PMCC PMCC

Search tips
Search criteria

Advanced
Results 1-25 (525802)

Clipboard (0)
None

Related Articles

1.  Relationship between Funding Source and Conclusion among Nutrition-Related Scientific Articles 
PLoS Medicine  2007;4(1):e5.
Background
Industrial support of biomedical research may bias scientific conclusions, as demonstrated by recent analyses of pharmaceutical studies. However, this issue has not been systematically examined in the area of nutrition research. The purpose of this study is to characterize financial sponsorship of scientific articles addressing the health effects of three commonly consumed beverages, and to determine how sponsorship affects published conclusions.
Methods and Findings
Medline searches of worldwide literature were used to identify three article types (interventional studies, observational studies, and scientific reviews) about soft drinks, juice, and milk published between 1 January, 1999 and 31 December, 2003. Financial sponsorship and article conclusions were classified by independent groups of coinvestigators. The relationship between sponsorship and conclusions was explored by exact tests and regression analyses, controlling for covariates. 206 articles were included in the study, of which 111 declared financial sponsorship. Of these, 22% had all industry funding, 47% had no industry funding, and 32% had mixed funding. Funding source was significantly related to conclusions when considering all article types (p = 0.037). For interventional studies, the proportion with unfavorable conclusions was 0% for all industry funding versus 37% for no industry funding (p = 0.009). The odds ratio of a favorable versus unfavorable conclusion was 7.61 (95% confidence interval 1.27 to 45.73), comparing articles with all industry funding to no industry funding.
Conclusions
Industry funding of nutrition-related scientific articles may bias conclusions in favor of sponsors' products, with potentially significant implications for public health.
In 111 scientific articles on nonalcoholic beverages, articles with all industry funding were more than 7 times more likely to have favorable conclusions compared with articles with no industry funding.
Editors' Summary
Background.
Much of the money available for doing medical research comes from companies, as opposed to government agencies or charities. There is some evidence that when a research study is sponsored by an organization that has a financial interest in the outcome, the study is more likely to produce results that favor the funder (this is called “sponsorship bias”). This phenomenon is worrying, because if our knowledge about effectiveness and safety of medicines is based on biased findings, patients could suffer. However, it is not clear whether sponsorship bias extends beyond research into drugs, but also affects other types of research that is in the public interest. For example, research into the health benefits, or otherwise, of different types of food and drink may affect government guidelines, regulations, and the behavior patterns of members of the public. Were sponsorship bias also to exist in this area of research, the health of the wider public could be affected.
Why Was This Study Done?
There is not a great deal of evidence about whether sponsorship bias affects nutritional research (scientific studies that look at the relationship between food and/or drink, and health or disease states). Therefore, the group of researchers here set out to collect information from published nutritional research papers, to see if the type of sponsorship for the research studies was in any way linked with whether the main conclusions were favorable or unfavorable to the sponsor.
What Did the Researchers Do and Find?
The research study reported here used the scientific literature as a source of data. The researchers chose to examine one particular area of nutrition (nonalcoholic drinks including soft drinks, juices, and milk), so that their investigation would not be affected too much by variability between the different types of nutritional research. Using literature searches, the researchers identified all original research and scientific review articles published between January 1999 and December 2003 that examined soft drinks, juices, and milk; described research carried out in humans; and at the same time drew conclusions relevant to health or disease. Then, information from each published article was categorized: the conclusions were coded as either favorable, unfavorable, or neutral in relation to the health effects of the products being studied, and the article's funding was coded as either all industry (ie, food/drinks companies), no industry, or mixed. 206 published articles were analyzed and only 54% declared funding. The researchers found that, overall, there was a strong association between the type of funding available for these articles and the conclusions that were drawn. Articles sponsored exclusively by food/drinks companies were four to eight times more likely to have conclusions favorable to the financial interests of the sponsoring company than articles which were not sponsored by food or drinks companies.
What Do These Findings Mean?
These findings suggest that a high potential for bias exists in research into the health benefits or harms of nonalcoholic drinks. It is not clear from this research study why or how this bias comes about, but there are many different mechanisms that might cause it. The researchers suggest that certain initiatives might help to reduce bias, for example, increasing independent funding of nutrition research.
Additional Information.
Please access these Web sites via the online version of this summary at http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0040005.
Conflict of Interest definition from Wikipedia (Wikipedia is an internet encyclopedia that anyone can edit)
The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors provides standard guidelines for practices at medical journals, including a section on sponsorship, authorship, and accountability
The Committee on Publication Ethics is a forum for journal editors to discuss issues related to the integrity of the scientific record, and it provides guidelines for editors and case studies for reference
The Good Publication Practice guidelines outline standards for responsible publication of research sponsored by pharmaceutical companies
doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0040005
PMCID: PMC1764435  PMID: 17214504
2.  Anatomy of the Epidemiological Literature on the 2003 SARS Outbreaks in Hong Kong and Toronto: A Time-Stratified Review 
PLoS Medicine  2010;7(5):e1000272.
Weijia Xing and colleagues reviewed the published epidemiological literature on SARS and show that less than a quarter of papers were published during the epidemic itself, suggesting that the research published lagged substantially behind the need for it.
Background
Outbreaks of emerging infectious diseases, especially those of a global nature, require rapid epidemiological analysis and information dissemination. The final products of those activities usually comprise internal memoranda and briefs within public health authorities and original research published in peer-reviewed journals. Using the 2003 severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) epidemic as an example, we conducted a comprehensive time-stratified review of the published literature to describe the different types of epidemiological outputs.
Methods and Findings
We identified and analyzed all published articles on the epidemiology of the SARS outbreak in Hong Kong or Toronto. The analysis was stratified by study design, research domain, data collection, and analytical technique. We compared the SARS-case and matched-control non-SARS articles published according to the timeline of submission, acceptance, and publication. The impact factors of the publishing journals were examined according to the time of publication of SARS articles, and the numbers of citations received by SARS-case and matched-control articles submitted during and after the epidemic were compared. Descriptive, analytical, theoretical, and experimental epidemiology concerned, respectively, 54%, 30%, 11%, and 6% of the studies. Only 22% of the studies were submitted, 8% accepted, and 7% published during the epidemic. The submission-to-acceptance and acceptance-to-publication intervals of the SARS articles submitted during the epidemic period were significantly shorter than the corresponding intervals of matched-control non-SARS articles published in the same journal issues (p<0.001 and p<0.01, respectively). The differences of median submission-to-acceptance intervals and median acceptance-to-publication intervals between SARS articles and their corresponding control articles were 106.5 d (95% confidence interval [CI] 55.0–140.1) and 63.5 d (95% CI 18.0–94.1), respectively. The median numbers of citations of the SARS articles submitted during the epidemic and over the 2 y thereafter were 17 (interquartile range [IQR] 8.0–52.0) and 8 (IQR 3.2–21.8), respectively, significantly higher than the median numbers of control article citations (15, IQR 8.5–16.5, p<0.05, and 7, IQR 3.0–12.0, p<0.01, respectively).
Conclusions
A majority of the epidemiological articles on SARS were submitted after the epidemic had ended, although the corresponding studies had relevance to public health authorities during the epidemic. To minimize the lag between research and the exigency of public health practice in the future, researchers should consider adopting common, predefined protocols and ready-to-use instruments to improve timeliness, and thus, relevance, in addition to standardizing comparability across studies. To facilitate information dissemination, journal managers should reengineer their fast-track channels, which should be adapted to the purpose of an emerging outbreak, taking into account the requirement of high standards of quality for scientific journals and competition with other online resources.
Please see later in the article for the Editors' Summary
Editors' Summary
Background
Every now and then, a new infectious disease appears in a human population or an old disease becomes much more common or more geographically widespread. Recently, several such “emerging infectious diseases” have become major public health problems. For example, HIV/AIDS, hepatitis C, and severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) have all emerged in the past three decades and spread rapidly round the world. When an outbreak (epidemic) of an emerging infectious disease occurs, epidemiologists (scientists who study the causes, distribution, and control of diseases in populations) swing into action, collecting and analyzing data on the new threat to human health. Epidemiological studies are rapidly launched to identify the causative agent of the new disease, to investigate how the disease spreads, to define diagnostic criteria for the disease, to evaluate potential treatments, and to devise ways to control the disease's spread. Public health officials then use the results of these studies to bring the epidemic under control.
Why Was This Study Done?
Clearly, epidemics of emerging infectious diseases can only be controlled rapidly and effectively if the results of epidemiological studies are made widely available in a timely manner. Public health bulletins (for example, the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report from the US Centers from Disease Control and Prevention) are an important way of disseminating information as is the publication of original research in peer-reviewed academic journals. But how timely is this second dissemination route? Submission, peer-review, revision, re-review, acceptance, and publication of a piece of academic research can be a long process, the speed of which is affected by the responses of both authors and journals. In this study, the researchers analyze how the results of academic epidemiological research are submitted and published in journals during and after an emerging infectious disease epidemic using the 2003 SARS epidemic as an example. The first case of SARS was identified in Asia in February 2003 and rapidly spread around the world. 8,098 people became ill with SARS and 774 died before the epidemic was halted in July 2003.
What Did the Researchers Do and Find?
The researchers identified more than 300 journal articles covering epidemiological research into the SARS outbreak in Hong Kong, China, and Toronto, Canada (two cities strongly affected by the epidemic) that were published online or in print between January 1, 2003 and July 31, 2007. The researchers' analysis of these articles shows that more than half them were descriptive epidemiological studies, investigations that focused on describing the distribution of SARS; a third were analytical epidemiological studies that tried to discover the cause of SARS. Overall, 22% of the journal articles were submitted for publication during the epidemic. Only 8% of the articles were accepted for publication and only 7% were actually published during the epidemic. The median (average) submission-to-acceptance and acceptance-to-publication intervals for SARS articles submitted during the epidemic were 55 and 77.5 days, respectively, much shorter intervals than those for non-SARS articles published in the same journal issues. After the epidemic was over, the submission-to-acceptance and acceptance-to-publication intervals for SARS articles was similar to that of non-SARS articles.
What Do These Findings Mean?
These findings show that, although the academic response to the SARS epidemic was rapid, most articles on the epidemiology of SARS were published after the epidemic was over even though SARS was a major threat to public health. Possible reasons for this publication delay include the time taken by authors to prepare and undertake their studies, to write and submit their papers, and, possibly, their tendency to first submit their results to high profile journals. The time then taken by journals to review the studies, make decisions about publication, and complete the publication process might also have delayed matters. To minimize future delays in the publication of epidemiological research on emerging infectious diseases, epidemiologists could adopt common, predefined protocols and ready-to-use instruments, which would improve timeliness and ensure comparability across studies, suggest the researchers. Journals, in turn, could improve their fast-track procedures and could consider setting up online sections that could be activated when an emerging infectious disease outbreak occurred. Finally, journals could consider altering their review system to speed up the publication process provided the quality of the final published articles was not compromised.
