion and 31 of 35 Uniblockers were considered as in optimal depth (P < .01). The incidence of bronchi and carina injuries was obviously lower in the CT-EX group (occurred in 1 of 35 cases) than that in the CV-IN group (occurred in 8 of 35 cases) (P < .05). The time of Uniblocker placement took 145.4 s in the CV-IN group and 85.4 s in the CT-EX group (P < .01). The malpositions of Uniblocker, the degree of pulmonary collapse and the adverse events postoperative such as sore throat and hoarseness were not significantly different between the two groups (P > .05).ConclusionThe novel extraluminal technique of Uniblocker placement supported by trachea length measurement on computerized tomography images was proved to be more rapid, more accurate and less complications than conventional intraluminal Uniblocker placement method.

Dataset Information

Article placement order in rheumatology journals: a content analysis.

Publications

Article placement order in rheumatology journals: a content analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets