RESUMEN

Perioperative nurses can share their expertise by writing for publication in a peer-reviewed journal. Writing can help perioperative nurses grow their professional careers and advance the science of the perioperative nursing specialty. Despite the value and importance of publishing, perioperative nurses may lack confidence and fear rejection and negative feedback; increasing their knowledge and understanding of the authoring and publishing processes can assuage these fears. This education article describes concepts associated with scholarly publishing for authors and offers strategies to encourage perioperative nurses to share their practice experiences or research via peer-reviewed journals. Key steps associated with the writing and publication process are described. The article also explains the editorial and peer-review processes and provides supportive strategies for authors when a manuscript is not accepted initially.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Requiring authors to base their research on a systematic review of the existing literature prevents the generation of redundant scientific studies, thereby avoiding the deprivation of effective therapies for trial participants and the waste of research funds. Scientific medical journals could require this in their author guidelines. While this applies to all areas of research, it is also relevant to physiotherapy and rehabilitation research, which predominantly involve interventional trials in patients. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine the extent to which the use of systematic reviews to justify a new trial is already being requested by physiotherapy-related scientific medical journals (PTJs). In addition, a comparison was made between PTJs and scientific medical journals with the highest impact factor in the Science Citation Index Extended (SCIE). METHODS: This meta-research study is based on a systematic examination of the author guidelines of 149 PTJs. The journals were identified and included based on the number of publications with physiotherapy as a keyword in the databases PEDro, and Medline (Pubmed). The included author guidelines were analysed for the extent to which they specified that a new trial should be justified by a systematic review of the literature. Additionally, they were compared with 14 scientific medical journals with the highest impact factor in the SCIE (LJs). RESULTS: In their author guidelines, none of the included PTJs required or recommended the use of a systematic review to justify a new trial. Among LJs, four journals (28.57%), all associated with the Lancet group, required the study justification through a systematic review of the literature. CONCLUSION: Neither PTJs nor LJs require or recommend the use of a systematic review to justify a new trial in their author guidelines. This potentially leaves room for unethical scientific practices and should be critically considered in future research.

Asunto(s)

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Most retractions of obstetrics and gynecology manuscripts are because of scientific misconduct. It would be preferable to prevent randomized controlled trials with scientific misconduct from ever appearing in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, rather than to have to retract them later. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the policies of obstetrics and gynecology and top medical journals in their author guidelines and electronic submission systems regarding prospective randomized controlled trial registration, ethics committee approval, research protocols, Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trial guidelines, and data sharing and to detect the most common quality criteria requested for randomized controlled trials in these journals. STUDY DESIGN: Author guidelines were identified via online Google searches from the websites of selected peer-reviewed medical journals. Journals in obstetrics and gynecology were selected from the list of journals with impact factors based on the Journal Citation Report released by Clarivate Analytics on June 29, 2020, focusing on those publishing original clinical research in obstetrics, in particular randomized controlled trials. In addition, 4 of the top impact factor peer-reviewed general medical journals publishing randomized controlled trials were included. The requirements for selected quality criteria for randomized controlled trials analyzed in the author guidelines for each journal were details of 5 general issues: prospective randomized controlled trial registration (4 subcategories), ethics committee approval (4 subcategories), research protocol (3 subcategories), Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials guidelines (3 subcategories), and data sharing (3 subcategories). To evaluate the requirements within the electronic submission system, a mock submission of a randomized controlled trial was also done for each journal, and the same criteria were assessed on the online software for submission. The primary outcome was the overall percentage for each of the quality criteria that were listed as required within the author guidelines or required in the submission system among all journals. Planned subgroup analyses were top general medicine vs obstetrics and gynecology journals and top 4 obstetrics and gynecology vs other obstetrics and gynecology journals. RESULTS: Most studied peer-reviewed journals listed in their author guidelines 7 specific criteria for submission of randomized controlled trials: prospective registration and registration number, statement of ethical approval with name of approving committee and statement of informed consent, statement of adherence to Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials guidelines, and data sharing statement. For most journals, the submission software did not require these or any other criteria for submission. There were minimal differences in criteria listed for top medical journals vs other obstetrics and gynecology journals and among top vs other obstetrics and gynecology journals. CONCLUSION: Prospective registration and registration number, statement of ethical approval with name of approving committee and statement of informed consent, statement of adherence to Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials guidelines, and data sharing statement are the randomized controlled trial quality criteria requested by leading medical and obstetrics and gynecology journals. These obstetrics and gynecology journals agree to make, as much as possible, these criteria uniform and mandatory in author guidelines and also through improved submission software.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Although the surgical case series is a useful study design for surgical disciplines, elements of its presentation have not been standardized with a widely accepted reporting guideline. Hence, case series may not include all components necessary for surgeons to best interpret their results. We aimed to determine core elements of case series through qualitative analysis of discussions after presentations at national meetings. METHODS: Case series with accompanying discussions in three high-impact journals from 2010 to 2015 were analyzed with conventional content analysis. All interrogative sentences were selected for analysis and were classified by a redundant iterative process into descriptive categories and subcategories. RESULTS: Two hundred twenty-one case series were identified, 56 of which included discussion transcripts. Four hundred seventy six unique interrogatives were classified into 4 categories and 13 subcategories. The main categories identified were "Application of Results to Patient Care," "Clarification of Study Methodology," "Facilitation of Author Insight," and "Request for Additional Study-Specific Data." The most frequent subcategories of inquiry pertained to the changes to current standard of care, clarification of study variables, and subgroup data and outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: We determined major themes of inquiry that reflected core elements surgeons use to evaluate case series for relevance and applicability to their own practice. Discussants frequently questioned how the study's results changed the author's standard of care. Specifically encouraging surgical case series authors to comment on changes they made to their practice as a result of their findings would allow the surgical audience to quickly assess potential clinical applicability.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Authors, readers, and editors share a common focus. Authors want to publish their work. Readers want to see high-quality, new information. Referees and editors serve to ensure that authors provide valid conclusions based on the quality of information that readers want.Common to each of these roles are instructions to authors. However, these are typically written in an uninspiring, legalistic style, as if they are a set of rules that authors must obey if they expect to get published. This renders the instructions boring and oppressive, if not forbidding. Yet they need not be so, if they are set in context.Instructions to authors can be cast in a way as to reflect common purpose. They can remind authors what perceptive readers want to see in a paper and, thereby, prompt authors to include all necessary information. If cast in this way, instructions to authors are not a set of rules by which to satisfy publishers; they become guidelines for the etiquette of communication between authors and their readers.Against this background, the present article has been composed to serve several purposes. Foremost, it amplifies instructions to authors beyond the conventional technicalities such as headings, layout, font size, and line spacing. It prescribes the type of information that should be communicated and explains the reasons for those recommendations. Doing so not only informs authors about what to write, but also informs readers and referees about what to look for in a good paper. Secondarily, the article publicizes examples of errors and deficiencies of manuscripts submitted to the Journal in the past that have delayed their acceptance and publication, which could have been avoided had the forthcoming recommendations been followed. The recommendations also reprise the elements taught in courses conducted by the Spine Intervention Society in their extended program on evidence-based medicine. Doing so underscores that instructions for authors are not a procedural technicality but a way to ensure that what authors write, what readers read, and what the Journal publishes comply with contemporary precepts of good evidence.Some 20 years ago, the Journal of the American Medical Association published a comprehensive series of articles with a common title: "Users' Guides to the Medical Literature" [1,2]. These articles focused on the science of statistical tests and critical appraisal, and their importance for properly understanding the literature. The present article differs in that it does not presume to teach technicalities. Instead, it describes and explains, step by step, the critical components of an article, what authors should include, and what readers should look for, so that the Journal can ensure that consistent, high-quality information is shared between its authors and readers.The present article focuses on articles concerning treatment of pain, largely because this type of article is more commonly submitted than articles on reliability or validity of diagnostic procedures. Although the present article principally focuses on papers for the Spine Section of the Journal, the same principles, appropriately adapted, serve for other sections.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

INTRODUCTION: The widespread use of flawed multiple choice questions (MCQs) in continuing medical education (CME) has been demonstrated in different studies. In recent years, quality control measures have been established by some German publishing houses to ensure the quality of MCQs. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of the present study is to evaluate whether the quality of author's guidelines and the quality of MCQs correlate and whether the quality of MCQs in CME has improved following the implementation of quality control measures. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A set of 720 items from 6 journals was selected for analysis. A list of 10 item-writing flaws provided by Kühne-Eversmann et al. was modified. The existing guidelines for authors of the six selected journals were categorized by their comprehensiveness. RESULTS: There were substantial differences in item quality with the percentage of flawed items ranging between 34 % and 92 % of all items published by a journal. One journal showed considerable improvement of item quality following the implementation of guidelines for authors (61 % flawed items in 2006 vs. 33% in 2012). The comprehensiveness of the author's guidelines correlated negatively with the number of item-writing flaws. CONCLUSIONS: The correlation between the existence of elaborate guidelines for authors and the absence of item-writing flaws in MCQs suggests that the publication of guidelines for authors could result in a higher quality of MCQs, even though the review process might have a major influence.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

I am getting better at following the rules as I grow older, although I still bristle at many of them. I was a typical rebellious teenager; no one understood me, David Bowie was my idol, and, one day, my generation was going to change the world. Now I really want people to understand me: David Bowie remains one of my favorite singers and, yes, my generation has changed the world, and not necessarily for the better. Growing up means that you have to make the rules, not just follow those set by others, and, at times, having rules makes a lot of sense.
.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Identifying and addressing forms of bias in research are critical to the integrity and value of research. Conflicts of interest are an important aspect of research that must be addressed equally to any other form of research bias. Conflicts of interest occur when the judgment of a party involved in the research, either a researcher or a treatment provider, may be compromised by more than one interest relative to the research. As therapeutic massage and bodywork (TMB) is a younger field of research, some forms or aspects of conflicts of interest may not be understood. This editorial explores the meaning of conflicts of interest, how to increase awareness of them, and facets of research specific to TMB that may create such conflicts. Full disclosure in grant applications and manuscripts is critical to ensure that grantors, reviewers, and users of research are better informed of potential conflicts of interest, can understand the steps taken to manage the conflicts, and ultimately can better assess the research integrity and value.

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: With the adoption of a completely electronic workflow by several journals and the advent of telepathology, digital imaging has become an integral part of every scientific research. However, manipulating digital images is very easy, and it can lead to misinterpretations. AIM: To analyse the impact of manipulating digital images on their diagnosis. DESIGN: Digital images were obtained from Papanicolaou-stained smears of dysplastic and normal oral epithelium. They were manipulated using GNU Image Manipulation Program (GIMP) to alter their brightness and contrast and color levels. A Power Point presentation composed of slides of these manipulated images along with the unaltered originals arranged randomly was created. The presentation was shown to five observers individually who rated the images as normal, mild, moderate or severe dysplasia. Weighted κ statistics was used to measure and assess the levels of agreement between observers. RESULTS: Levels of agreement between manipulated images and original images varied greatly among observers. Variation in diagnosis was in the form of overdiagnosis or under-diagnosis, usually by one grade. CONCLUSION: Global manipulations of digital images of cytological slides can significantly affect their interpretation. Such manipulations should therefore be kept to a minimum, and avoided wherever possible.