Additional Information
Please access these Web sites via the online version of this summary at http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000272.
The US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases provides information on emerging infectious diseases
The US Centers for Control and Prevention of Diseases also provides information about emerging infectious diseases, including links to other resources, and information on SARS
Wikipedia has a page on epidemiology (note that Wikipedia is a free online encyclopedia that anyone can edit; available in several languages)
The World Health Organization has information on SARS (in several languages)
doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000272
PMCID: PMC2864302  PMID: 20454570
3.  Contributions of Indian conservative dentists and endodontists to the Medline database during 1996–2009: A bibliometric analysis 
Background:
Analysis of publication trends will guide the policy framers, administrators, and dentists to frame future policies and design programs for the development of scientific and technological policies in the field of dentistry.
Aims and Objectives:
This study was undertaken to assess the trends in Indian Conservative dentists and endodontists’ Publication in PubMed-Medline database during 1996–2009.
Materials and Methods:
Using the time limitation of publication date limit of 1st January 1996 to 31st December 2009, all articles where authors’ affiliation had the words Dental AND India were selected. From this collection of articles, the following were noted down: year of publication, number of authors, name of the journal, reach of the journal, status of the journal, specialty of the first, state of origin, and type of research. From this database, the performance of department of conservative dentistry and endodontics was analyzed.
Results:
The number of articles published by conservative dentists and endodontists was 124. Among them, 63 got published in international journals and 61 in Indian journals. A majority of 33 journals were published in Indian Journal of Dental Research followed by 25 in the Journal of Conservative Dentistry. Out of these articles, 66 were on the basis of original research done by the authors. Nearly 45.2% of the published articles were from the institutes in Tamil Nadu, followed by Karnataka (30.6%), and Maharashtra (8.1%). Although the overall distribution of the publication trends seems to be constant from 1996 to 2006, there seems to be boom in the publication trend since 2007.
doi:10.4103/0972-0707.73374
PMCID: PMC3010020  PMID: 21217943
Conservative dentists and endodontists in India; conservative dentists and endodontists’ publications; publication trends
4.  Update in Palliative Care - 2011 
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
The aim of this update is to summarize scientifically rigorous articles published in 2010 that serve to advance the field of palliative medicine and have an impact on clinical practice.
METHOD
We conducted two separate literature searches for articles published between January 1, 2010 and December 31, 2010. We reviewed title pages from the Annals of Internal Medicine, British Medical Journal, Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, JAMA, Journal of Clinical Oncology, JGIM, Journal of Pain and Symptom Management, Journal of Palliative Medicine, Lancet, New England Journal of Medicine, PC-FACS (Fast Article Critical Summaries for Clinicians in Palliative Care). We also conducted a Medline search with the key words "palliative," "hospice," and "terminal" care. Each author presented approximately 20 abstracts to the group. All authors reviewed these abstracts, and when needed, full text publications. We focused on articles relevant to general internists. We rated the articles individually, eliminating by consensus those that were not deemed of highest priority, and discussed the final choices as a group.
RESULTS
We first identified 126 articles with potential relevance. We presented 20 at the annual SGIM update session, and discuss 11 in this paper.
doi:10.1007/s11606-011-1929-9
PMCID: PMC3326102  PMID: 22127796
palliative; end-of-life; communication; pain
5.  A Systematic Review of Studies That Aim to Determine Which Outcomes to Measure in Clinical Trials in Children  
PLoS Medicine  2008;5(4):e96.
Background
In clinical trials the selection of appropriate outcomes is crucial to the assessment of whether one intervention is better than another. Selection of inappropriate outcomes can compromise the utility of a trial. However, the process of selecting the most suitable outcomes to include can be complex. Our aim was to systematically review studies that address the process of selecting outcomes or outcome domains to measure in clinical trials in children.
Methods and Findings
We searched Cochrane databases (no date restrictions) in December 2006; and MEDLINE (1950 to 2006), CINAHL (1982 to 2006), and SCOPUS (1966 to 2006) in January 2007 for studies of the selection of outcomes for use in clinical trials in children. We also asked a group of experts in paediatric clinical research to refer us to any other relevant studies. From these articles we extracted data on the clinical condition of interest, description of the method used to select outcomes, the people involved in the selection process, the outcomes selected, and limitations of the method as defined by the authors. The literature search identified 8,889 potentially relevant abstracts. Of these, 70 were retrieved, and 25 were included in the review. These studies described the work of 13 collaborations representing various paediatric specialties including critical care, gastroenterology, haematology, psychiatry, neurology, respiratory paediatrics, rheumatology, neonatal medicine, and dentistry. Two groups utilised the Delphi technique, one used the nominal group technique, and one used both methods to reach a consensus about which outcomes should be measured in clinical trials. Other groups used semistructured discussion, and one group used a questionnaire-based survey. The collaborations involved clinical experts, research experts, and industry representatives. Three groups involved parents of children affected by the particular condition.
Conclusions
Very few studies address the appropriate choice of outcomes for clinical research with children, and in most paediatric specialties no research has been undertaken. Among the studies we did assess, very few involved parents or children in selecting outcomes that should be measured, and none directly involved children. Research should be undertaken to identify the best way to involve parents and children in assessing which outcomes should be measured in clinical trials.
Ian Sinha and colleagues show, in a systematic review of published studies, that there are very few studies that address the appropriate choice of outcomes for clinical research with children.
Editors' Summary
Background.
When adult patients are given a drug for a disease by their doctors, they can be sure that its benefits and harms will have been carefully studied in clinical trials. Clinical researchers will have asked how well the drug does when compared to other drugs by giving groups of patients the various treatments and determining several “outcomes.” These are measurements carefully chosen in advance by clinical experts that ensure that trials provide as much information as possible about how effectively a drug deals with a specific disease and whether it has any other effects on patients' health and daily life. The situation is very different, however, for pediatric (child) patients. About three-quarters of the drugs given to children are “off-label”—they have not been specifically tested in children. The assumption used to be that children are just small people who can safely take drugs tested in adults provided the dose is scaled down. However, it is now known that children's bodies handle many drugs differently from adult bodies and that a safe dose for an adult can sometimes kill a child even after scaling down for body size. Consequently, regulatory bodies in the US, Europe, and elsewhere now require clinical trials to be done in children and drugs for pediatric use to be specifically licensed.
Why Was This Study Done?
Because children are not small adults, the methodology used to design trials involving children needs to be adapted from that used to design trials in adult patients. In particular, the process of selecting the outcomes to include in pediatric trials needs to take into account the differences between adults and children. For example, because children's brains are still developing, it may be important to include outcome measures that will detect any effect that drugs have on intellectual development. In this study, therefore, the researchers undertook a systematic review of the medical literature to discover how much is known about the best way to select outcomes in clinical trials in children.
What Did the Researchers Do and Find?
The researchers used a predefined search strategy to identify all the studies published since 1950 that examined the selection of outcomes in clinical trials in children. They also asked experts in pediatric clinical research for details of relevant studies. Only 25 studies, which covered several pediatric specialties and were published by 13 collaborative groups, met the strict eligibility criteria laid down by the researchers for their systematic review. Several approaches previously used to choose outcomes in clinical trials in adults were used in these studies to select outcomes. Two groups used the “Delphi” technique, in which opinions are sought from individuals, collated, and fed back to the individuals to generate discussion and a final, consensus agreement. One group used the “nominal group technique,” which involves the use of structured face-to-face discussions to develop a solution to a problem followed by a vote. Another group used both methods. The remaining groups (except one that used a questionnaire) used semistructured discussion meetings or workshops to decide on outcomes. Although most of the groups included clinical experts, people doing research on the specific clinical condition under investigation, and industry representatives, only three groups asked parents about which outcomes should be included in the trials, and none asked children directly.
What Do These Findings Mean?
These findings indicate that very few studies have addressed the selection of appropriate outcomes for clinical research in children. Indeed, in many pediatric specialties no research has been done on this important topic. Importantly, some of the studies included in this systematic review clearly show that it is inappropriate to use the outcomes used in adult clinical trials in pediatric populations. Overall, although the studies identified in this review provide some useful information on the selection of outcomes in clinical trials in children, further research is urgently needed to ensure that this process is made easier and more uniform. In particular, much more research must be done to determine the best way to involve children and their parents in the selection of outcomes.
Additional Information.
Please access these Web sites via the online version of this summary at http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0050096.
A related PLoSMedicine Perspective article is available
The European Medicines Agency provides information about the regulation of medicines for children in Europe
The US Food and Drug Administration Office of Pediatric Therapeutics provides similar information for the US
The UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency also provides information on why medicines need to be tested in children
The UK Medicines for Children Research Network aims to facilitate the conduct of clinical trials of medicines for children
The James Lind Alliance has been established in the UK to increase patient involvement in medical research issues such as outcome selection in clinical trials
doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0050096
PMCID: PMC2346505  PMID: 18447577
6.  Noninvasive Positive Pressure Ventilation for Chronic Respiratory Failure Patients With Stable Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) 
Executive Summary
In July 2010, the Medical Advisory Secretariat (MAS) began work on a Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) evidentiary framework, an evidence-based review of the literature surrounding treatment strategies for patients with COPD. This project emerged from a request by the Health System Strategy Division of the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care that MAS provide them with an evidentiary platform on the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of COPD interventions.
After an initial review of health technology assessments and systematic reviews of COPD literature, and consultation with experts, MAS identified the following topics for analysis: vaccinations (influenza and pneumococcal), smoking cessation, multidisciplinary care, pulmonary rehabilitation, long-term oxygen therapy, noninvasive positive pressure ventilation for acute and chronic respiratory failure, hospital-at-home for acute exacerbations of COPD, and telehealth (including telemonitoring and telephone support). Evidence-based analyses were prepared for each of these topics. For each technology, an economic analysis was also completed where appropriate. In addition, a review of the qualitative literature on patient, caregiver, and provider perspectives on living and dying with COPD was conducted, as were reviews of the qualitative literature on each of the technologies included in these analyses.
The Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Mega-Analysis series is made up of the following reports, which can be publicly accessed at the MAS website at: http://www.hqontario.ca/en/mas/mas_ohtas_mn.html.
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) Evidentiary Framework
Influenza and Pneumococcal Vaccinations for Patients With Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD): An Evidence-Based Analysis
Smoking Cessation for Patients With Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD): An Evidence-Based Analysis
Community-Based Multidisciplinary Care for Patients With Stable Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD): An Evidence-Based Analysis
Pulmonary Rehabilitation for Patients With Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD): An Evidence-Based Analysis
Long-term Oxygen Therapy for Patients With Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD): An Evidence-Based Analysis
Noninvasive Positive Pressure Ventilation for Acute Respiratory Failure Patients With Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD): An Evidence-Based Analysis
Noninvasive Positive Pressure Ventilation for Chronic Respiratory Failure Patients With Stable Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD): An Evidence-Based Analysis
Hospital-at-Home Programs for Patients With Acute Exacerbations of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD): An Evidence-Based Analysis
Home Telehealth for Patients With Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD): An Evidence-Based Analysis
Cost-Effectiveness of Interventions for Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Using an Ontario Policy Model
Experiences of Living and Dying With COPD: A Systematic Review and Synthesis of the Qualitative Empirical Literature
For more information on the qualitative review, please contact Mita Giacomini at: http://fhs.mcmaster.ca/ceb/faculty_member_giacomini.htm.
For more information on the economic analysis, please visit the PATH website: http://www.path-hta.ca/About-Us/Contact-Us.aspx.
The Toronto Health Economics and Technology Assessment (THETA) collaborative has produced an associated report on patient preference for mechanical ventilation. For more information, please visit the THETA website: http://theta.utoronto.ca/static/contact.
Objective
The objective of this health technology assessment was to determine the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of noninvasive ventilation for stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).
Clinical Need: Condition and Target Population
Noninvasive ventilation is used for COPD patients with chronic respiratory failure. Chronic respiratory failure in COPD patients may be due to the inability of the pulmonary system to coordinate ventilation, leading to adverse arterial levels of oxygen and carbon dioxide. Noninvasive ventilation in stable COPD patients has the potential to improve quality of life, prolong survival, and improve gas exchange and sleep quality in patients who are symptomatic after optimal therapy, have hypercapnia or nocturnal hypoventilation and mild hypercapnia, and are frequently hospitalized.
Technology
Noninvasive positive pressure ventilation (NPPV) is any form of positive ventilatory support without the use of an endotracheal tube. For stable COPD, the standard of care when using noninvasive ventilation is bilevel positive airway pressure (BiPAP). Bilevel positive airway pressure involves both inspiratory and expiratory pressure, high during inspiration and lower during expiration. It acts as a pressure support to accentuate a patient’s inspiratory efforts. The gradient between pressures maintains alveolar ventilation and helps to reduce carbon dioxide levels. Outpatients typically use BiPAP at night. Additional advantages of using BiPAP include resting of respiratory muscles, decreased work of breathing, and control of obstructive hypopnea.
Research Question
What is the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of noninvasive ventilation, compared with no ventilation while receiving usual care, for stable COPD patients?
Research Methods
Literature Search
Search Strategy
A literature search was performed on December 3, 2010, using OVID MEDLINE, OVID MEDLINE In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, OVID EMBASE, EBSCO Cumulative Index to Nursing & Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), the Wiley Cochrane Library, and the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination database for studies published from January 1, 2004 to December 3, 2010. Abstracts were reviewed by a single reviewer and, for those studies meeting the eligibility criteria, full-text articles were obtained. Reference lists were also examined for any additional relevant studies not identified through the search. When the reviewer was unsure of the eligibility of articles, a second clinical epidemiologist and then a group of epidemiologists reviewed these until consensus was reached.
Inclusion Criteria
full-text English language articles,
studies published between January 1, 2004 and December 3, 2010,
journal articles that report on the effectiveness or cost-effectiveness of noninvasive ventilation,
clearly described study design and methods, and
health technology assessments, systematic reviews, meta-analyses, randomized controlled trials (RCTs).
Exclusion Criteria
non-English papers
animal or in vitro studies
case reports, case series, or case-case studies
cross-over RCTs
studies on noninvasive negative pressure ventilation (e.g., iron lung)
studies that combine ventilation therapy with other regimens (e.g., daytime NPPV plus exercise or pulmonary rehabilitation)
studies on heliox with NPPV
studies on pulmonary rehabilitation with NPPV
Outcomes of Interest
mortality/survival
hospitalizations/readmissions
length of stay in hospital
forced expiratory volume
arterial partial pressure of oxygen
arterial partial pressure of carbon dioxide
dyspnea
exercise tolerance
health-related quality of life
Note: arterial pressure of oxygen and carbon dioxide are surrogate outcomes.
Statistical Methods
A meta-analysis and an analysis of individual studies were performed using Review Manager Version 5. For continuous data, a mean difference was calculated, and for dichotomous data, a relative risk ratio was calculated for RCTs. For continuous variables with mean baseline and mean follow-up data, a change value was calculated as the difference between the 2 mean values.
Quality of Evidence
The quality of each included study was assessed taking into consideration allocation concealment, randomization, blinding, power/sample size, withdrawals/dropouts, and intention-to-treat analyses.
The quality of the body of evidence was assessed as high, moderate, low, or very low according to the GRADE Working Group criteria. The following definitions of quality were used in grading the quality of the evidence:
Summary of Findings
Conclusions
The following conclusions refer to stable, severe COPD patients receiving usual care.
Short-Term Studies
Based on low quality of evidence, there is a beneficial effect of NPPV compared with no ventilation on oxygen gas exchange, carbon dioxide gas exchange, and exercise tolerance measured using the 6 Minute Walking Test.
Based on very low quality of evidence, there is no effect of NPPV therapy on lung function measured as forced expiratory volume in 1 second (Type II error not excluded).
Long-Term Studies
Based on moderate quality of evidence, there is no effect of NPPV therapy for the outcomes of mortality, lung function measured as forced expiratory volume in 1 second, and exercise tolerance measured using the 6 Minute Walking Test.
Based on low quality of evidence, there is no effect of NPPV therapy for the outcomes of oxygen gas exchange and carbon dioxide gas exchange (Type II error not excluded).
Qualitative Assessment
Based on low quality of evidence, there is a beneficial effect of NPPV compared with no ventilation for dyspnea based on reduced Borg score or Medical Research Council dyspnea score.
Based on moderate quality of evidence, there is no effect of NPPV therapy for hospitalizations.
Health-related quality of life could not be evaluated.
PMCID: PMC3384378  PMID: 23074437
7.  Publication trends in newspapers and scientific journals for SSRIs and suicidality: a systematic longitudinal study 
BMJ Open  2011;1(2):e000290.
Background
In the period 2003–2008, the regulatory authorities issued several warnings restricting the use of selective serotonin re-uptake inhibitors (SSRIs) in paediatrics, in reaction to safety concerns regarding the risk of suicidality. In this study, the SSRIs and suicidality controversy serves as a template to analyse the long-term publication trends regarding the benefit/risk profile of medications. The aim is to ascertain differences (in terms of numbers, categories and timing) between negative and positive newspaper and journal articles on SSRIs and suicidality and to ascertain correlations between changes in the reports and regulatory warnings.
Methods
A systematic review of scientific articles (Embase) and the Netherlands (NL) and the UK newspapers (LexisNexis) was performed between 2000 and 2010. Categorisation was done by ‘effect’ (related treatment effect), ‘type of article’ and ‘age group’. The articles' positive-to-negative effect ratio was determined. Differences in distribution of effect categories were analysed across sources, type of article and age group using the Mann–Whitney (two subgroups) or Kruskal–Wallis test (three or more).
Findings
In total, 1141 articles were categorised: 352 scientific, 224 Dutch and 565 British newspaper articles. Scientific articles were predominantly on research and were positive, whereas newspaper articles were negative (ratios=3.50—scientific, 0.69—NL and 0.94—UK; p<0.001). Articles on paediatrics were less positive in scientific journals and more negative in newspapers (ratios=2.29—scientific, 0.26—NL and 0.20—UK; p<0.001), while articles on adults were positive overall (ratios=10.0—scientific, 1.06—NL and 1.70—UK; p<0.001). In addition, negative-effect reporting trends were exacerbated following regulatory warnings and were generally opinion articles, both in scientific journals and in newspapers (2003/2004 and after 2007).
Interpretation
The authors found a positive publication tendency inherent in journal research articles. This apparent positive publication bias present in scientific journals, however, does not seem to prevent the dissemination of ‘bad’ news about medications. The negative tendency present in Dutch and British newspapers was perceivable in the paediatrics group and during the warnings, indicating that national news media have informed the public about this international drug safety controversy on time.
Article summary
Article focus
Publication trends of the benefit/risk profile of medications might differ in time and during a drug safety case.
We analysed the long-term dynamics of publication trends in the context of the SSRIs and suicidality controversy.
The number of articles (in terms of positive, negative and neutral, as well as the type of article and age groups) were analysed in scientific journals and the Netherlands and the UK dailies from January 2000 to December 2009.
Key messages
We found a positive publication tendency in scientific journals that did not influence the dissemination of negative news in newspapers in the Netherlands and the UK.
The negative tendency in newspapers was predominant in paediatrics and during the warnings.
The public was informed on time about this drug safety controversy, although the information conveyed was not uniform (from scientific journals to newspapers).
Strengths and limitations of this study
Definition of the categories is limited by the researchers' criteria.
Two independent scorers reviewed the articles to avoid subjectivity during scoring.
More than 95% agreements between both research scorers were documented.
doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2011-000290
PMCID: PMC3236820  PMID: 22146889
8.  Acupuncture for glaucoma 
Background
Glaucoma is a multifactorial optic neuropathy characterized by an acquired loss of retinal ganglion cells at levels beyond normal age-related loss and corresponding atrophy of the optic nerve. Although many treatments are available to manage glaucoma, glaucoma is a chronic condition. Some patients may seek complementary or alternative medicine approaches such as acupuncture to supplement their regular treatment. The underlying plausibility of acupuncture is that disorders related to the flow of Chi (the traditional Chinese concept translated as vital force or energy) can be prevented or treated by stimulating relevant points on the body surface.
Objectives
The objective of this review was to assess the effectiveness and safety of acupuncture in people with glaucoma.
Search methods
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Group Trials Register) (The Cochrane Library 2012, Issue 12), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid MEDLINE In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE Daily, Ovid OLDMEDLINE (January 1946 to January 2013), EMBASE (January 1980 to January 2013), Latin American and Caribbean Literature on Health Sciences (LILACS) (January 1982 to January 2013), Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) (January 1937 to January 2013), ZETOC (January 1993 to January 2013), Allied and Complementary Medicine Database (AMED) (January 1985 to January 2013), the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) (www.controlled-trials.com), ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov), the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (IC-TRP) (www.who.int/ictrp/search/en) and the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine web site (NCCAM) (http://nccam.nih.gov). We did not use any language or date restrictions in the search for trials. We last searched the electronic databases on 8 January 2013 with the exception of NCCAM which was last searched on 14 July 2010. We also handsearched Chinese medical journals at Peking Union Medical College Library in April 2007.
We searched the Chinese Acupuncture Trials Register, the Traditional Chinese Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System (TCMLARS), and the Chinese Biological Database (CBM) for the original review; we did not search these databases for the 2013 review update.
Selection criteria
We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in which one arm of the study involved acupuncture treatment.
Data collection and analysis
Two authors independently evaluated the search results and then full text articles against the eligibility criteria. We resolved discrepancies by discussion.
Main results
We included one completed and one ongoing trial, and recorded seven trials awaiting assessment for eligibility. These seven trials were written in Chinese and were identified from a systematic review on the same topic published in a Chinese journal. The completed trial compared auricular acupressure- a nonstandard acupuncture technique- with the sham procedure for glaucoma. This trial is rated at high risk of bias for masking of outcome assessors, unclear risk of bias for selective outcome reporting, and low risk of bias for other domains. The difference in intraocular pressure (measured in mm Hg) in the acupressure group was significantly less than that in the sham group at four weeks (−3.70, 95% confidence interval [CI] −7.11 to −0.29 for the right eye; −4.90, 95% CI −8.08 to −1.72 for the left eye), but was not statistically different at any other follow-up time points, including the longest follow-up time at eight weeks. No statistically significant difference in visual acuity was noted at any follow-up time points. The ongoing trial was registered with the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) of the World Health Organization. To date this trial has not recruited any participants.
Authors’ conclusions
At this time, it is impossible to draw reliable conclusions from available data to support the use of acupuncture for the treatment of glaucoma. Because of ethical considerations, RCTs comparing acupuncture alone with standard glaucoma treatment or placebo are unlikely to be justified in countries where the standard of care has already been established. Because most glaucoma patients currently cared for by ophthalmologists do not use nontraditional therapy, clinical practice decisions will have to be based on physician judgments and patient preferences, given this lack of data in the literature. Inclusion of the seven Chinese trials in future updates of this review may change our conclusions.
doi:10.1002/14651858.CD006030.pub3
PMCID: PMC4260653  PMID: 23728656
Acupuncture Therapy [*methods]; Acupuncture, Ear; Glaucoma [*therapy]; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Humans
9.  Reporting Characteristics of Cancer Pain: A Systematic Review and Quantitative Analysis of Research Publications in Palliative Care Journals 
Objective:
A common disorder requiring symptom palliation in palliative and end-of-life care is cancer. Cancer pain is recognized as a global health burden. This paper sought to systematically examine the extent to which there is an adequate scientific research base on cancer pain and its reporting characteristics in the palliative care journal literature.
Materials and Methods:
Search conducted in MEDLINE and CINAHL sought to locate all studies published in 19 palliative/ hospice/ supportive/ end-of-life care journals from 2009 to 2010. The journals included were: American Journal of Hospice and Palliative Care, BMC Palliative Care, Current Opinion in Supportive and Palliative Care, End of Life Care Journal, European Journal of Palliative Care, Hospice Management Advisor, Indian Journal of Palliative Care, International Journal of Palliative Nursing, Internet Journal of Pain Symptom Control and Palliative Care, Journal of Pain and Palliative Care Pharmacotherapy, Journal of Palliative Care, Journal of Palliative Medicine, Journal of Social Work in End-of-life and Palliative Care, Journal of Supportive Oncology, Palliative Medicine, Palliative and Supportive Care, and Supportive Care in Cancer. Journal contents were searched to identify studies that included cancer pain in abstract.
Results:
During the years 2009 and 2010, of the selected 1,569 articles published in the journals reviewed, only 5.86% (92 articles) were on cancer pain.
Conclusion:
While researchers in the field of palliative care have studied cancer pain, the total percentage for studies is still a low 5.86%. To move the field of palliative care forward so that appropriate guidelines for cancer pain management can be developed, it is critical that more research be reported upon which to base cancer pain therapy in an evidence-based palliative care model.
doi:10.4103/0973-1075.78451
PMCID: PMC3098545  PMID: 21633623
Cancer pain; Palliative care research; Reporting characteristics
10.  A study on literature obsolescence and core journals’ cost-benefit in citations of the ‘Scientific Medical Journal of Ahwaz’ 
Introduction:
One of the methods of identifying core and popular resources is by citation evaluation. Using citation evaluation, the librarians of the Acquisition Department can use quantitative methods to indentify core and popular resources among numerous information resources and make serious savings in the library's budget, by acquiring these core resources and eliminating useless ones. The aim of this study is assessing literature obsolescence and core journals’ cost-benefit in citations of the ‘Scientific Medical Journal of Ahwaz’.
Materials and Methods:
This study is a descriptive and cross-sectional survey that uses citation analysis. Sampling is objective sampling from all documents from years 1364 (1985) to 1385 (2006), and the population comprises of 6342 citations of the articles published in ‘Scientific Medical Journal of Ahwaz’. Data collection is done through referring to the original documents and the data is analyzed using the Excel software, and for descriptive and analytical statistics the cost-benefit formula and Bradford law formula are used.
Results:
Findings showed that the average citation for each document in the ‘Scientific Medical Journal of Ahwaz’ was 15.81. The average citation to international sources was 14.37, and the average citation to national sources was 1.44. The literature obsolescence of Farsi documents in this study was 15 years, while it was equal to 20 years for English documents. The highly cited Farsi journals were (sorted based on citation in descending order): ‘Scientific Medical Journal of Ahwaz’, ‘Daroudarman’, ‘Nabz,’ and ‘Journal of Medical School, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences’. The highly cited English journals were (sorted based on citation in descending order): ‘Pediatrics’, ‘The New England Journal of Medicine’, ‘Gastroenterology’ and ‘Medicine’. All of these four journals are part of the ISI database and have good impact factors in the Journal Citation Reports (JCR). Also their cost-benefit was reasonable based on the frequency of their use.
Conclusion:
The authors of the investigated journal were more inclined to use international references. The resources used by the authors of this journal are relatively obsolete and the authors ought to use more up-to-date resources. The subscription for high citation English and Farsi journals is still available in this university. Also the authors of this journal have used accredited ISI journals as their resource, which is a sign of the credibility for the ‘Scientific Medical Journal of Ahwaz’.
doi:10.4103/2277-9531.139672
PMCID: PMC4165098  PMID: 25250359
Bradford Law; citation analysis; core journals; cost-benefit; literature obsolescence; Scientific Medical Journal of Ahwaz
11.  Insights into the Management of Emerging Infections: Regulating Variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease Transfusion Risk in the UK and the US 
PLoS Medicine  2006;3(10):e342.
Background
Variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (vCJD) is a human prion disease caused by infection with the agent of bovine spongiform encephalopathy. After the recognition of vCJD in the UK in 1996, many nations implemented policies intended to reduce the hypothetical risk of transfusion transmission of vCJD. This was despite the fact that no cases of transfusion transmission had yet been identified. In December 2003, however, the first case of vCJD in a recipient of blood from a vCJD-infected donor was announced. The aim of this study is to ascertain and compare the factors that influenced the motivation for and the design of regulations to prevent transfusion transmission of vCJD in the UK and US prior to the recognition of this case.
Methods and Findings
A document search was conducted to identify US and UK governmental policy statements and guidance, transcripts (or minutes when transcripts were not available) of scientific advisory committee meetings, research articles, and editorials published in medical and scientific journals on the topic of vCJD and blood transfusion transmission between March 1996 and December 2003. In addition, 40 interviews were conducted with individuals familiar with the decision-making process and/or the science involved. All documents and transcripts were coded and analyzed according to the methods and principles of grounded theory. Data showed that while resulting policies were based on the available science, social and historical factors played a major role in the motivation for and the design of regulations to protect against transfusion transmission of vCJD. First, recent experience with and collective guilt resulting from the transfusion-transmitted epidemics of HIV/AIDS in both countries served as a major, historically specific impetus for such policies. This history was brought to bear both by hemophilia activists and those charged with regulating blood products in the US and UK. Second, local specificities, such as the recall of blood products for possible vCJD contamination in the UK, contributed to a greater sense of urgency and a speedier implementation of regulations in that country. Third, while the results of scientific studies played a prominent role in the construction of regulations in both nations, this role was shaped by existing social and professional networks. In the UK, early focus on a European study implicating B-lymphocytes as the carrier of prion infectivity in blood led to the introduction of a policy that requires universal leukoreduction of blood components. In the US, early focus on an American study highlighting the ability of plasma to serve as a reservoir of prion infectivity led the FDA and its advisory panel to eschew similar measures.
Conclusions
The results of this study yield three important theoretical insights that pertain to the global management of emerging infectious diseases. First, because the perception and management of disease may be shaped by previous experience with disease, especially catastrophic experience, there is always the possibility for over-management of some possible routes of transmission and relative neglect of others. Second, local specificities within a given nation may influence the temporality of decision making, which in turn may influence the choice of disease management policies. Third, a preference for science-based risk management among nations will not necessarily lead to homogeneous policies. This is because the exposure to and interpretation of scientific results depends on the existing social and professional networks within a given nation. Together, these theoretical insights provide a framework for analyzing and anticipating potential conflicts in the international management of emerging infectious diseases. In addition, this study illustrates the utility of qualitative methods in investigating research questions that are difficult to assess through quantitative means.
A qualitative study of US and UK governmental policy statements on the topic of vCJD and blood transfusion transmission identified factors responsible for differences in the policies adopted.
Editors' Summary
Background.
In 1996 in the UK, a new type of human prion disease was seen for the first time. This is now known as variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (vCJD). Prion diseases are rare brain diseases passed from individual to individual (or between animals) by a particular type of wrongly folded protein, and they are fatal. It was suspected that vCJD had passed to humans from cattle, and that the agent causing vCJD was the same as that causing bovine spongiform encephalopathy (or “mad cow disease”). Shortly after vCJD was recognized, authorities in many countries became concerned about the possibility that it could be transmitted from one person to another through contaminated blood supplies used for transfusion in hospitals. Even though there wasn't any evidence of actual transmission of the disease through blood before December 2003, authorities in the UK, US, and elsewhere set up regulations designed to reduce the chance of that happening. At this early stage in the epidemic, there was little in the way of scientific information about the transmission properties of the disease. Both the UK and US, however, sought to make decisions in a scientific manner. They made use of evidence as it was being produced, often before it had been published. Despite this, the UK and US decided on very different changes to their respective regulations on blood donation. Both countries chose to prevent certain people (who they thought would be at greater risk of having vCJD) from donating blood. In the UK, however, the decision was made to remove white blood cells from donated blood to reduce the risk of transmitting vCJD, while the US decided that such a step was not merited by the evidence.
Why Was This Study Done?
This researcher wanted to understand more clearly why the UK and US ended up with different policies: what role was played by science, and what role was played by non-scientific factors? She hoped that insights from this investigation would also be relevant to similar challenges in the future—for example, as many countries try to work out how to control the threat of avian flu.
What Did the Researcher Do and Find?
The researcher searched for all relevant official government documents from the US and UK, as well as scientific papers, published between the time vCJD was first identified (March 1996) and the first instance of vCJD carried through blood (December 2003). She also interviewed people who knew about vCJD management in the US and UK—for example, members of government agencies and the relevant advisory committees. From the documents and interviews, the researcher picked out and grouped shared ideas. Although these documents and interviews suggested that policy making was rooted in scientific evidence, many non-scientific factors were also important. The researcher found substantial uncertainty in the scientific evidence available at the time. The document search and interviews showed that policy makers felt guilty about a previous experience in which people had become infected with HIV/AIDS through contaminated blood and were concerned about repeating this experience. Finally, in the UK, the possibility of blood contamination was seen as a much more urgent problem than in the US, because BSE and vCJD were found there first and there were far more cases. This meant that when the UK made its decision about whether to remove white blood cells from donated blood, there was less scientific evidence available. In fact, the main study that was relied on at the time would later be questioned.
What Do These Findings Mean?
These findings show that for this particular case, science was not the only factor affecting government policies. Historical and social factors such as previous experience, sense of urgency, public pressure, and the relative importance of different scientific networks were also very important. The study predicts that in the future, infectious disease–related policy decisions are unlikely to be the same across different countries because the interpretation of scientific evidence depends, to a large extent, on social factors.
Additional Information.
Please access these Web sites via the online version of this summary at http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0030342.
National Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease Surveillance Unit, Edinburgh, UK
US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention pages about prion diseases
World Health Organization variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease fact sheet
US National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke information about prion diseases
doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0030342
PMCID: PMC1621089  PMID: 17076547
12.  Changes in Association between Previous Therapeutic Abortion and Preterm Birth in Scotland, 1980 to 2008: A Historical Cohort Study 
PLoS Medicine  2013;10(7):e1001481.
Gordon C. Smith and colleagues used national databases to investigate the association between previous termination of pregnancy and preterm birth in Scotland between 1980 to 2008, and whether the type of procedure was an important factor.
Please see later in the article for the Editors' Summary
Background
Numerous studies have demonstrated that therapeutic termination of pregnancy (abortion) is associated with an increased risk of subsequent preterm birth. However, the literature is inconsistent, and methods of abortion have changed dramatically over the last 30 years. We hypothesized that the association between previous abortion and the risk of preterm first birth changed in Scotland between 1 January 1980 and 31 December 2008.
Methods and Findings
We studied linked Scottish national databases of births and perinatal deaths. We analysed the risk of preterm birth in relation to the number of previous abortions in 732,719 first births (≥24 wk), adjusting for maternal characteristics. The risk (adjusted odds ratio [95% CI]) of preterm birth was modelled using logistic regression, and associations were expressed for a one-unit increase in the number of previous abortions. Previous abortion was associated with an increased risk of preterm birth (1.12 [1.09–1.16]). When analysed by year of delivery, the association was strongest in 1980–1983 (1.32 [1.21–1.43]), progressively declined between 1984 and 1999, and was no longer apparent in 2000–2003 (0.98 [0.91–1.05]) or 2004–2008 (1.02 [0.95–1.09]). A statistical test for interaction between previous abortion and year was highly statistically significant (p<0.001). Analysis of data for abortions among nulliparous women in Scotland 1992–2008 demonstrated that the proportion that were surgical without use of cervical pre-treatment decreased from 31% to 0.4%, and that the proportion of medical abortions increased from 18% to 68%.
Conclusions
Previous abortion was a risk factor for spontaneous preterm birth in Scotland in the 1980s and 1990s, but the association progressively weakened and disappeared altogether by 2000. These changes were paralleled by increasing use of medical abortion and cervical pre-treatment prior to surgical abortion. Although it is plausible that the two trends were related, we could not test this directly as the data on the method of prior abortions were not linked to individuals in the cohort. However, we speculate that modernising abortion methods may be an effective long-term strategy to reduce global rates of preterm birth.
Please see later in the article for the Editors' Summary
Editors' Summary
Background
Therapeutic termination of pregnancy is relatively common, with an estimated 40 million procedures performed worldwide every year. Until two decades ago, most terminations were performed as a surgical procedure, but now the majority of terminations are medically induced with a combination of drugs—selective progesterone receptor antagonists, such as mifepristone, and prostaglandins—that cause less damage to the woman's cervix. Although surgical terminations are still performed, nowadays prostaglandins are also used to help prevent damage to the cervix. Protecting the woman's cervix can help to reduce the risk of spontaneous preterm birth (delivery before 37 weeks gestation) in subsequent pregnancies. As many women who have abortions go on to have subsequent births, the widespread use of termination may be a significant factor in the high global rates of preterm delivery.
Why Was This Study Done?
A previous meta-analysis (a study that combines information from several studies) showed that the risk of preterm delivery was higher in women who had had a previous termination compared to women who had not. Based on this meta-analysis, UK guidelines on the care of women requesting a termination currently recommend that they be informed of the increased risk of subsequent preterm birth. However, it is biologically plausible that women undergoing medical termination or current practice for surgical termination (using prostaglandins to protect and prepare the cervix) may not have an increased risk of subsequent preterm delivery, because such approaches may cause less trauma to the cervix than traditional surgical termination. So in this study, the researchers used a large dataset from Scotland with three decades of information about previous terminations and subsequent preterm deliveries to test this possibility.
What Did the Researchers Do and Find?
The researchers linked two national databases—the Scottish Morbidity Record 02 (SMR02), which records the clinical and demographic characteristics and outcomes of all patients giving birth in Scottish maternity hospitals, and the Scottish Stillbirth and Infant Death Survey (SSBIDS), which classifies all perinatal deaths in Scotland. SMR02 data were available from 1980 onwards and also recorded each woman's self-reported total number of previous abortions, and SSBIDS data were available from 1985. Then the researchers used information from NHS National Services Scotland to examine secular trends in terminations over the past few decades, specifically, whether a recorded termination was surgical or medical, and also whether surgical abortion was preceded by cervical preparation.
Using these methods, the researchers identified that there were 757,060 live, singleton first births between 1980 and 2008 and that 56,816 women reported one previous termination, 5,790 women reported two previous terminations, and 822 women reported three previous terminations. In their analysis (adjusted for maternal characteristics) the researchers found that there was an independent association of spontaneous preterm birth, but not induced preterm birth, with previous termination. The researchers calculated that the chance (odds) of spontaneous preterm birth for one, two, and three or more previous abortions was 1.17, 1.51, and 1.64, after adjusting for maternal characteristics, including smoking. Over the time period, the researchers found that the proportion of surgical terminations without use of cervical pre-treatment decreased from 31% in 1992 to 0.4% in 2008, and over the same period the proportion of medical terminations increased from 18% to 68%. These trends are important, because in their analysis by year of delivery, the researchers found that the association between preterm delivery and previous termination was strongest in 1980–1983, progressively declined between 1984 and 1999, and was no longer present from 2000 to 2008.
What Do These Findings Mean?
These findings support the established association between previous termination and preterm delivery. But most importantly, the changes in this association over the past two decades—from strong in 1980–1983 to nonexistent in 2000–2008—a period in which the use of medical termination and pre-treatment of the cervix for surgical termination increased dramatically in Scotland, suggest that surgical termination without cervical pre-treatment is responsible for the increased risk of spontaneous preterm birth: the decrease in the proportion of this procedure over the study period may have led to the disappearance of the established association between previous termination and preterm delivery from 2000 onwards. However, these findings are limited in that the researchers could not directly test whether the two trends were related because they did not have information on the method of previous termination linked to subsequent birth outcome for individual women. However, based on the findings of this study, it is possible that using modern methods of termination of pregnancy (rather than purely surgical methods) could be a factor in reducing global rates of spontaneous preterm delivery in the future.
Additional Information
Please access these websites via the online version of this summary at http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001481.
Wikipedia gives more information about termination of pregnancy (note that Wikipedia is a free online encyclopedia that anyone can edit; available in several languages)
More information is available about the SMR02 dataset used in this study
The World Health Organization gives information on preterm birth
doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1001481
PMCID: PMC3706322  PMID: 23874161
13.  Early dental journalism: a mirror of the development of dentistry as a profession. 
The rise of dentistry from a mechanical trade to a profession has often been attributed to the so-called "triumvirate" of organization, education, and journal literature. This essay focuses on one part of the triumvirate, examining the role of journals in the growth of dentistry as a profession, from the appearance of the first journal in 1839 to the publication of the Index to Dental Literature in 1921. Rather than discussing the history of individual titles, it identifies some of the broader issues and problems that confronted early dental journalism. The evolution of dental journals from trade house publications to independent scientific literature mirrored the movement toward professional status in dentistry during the late 19th and early 20th centuries.
PMCID: PMC227717  PMID: 3902129
14.  Reporting Bias in Drug Trials Submitted to the Food and Drug Administration: Review of Publication and Presentation 
PLoS Medicine  2008;5(11):e217.
Background
Previous studies of drug trials submitted to regulatory authorities have documented selective reporting of both entire trials and favorable results. The objective of this study is to determine the publication rate of efficacy trials submitted to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in approved New Drug Applications (NDAs) and to compare the trial characteristics as reported by the FDA with those reported in publications.
Methods and Findings
This is an observational study of all efficacy trials found in approved NDAs for New Molecular Entities (NMEs) from 2001 to 2002 inclusive and all published clinical trials corresponding to the trials within the NDAs. For each trial included in the NDA, we assessed its publication status, primary outcome(s) reported and their statistical significance, and conclusions. Seventy-eight percent (128/164) of efficacy trials contained in FDA reviews of NDAs were published. In a multivariate model, trials with favorable primary outcomes (OR = 4.7, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.33–17.1, p = 0.018) and active controls (OR = 3.4, 95% CI 1.02–11.2, p = 0.047) were more likely to be published. Forty-one primary outcomes from the NDAs were omitted from the papers. Papers included 155 outcomes that were in the NDAs, 15 additional outcomes that favored the test drug, and two other neutral or unknown additional outcomes. Excluding outcomes with unknown significance, there were 43 outcomes in the NDAs that did not favor the NDA drug. Of these, 20 (47%) were not included in the papers. The statistical significance of five of the remaining 23 outcomes (22%) changed between the NDA and the paper, with four changing to favor the test drug in the paper (p = 0.38). Excluding unknowns, 99 conclusions were provided in both NDAs and papers, nine conclusions (9%) changed from the FDA review of the NDA to the paper, and all nine did so to favor the test drug (100%, 95% CI 72%–100%, p = 0.0039).
Conclusions
Many trials were still not published 5 y after FDA approval. Discrepancies between the trial information reviewed by the FDA and information found in published trials tended to lead to more favorable presentations of the NDA drugs in the publications. Thus, the information that is readily available in the scientific literature to health care professionals is incomplete and potentially biased.
Lisa Bero and colleagues review the publication status of all efficacy trials carried out in support of new drug approvals from 2001 and 2002, and find that a quarter of trials remain unpublished.
Editors' Summary
Background.
All health-care professionals want their patients to have the best available clinical care—but how can they identify the optimum drug or intervention? In the past, clinicians used their own experience or advice from colleagues to make treatment decisions. Nowadays, they rely on evidence-based medicine—the systematic review and appraisal of clinical research findings. So, for example, before a new drug is approved for the treatment of a specific disease in the United States and becomes available for doctors to prescribe, the drug's sponsors (usually a pharmaceutical company) must submit a “New Drug Application” (NDA) to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The NDA tells the story of the drug's development from laboratory and animal studies through to clinical trials, including “efficacy” trials in which the efficacy and safety of the new drug and of a standard drug for the disease are compared by giving groups of patients the different drugs and measuring several key (primary) “outcomes.” FDA reviewers use this evidence to decide whether to approve a drug.
Why Was This Study Done?
Although the information in NDAs is publicly available, clinicians and patients usually learn about new drugs from articles published in medical journals after drug approval. Unfortunately, drug sponsors sometimes publish the results only of the trials in which their drug performed well and in which statistical analyses indicate that the drug's improved performance was a real effect rather than a lucky coincidence. Trials in which a drug did not show a “statistically significant benefit” or where the drug was found to have unwanted side effects often remain unpublished. This “publication bias” means that the scientific literature can contain an inaccurate picture of a drug's efficacy and safety relative to other therapies. This may lead to clinicians preferentially prescribing newer, more expensive drugs that are not necessarily better than older drugs. In this study, the researchers test the hypothesis that not all the trial results in NDAs are published in medical journals. They also investigate whether there are any discrepancies between the trial data included in NDAs and in published articles.
What Did the Researchers Do and Find?
The researchers identified all the efficacy trials included in NDAs for totally new drugs that were approved by the FDA in 2001 and 2002 and searched the scientific literature for publications between July 2006 and June 2007 relating to these trials. Only three-quarters of the efficacy trials in the NDAs were published; trials with favorable outcomes were nearly five times as likely to be published as those without favorable outcomes. Although 155 primary outcomes were in both the papers and the NDAs, 41 outcomes were only in the NDAs. Conversely, 17 outcomes were only in the papers; 15 of these favored the test drug. Of the 43 primary outcomes reported in the NDAs that showed no statistically significant benefit for the test drug, only half were included in the papers; for five of the reported primary outcomes, the statistical significance differed between the NDA and the paper and generally favored the test drug in the papers. Finally, nine out of 99 conclusions differed between the NDAs and the papers; each time, the published conclusion favored the test drug.
What Do These Findings Mean?
These findings indicate that the results of many trials of new drugs are not published 5 years after FDA approval of the drug. Furthermore, unexplained discrepancies between the data and conclusions in NDAs and in medical journals are common and tend to paint a more favorable picture of the new drug in the scientific literature than in the NDAs. Overall, these findings suggest that the information on the efficacy of new drugs that is readily available to clinicians and patients through the published scientific literature is incomplete and potentially biased. The recent introduction in the US and elsewhere of mandatory registration of all clinical trials before they start and of mandatory publication in trial registers of the full results of all the predefined primary outcomes should reduce publication bias over the next few years and should allow clinicians and patients to make fully informed treatment decisions.
Additional Information.
Please access these Web sites via the online version of this summary at http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0050217.
This study is further discussed in a PLoS Medicine Perspective by An-Wen Chan
PLoS Medicine recently published a related article by Ida Sim and colleagues: Lee K, Bacchetti P, Sim I (2008) Publication of clinical trials supporting successful new drug applications: A literature analysis. PLoS Med 5: e191. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0050191
The Food and Drug Administration provides information about drug approval in the US for consumers and for health-care professionals; detailed information about the process by which drugs are approved is on the Web site of the FDA Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (in English and Spanish)
NDAs for approved drugs can also be found on this Web site
The ClinicalTrials.gov Web site provides information about the US National Institutes of Health clinical trial registry, background information about clinical trials, and a fact sheet detailing the requirements of the FDA Amendments Act 2007 for trial registration
The World Health Organization's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform is working toward setting international norms and standards for the reporting of clinical trials (in several languages)
doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0050217
PMCID: PMC2586350  PMID: 19067477
15.  Trial Publication after Registration in ClinicalTrials.Gov: A Cross-Sectional Analysis 
PLoS Medicine  2009;6(9):e1000144.
Joseph Ross and colleagues examine publication rates of clinical trials and find low rates of publication even following registration in Clinicaltrials.gov.
Background
ClinicalTrials.gov is a publicly accessible, Internet-based registry of clinical trials managed by the US National Library of Medicine that has the potential to address selective trial publication. Our objectives were to examine completeness of registration within ClinicalTrials.gov and to determine the extent and correlates of selective publication.
Methods and Findings
We examined reporting of registration information among a cross-section of trials that had been registered at ClinicalTrials.gov after December 31, 1999 and updated as having been completed by June 8, 2007, excluding phase I trials. We then determined publication status among a random 10% subsample by searching MEDLINE using a systematic protocol, after excluding trials completed after December 31, 2005 to allow at least 2 y for publication following completion. Among the full sample of completed trials (n = 7,515), nearly 100% reported all data elements mandated by ClinicalTrials.gov, such as intervention and sponsorship. Optional data element reporting varied, with 53% reporting trial end date, 66% reporting primary outcome, and 87% reporting trial start date. Among the 10% subsample, less than half (311 of 677, 46%) of trials were published, among which 96 (31%) provided a citation within ClinicalTrials.gov of a publication describing trial results. Trials primarily sponsored by industry (40%, 144 of 357) were less likely to be published when compared with nonindustry/nongovernment sponsored trials (56%, 110 of 198; p<0.001), but there was no significant difference when compared with government sponsored trials (47%, 57 of 122; p = 0.22). Among trials that reported an end date, 75 of 123 (61%) completed prior to 2004, 50 of 96 (52%) completed during 2004, and 62 of 149 (42%) completed during 2005 were published (p = 0.006).
Conclusions
Reporting of optional data elements varied and publication rates among completed trials registered within ClinicalTrials.gov were low. Without greater attention to reporting of all data elements, the potential for ClinicalTrials.gov to address selective publication of clinical trials will be limited.
Please see later in the article for the Editors' Summary
Editors' Summary
Background
People assume that whenever they are ill, health care professionals will make sure they get the best available treatment. But how do clinicians know which treatment is most appropriate? In the past, clinicians used their own experience to make treatment decisions. Nowadays, they rely on evidence-based medicine—the systematic review and appraisal of the results of clinical trials, studies that investigate the efficacy and safety of medical interventions in people. However, evidence-based medicine can only be effective if all the results from clinical trials are published promptly in medical journals. Unfortunately, the results of trials in which a new drug did not perform better than existing drugs or in which it had unwanted side effects often remain unpublished or only appear in the public domain many years after the drug has been approved for clinical use by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and other governmental bodies.
Why Was This Study Done?
The extent of this “selective” publication, which can impair evidence-based clinical practice, remains unclear but is thought to be substantial. In this study, the researchers investigate the problem of selective publication by systematically examining the extent of publication of the results of trials registered in ClinicalTrials.gov, a Web-based registry of US and international clinical trials. ClinicalTrials.gov was established in 2000 by the US National Library of Medicine in response to the 1997 FDA Modernization Act. This act required preregistration of all trials of new drugs to provide the public with information about trials in which they might be able to participate. Mandatory data elements for registration in ClinicalTrials.gov initially included the trial's title, the condition studied in the trial, the trial design, and the intervention studied. In September 2007, the FDA Amendments Act expanded the mandatory requirements for registration in ClinicalTrials.gov by making it necessary, for example, to report the trial start date and to report primary and secondary outcomes (the effect of the intervention on predefined clinical measurements) in the registry within 2 years of trial completion.
What Did the Researchers Do and Find?
The researchers identified 7,515 trials that were registered within ClinicalTrials.gov after December 31, 1999 (excluding phase I, safety trials), and whose record indicated trial completion by June 8, 2007. Most of these trials reported all the mandatory data elements that were required by ClinicalTrials.gov before the FDA Amendments Act but reporting of optional data elements was less complete. For example, only two-thirds of the trials reported their primary outcome. Next, the researchers randomly selected 10% of the trials and, after excluding trials whose completion date was after December 31, 2005 (to allow at least two years for publication), determined the publication status of this subsample by systematically searching MEDLINE (an online database of articles published in selected medical and scientific journals). Fewer than half of the trials in the subsample had been published, and the citation for only a third of these publications had been entered into ClinicalTrials.gov. Only 40% of industry-sponsored trials had been published compared to 56% of nonindustry/nongovernment-sponsored trials, a difference that is unlikely to have occurred by chance. Finally, 61% of trials with a completion date before 2004 had been published, but only 42% of trials completed during 2005 had been published.
What Do These Findings Mean?
These findings indicate that, over the period studied, critical trial information was not included in the ClinicalTrials.gov registry. The FDA Amendments Act should remedy some of these shortcomings but only if the accuracy and completeness of the information in ClinicalTrials.gov is carefully monitored. These findings also reveal that registration in ClinicalTrials.gov does not guarantee that trial results will appear in a timely manner in the scientific literature. However, they do not address the reasons for selective publication (which may be, in part, because it is harder to publish negative results than positive results), and they are potentially limited by the methods used to discover whether trial results had been published. Nevertheless, these findings suggest that the FDA, trial sponsors, and the scientific community all need to make a firm commitment to minimize the selective publication of trial results to ensure that patients and clinicians have access to the information they need to make fully informed treatment decisions.
Additional Information
Please access these Web sites via the online version of this summary at http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000144.
PLoS Medicine recently published two related articles on selected publication by Ida Sim and colleagues and by Lisa Bero and colleagues and an editorial discussing the FDA Amendments Act
ClinicalTrials.gov provides information about the US National Institutes of Health clinical trial registry, including background information about clinical trials, and a fact sheet detailing the requirements of the FDA Amendments Act 2007 for trial registration
The US Food and Drug Administration provides further information about drug approval in the US for consumers and health care professionals
doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000144
PMCID: PMC2728480  PMID: 19901971
16.  Assessing the Scientific Research Productivity of a Brazilian Healthcare Institution: A Case Study at the Heart Institute of São Paulo, Brazil 
Clinics (Sao Paulo, Brazil)  2009;64(6):571-576.
INTRODUCTION:
The present study was motivated by the need to systematically assess the research productivity of the Heart Institute (InCor), Medical School of the University of São Paulo, Brazil.
OBJECTIVE:
To explore methodology for the assessment of institutional scientific research productivity.
MATERIALS AND METHODS:
Bibliometric indicators based on searches for author affiliation of original scientific articles or reviews published in journals indexed in the databases Web of Science, MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS and SciELO from January 2000 to December 2003 were used in this study. The retrieved records were analyzed according to the index parameters of the journals and modes of access. The number of citations was used to calculate the institutional impact factor.
RESULTS:
Out of 1253 records retrieved from the five databases, 604 original articles and reviews were analyzed; of these, 246 (41%) articles were published in national journals and 221 (90%) of those were in journals with free online access through SciELO or their own websites. Of the 358 articles published in international journals, 333 (93%) had controlled online access and 223 (67%) were available through the Capes Portal of Journals. The average impact of each article for InCor was 2.224 in the period studied.
CONCLUSION:
A simple and practical methodology to evaluate the scientific production of health research institutions includes searches in the LILACS database for national journals and in MEDLINE and the Web of Science for international journals. The institutional impact factor of articles indexed in the Web of Science may serve as a measure by which to assess and review the scientific productivity of a research institution.
doi:10.1590/S1807-59322009000600013
PMCID: PMC2705144  PMID: 19578662
Bibliometrics; Medical Research; Scientific production indicators; Cardiology; Brazil
17.  Social Isolation in Community-Dwelling Seniors 
Executive Summary
In early August 2007, the Medical Advisory Secretariat began work on the Aging in the Community project, an evidence-based review of the literature surrounding healthy aging in the community. The Health System Strategy Division at the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care subsequently asked the secretariat to provide an evidentiary platform for the ministry’s newly released Aging at Home Strategy.
After a broad literature review and consultation with experts, the secretariat identified 4 key areas that strongly predict an elderly person’s transition from independent community living to a long-term care home. Evidence-based analyses have been prepared for each of these 4 areas: falls and fall-related injuries, urinary incontinence, dementia, and social isolation. For the first area, falls and fall-related injuries, an economic model is described in a separate report.
Please visit the Medical Advisory Secretariat Web site, http://www.health.gov.on.ca/english/providers/program/mas/mas_about.html, to review these titles within the Aging in the Community series.
Aging in the Community: Summary of Evidence-Based Analyses
Prevention of Falls and Fall-Related Injuries in Community-Dwelling Seniors: An Evidence-Based Analysis
Behavioural Interventions for Urinary Incontinence in Community-Dwelling Seniors: An Evidence-Based Analysis
Caregiver- and Patient-Directed Interventions for Dementia: An Evidence-Based Analysis
Social Isolation in Community-Dwelling Seniors: An Evidence-Based Analysis
The Falls/Fractures Economic Model in Ontario Residents Aged 65 Years and Over (FEMOR)
Objective of the Evidence-Based Analysis
The objective was to systematically review interventions aimed at preventing or reducing social isolation and loneliness in community-dwelling seniors, that is, persons ≥ 65 years of age who are not living in long-term care institutions. The analyses focused on the following questions:
Are interventions to reduce social isolation and/or loneliness effective?
Do these interventions improve health, well-being, and/or quality of life?
Do these interventions impact on independent community living by delaying or preventing functional decline or disability?
Do the interventions impact on health care utilization, such as physician visits, emergency visits, hospitalization, or admission to long-term care?
Background: Target Population and Condition
Social and family relationships are a core element of quality of life for seniors, and these relationships have been ranked second, next to health, as the most important area of life. Several related concepts—reduced social contact, being alone, isolation, and feelings of loneliness—have all been associated with a reduced quality of life in older people. Social isolation and loneliness have also been associated with a number of negative outcomes such as poor health, maladaptive behaviour, and depressed mood. Higher levels of loneliness have also been associated with increased likelihood of institutionalization.
Note: It is recognized that the terms “senior” and “elderly” carry a range of meanings for different audiences; this report generally uses the former, but the terms are treated here as essentially interchangeable.
Methods of the Evidence-Based Analysis
The scientific evidence base was evaluated through a systematic literature review. The literature searches were conducted with several computerized bibliographic databases for literature published between January 1980 and February 2008. The search was restricted to English-language reports on human studies and excluded letters, comments and editorials, and case reports. Journal articles eligible for inclusion in the review included those that reported on single, focused interventions directed towards or evaluating social isolation or loneliness; included, in whole or in part, community-dwelling seniors (≥ 65 years); included some quantitative outcome measure on social isolation or loneliness; and included a comparative group. Assessments of current practices were obtained through consultations with various individuals and agencies including the Ontario Community Care Access Centres and the Ontario Assistive Devices Program. An Ontario-based budget impact was also assessed for the identified effective interventions for social isolation.
Findings
A systematic review of the published literature focusing on interventions for social isolation and loneliness in community-dwelling seniors identified 11 quantitative studies. The studies involved European or American populations with diverse recruitment strategies, intervention objectives, and limited follow-up, with cohorts from 10 to 15 years ago involving mainly elderly women less than 75 years of age. The studies involved 2 classes of interventions: in-person group support activities and technology-assisted interventions. These were delivered to diverse targeted groups of seniors such as those with mental distress, physically inactive seniors, low-income groups, and informal caregivers. The interventions were primarily focused on behaviour-based change. Modifying factors (client attitude or preference) and process issues (targeting methods of at-risk subjects, delivery methods, and settings) influenced intervention participation and outcomes.
Both classes of interventions were found to reduce social isolation and loneliness in seniors. Social support groups were found to effectively decrease social isolation for seniors on wait lists for senior apartments and those living in senior citizen apartments. Community-based exercise programs featuring health and wellness for physically inactive community-dwelling seniors also effectively reduced loneliness. Rehabilitation for mild/moderate hearing loss was effective in improving communication disabilities and reducing loneliness in seniors. Interventions evaluated for informal caregivers of seniors with dementia, however, had limited effectiveness for social isolation or loneliness.
Research into interventions for social isolation in seniors has not been broadly based, relative to the diverse personal, social, health, economic, and environmentally interrelated factors potentially affecting isolation. Although rehabilitation for hearing-related disability was evaluated, the systematic review did not locate research on interventions for other common causes of aging-related disability and loneliness, such as vision loss or mobility declines. Despite recent technological advances in e-health or telehealth, controlled studies evaluating technology-assisted interventions for social isolation have examined only basic technologies such as phone- or computer-mediated support groups.
Conclusions
Although effective interventions were identified for social isolation and loneliness in community-dwelling seniors, they were directed at specifically targeted groups and involved only a few of the many potential causes of social isolation. Little research has been directed at identifying effective interventions that influence the social isolation and other burdens imposed upon caregivers, in spite of the key role that caregivers assume in caring for seniors. The evidence on technology-assisted interventions and their effects on the social health and well-being of seniors and their caregivers is limited, but increasing demand for home health care and the need for efficiencies warrant further exploration. Interventions for social isolation in community-dwelling seniors need to be researched more broadly in order to develop effective, appropriate, and comprehensive strategies for at-risk populations.
PMCID: PMC3377559  PMID: 23074510
18.  Herpes Zoster Vaccine Effectiveness against Incident Herpes Zoster and Post-herpetic Neuralgia in an Older US Population: A Cohort Study 
PLoS Medicine  2013;10(4):e1001420.
Sinead Marie Langan and colleagues studied a cohort of more than 750,000 individuals over the age of 65 years to assess whether herpes zoster vaccine is effective against incident zoster and post-herpetic neuralgia in an older population.
Background
Herpes zoster is common and has serious consequences, notably post-herpetic neuralgia (PHN). Vaccine efficacy against incident zoster and PHN has been demonstrated in clinical trials, but effectiveness has not been studied in unselected general populations unrestricted by region, full health insurance coverage, or immune status. Our objective was to assess zoster vaccine effectiveness (VE) against incident zoster and PHN in a general population-based setting.
Methods and Findings
A cohort study of 766,330 fully eligible individuals aged ≥65 years was undertaken in a 5% random sample of Medicare who received and did not receive zoster vaccination between 1st January 2007 and 31st December 2009.
Incidence rates and hazard ratios for zoster and PHN were determined in vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals. Analyses were adjusted for age, gender, race, low income, immunosuppression, and important comorbidities associated with zoster, and then stratified by immunosuppression status. Adjusted hazard ratios were estimated using time-updated Cox proportional hazards models.
Vaccine uptake was low (3.9%) particularly among black people (0.3%) and those with evidence of low income (0.6%). 13,112 US Medicare beneficiaries developed incident zoster; the overall zoster incidence rate was 10.0 (9.8–10.2) per 1,000 person-years in the unvaccinated group and 5.4 (95% CI 4.6–6.4) per 1,000 person-years in vaccinees, giving an adjusted VE against incident zoster of 0.48 (95% CI 0.39–0.56). In immunosuppressed individuals, VE against zoster was 0.37 (95% CI 0.06–0.58). VE against PHN was 0.59 (95% CI 0.21–0.79).
Conclusions
Vaccine uptake was low with variation in specific patient groups. In a general population cohort of older individuals, zoster vaccination was associated with reduction in incident zoster, including among those with immunosuppression. Importantly, this study demonstrates that zoster vaccination is associated with a reduction in PHN.
Please see later in the article for the Editors' Summary
Editors' Summary
Background
Chickenpox is an extremely common childhood infectious disease that is caused by the herpes varicella-zoster virus. Children usually recover quickly from chickenpox, but dormant varicella-zoster virus persists throughout life inside the nervous system. The dormant virus causes no symptoms but if it becomes reactivated, it causes shingles (zoster), a painful skin rash. Anyone who has had chickenpox can develop shingles but shingles is most common and most severe in 60–80-year-old people. Indeed, about half of people who live to 85 will have an episode of shingles. Early signs of shingles include burning or shooting pain and tingling or itching. Blister-like sores, which last from 1–14 days, then develop in a region of one side of the body or on one side of the face. The pain of shingles can be debilitating and can continue after the rash disappears—“post-herpetic neuralgia,” which can last for months to years, greatly reduces the quality of life. There is no cure for shingles but early treatment with antivirals may help to prevent lingering pain by inhibiting viral replication.
Why Was This Study Done?
Shingles vaccination can prevent shingles or lessen its effects. In clinical trials, vaccination reduced the incidence of shingles (the proportion of a population who develop shingles in a year) and the incidence of post-herpetic neuralgia, and vaccination against shingles is now recommended in the US for everyone over the age of 60 except individuals with a weakened immune system (for example, people with HIV/AIDS). However, these clinical trials determined the vaccine's efficacy in selected populations under controlled conditions. How effective is the vaccine in unselected populations in routine clinical use? In this cohort study, the researchers assess zoster (shingles) vaccine effectiveness against incident shingles and post-herpetic neuralgia in an unselected population of older individuals in the US. A cohort study follows a group of individuals who differ with respect to specific factors (in this study, vaccination against shingles) to determine how these factors affect the rates of specific outcomes (shingles and post-herpetic neuralgia).
What Did the Researchers Do and Find?
The researchers undertook their cohort study in 766,330 randomly chosen Medicare beneficiaries aged 65 years or more. Medicare is a US government health insurance scheme that mainly helps to pay the health care costs of people aged 65 or older. The researchers used Medicare administrative data to identify which cohort members received zoster vaccination between January 2007 and December 2009 and which developed incident shingles (defined as a first diagnosis of shingles combined with the use of antivirals) or post-herpetic neuralgia (defined as a code for post-herpetic neuralgia, non-specific neuralgia, or a second diagnostic code for shingles 90 days after the first diagnosis combined with a prescription for pain relief, an anticonvulsant, or an antidepressant). Vaccine uptake was low in this unselected study population—only 3.9% of the participants were vaccinated. The vaccination rate was particularly low among black people (0.6% of person-time) and among people with a low income (0.3%). About 13,000 participants developed incident shingles. The shingles incidence rate was 10.0 per 1,000 person-years among unvaccinated participants and 5.4 per 1,000 person-years among vaccinated participants. Vaccine effectiveness against incident shingles was 48%. That is, vaccination reduced the incidence of shingles by 48% (in other words, approximately half as many vaccinated individuals developed shingles as those who were not vaccinated). Vaccine effectiveness against incident shingles among immunosuppressed individuals was lower (37%). Finally, vaccine effectiveness against post-herpetic neuralgia was 59%.
What Do These Findings Mean?
These findings show that shingles vaccine uptake is low among elderly people in the US and varies between different patient groups. They show that shingles vaccination is effective against incident shingles in a general population of older individuals, including those who are immunosuppressed, and suggest that shingles vaccination is effective against post-herpetic neuralgia. However, because these findings rely on administrative data, their accuracy may be affected by misclassification of vaccination and of outcomes. Moreover, because shingles vaccination was not randomized, the vaccinated individuals might have shared other characteristics that were actually responsible for their lower incidence of shingles and/or post-herpetic neuralgia compared to unvaccinated individuals. Despite these limitations, these findings provide useful information for policy makers in countries that are currently considering the introduction of shingles vaccination into routine practice. Moreover, they highlight the need to increase shingles vaccination among elderly individuals in the US, the section of the population at the highest risk of post-herpetic neuralgia.
Additional Information
Please access these Web sites via the online version of this summary at http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001420.
The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have detailed information about all aspects of shingles (zoster), including information on vaccination for the public and for health care professionals, and a personal story about shingles
The NIH Senior Health website includes information on shingles and a video describing a personal experience of shingles
The UK National Health Service Choices also provides information about all aspects of shingles and a personal story
MedlinePlus provides links to other resources about shingles (in English and Spanish)
The British Association of Dermatologists website has an information leaflet on shingles
The New Zealand Dermatological Society website has a leaflet on shingles
doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1001420
PMCID: PMC3621740  PMID: 23585738
19.  Misrepresentation of Randomized Controlled Trials in Press Releases and News Coverage: A Cohort Study 
PLoS Medicine  2012;9(9):e1001308.
A study conducted by Amélie Yavchitz and colleagues examines the factors associated with “spin” (specific reporting strategies, intentional or unintentional, that emphasize the beneficial effect of treatments) in press releases of clinical trials.
Background
Previous studies indicate that in published reports, trial results can be distorted by the use of “spin” (specific reporting strategies, intentional or unintentional, emphasizing the beneficial effect of the experimental treatment). We aimed to (1) evaluate the presence of “spin” in press releases and associated media coverage; and (2) evaluate whether findings of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) based on press releases and media coverage are misinterpreted.
Methods and Findings
We systematically searched for all press releases indexed in the EurekAlert! database between December 2009 and March 2010. Of the 498 press releases retrieved and screened, we included press releases for all two-arm, parallel-group RCTs (n = 70). We obtained a copy of the scientific article to which the press release related and we systematically searched for related news items using Lexis Nexis.
“Spin,” defined as specific reporting strategies (intentional or unintentional) emphasizing the beneficial effect of the experimental treatment, was identified in 28 (40%) scientific article abstract conclusions and in 33 (47%) press releases. From bivariate and multivariable analysis assessing the journal type, funding source, sample size, type of treatment (drug or other), results of the primary outcomes (all nonstatistically significant versus other), author of the press release, and the presence of “spin” in the abstract conclusion, the only factor associated, with “spin” in the press release was “spin” in the article abstract conclusions (relative risk [RR] 5.6, [95% CI 2.8–11.1], p<0.001). Findings of RCTs based on press releases were overestimated for 19 (27%) reports. News items were identified for 41 RCTs; 21 (51%) were reported with “spin,” mainly the same type of “spin” as those identified in the press release and article abstract conclusion. Findings of RCTs based on the news item was overestimated for ten (24%) reports.
Conclusion
“Spin” was identified in about half of press releases and media coverage. In multivariable analysis, the main factor associated with “spin” in press releases was the presence of “spin” in the article abstract conclusion.
Editors' Summary
Background
The mass media play an important role in disseminating the results of medical research. Every day, news items in newspapers and magazines and on the television, radio, and internet provide the general public with information about the latest clinical studies. Such news items are written by journalists and are often based on information in “press releases.” These short communications, which are posted on online databases such as EurekAlert! and sent directly to journalists, are prepared by researchers or more often by the drug companies, funding bodies, or institutions supporting the clinical research and are designed to attract favorable media attention to newly published research results. Press releases provide journalists with the information they need to develop and publish a news story, including a link to the peer-reviewed journal (a scholarly periodical containing articles that have been judged by independent experts) in which the research results appear.
Why Was This Study Done?
In an ideal world, journal articles, press releases, and news stories would all accurately reflect the results of health research. Unfortunately, the findings of randomized controlled trials (RCTs—studies that compare the outcomes of patients randomly assigned to receive alternative interventions), which are the best way to evaluate new treatments, are sometimes distorted in peer-reviewed journals by the use of “spin”—reporting that emphasizes the beneficial effects of the experimental (new) treatment. For example, a journal article may interpret nonstatistically significant differences as showing the equivalence of two treatments although such results actually indicate a lack of evidence for the superiority of either treatment. “Spin” can distort the transposition of research into clinical practice and, when reproduced in the mass media, it can give patients unrealistic expectations about new treatments. It is important, therefore, to know where “spin” occurs and to understand the effects of that “spin”. In this study, the researchers evaluate the presence of “spin” in press releases and associated media coverage and analyze whether the interpretation of RCT results based on press releases and associated news items could lead to the misinterpretation of RCT results.
What Did the Researchers Do and Find?
The researchers identified 70 press releases indexed in EurekAlert! over a 4-month period that described two-arm, parallel-group RCTs. They used Lexis Nexis, a database of news reports from around the world, to identify associated news items for 41 of these press releases and then analyzed the press releases, news items, and abstracts of the scientific articles related to each press release for “spin”. Finally, they interpreted the results of the RCTs using each source of information independently. Nearly half the press releases and article abstract conclusions contained “spin” and, importantly, “spin” in the press releases was associated with “spin” in the article abstracts. The researchers overestimated the benefits of the experimental treatment from the press release as compared to the full-text peer-reviewed article for 27% of reports. Factors that were associated with this overestimation of treatment benefits included publication in a specialized journal and having “spin” in the press release. Of the news items related to press releases, half contained “spin”, usually of the same type as identified in the press release and article abstract. Finally, the researchers overestimated the benefit of the experimental treatment from the news item as compared to the full-text peer-reviewed article in 24% of cases.
What Do These Findings Mean?
These findings show that “spin” in press releases and news reports is related to the presence of “spin” in the abstract of peer-reviewed reports of RCTs and suggest that the interpretation of RCT results based solely on press releases or media coverage could distort the interpretation of research findings in a way that favors experimental treatments. This interpretation shift is probably related to the presence of “spin” in peer-reviewed article abstracts, press releases, and news items and may be partly responsible for a mismatch between the perceived and real beneficial effects of new treatments among the general public. Overall, these findings highlight the important role that journal reviewers and editors play in disseminating research findings. These individuals, the researchers conclude, have a responsibility to ensure that the conclusions reported in the abstracts of peer-reviewed articles are appropriate and do not over-interpret the results of clinical research.
Additional Information
Please access these Web sites via the online version of this summary at http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001308.
The PLOS Hub for Clinical Trials, which collects PLOS journals relating to clinical trials, includes some other articles on “spin” in clinical trial reports
EurekAlert is an online free database for science press releases
The UK National Health Service Choices website includes Beyond the Headlines, a resource that provides an unbiased and evidence-based analysis of health stories that make the news for both the public and health professionals
The US-based organization HealthNewsReview, a project supported by the Foundation for Informed Medical Decision Making, also provides expert reviews of news stories
doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1001308
PMCID: PMC3439420  PMID: 22984354
20.  Cardiovascular Risk with Non-Steroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs: Systematic Review of Population-Based Controlled Observational Studies 
PLoS Medicine  2011;8(9):e1001098.
David Henry and colleagues reevaluate the evidence from observational studies on the cardiovascular risk associated with non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs.
Background
Randomised trials have highlighted the cardiovascular risks of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) in high doses and sometimes atypical settings. Here, we provide estimates of the comparative risks with individual NSAIDs at typical doses in community settings.
Methods and Findings
We performed a systematic review of community-based controlled observational studies. We conducted comprehensive literature searches, extracted adjusted relative risk (RR) estimates, and pooled the estimates for major cardiovascular events associated with use of individual NSAIDs, in different doses, and in populations with low and high background risks of cardiovascular events. We also compared individual drugs in pair-wise (within study) analyses, generating ratios of RRs (RRRs). Thirty case-control studies included 184,946 cardiovascular events, and 21 cohort studies described outcomes in >2.7 million exposed individuals. Of the extensively studied drugs (ten or more studies), the highest overall risks were seen with rofecoxib, 1.45 (95% CI 1.33, 1.59), and diclofenac, 1.40 (1.27, 1.55), and the lowest with ibuprofen, 1.18 (1.11, 1.25), and naproxen, 1.09 (1.02, 1.16). In a sub-set of studies, risk was elevated with low doses of rofecoxib, 1.37 (1.20, 1.57), celecoxib, 1.26 (1.09, 1.47), and diclofenac, 1.22 (1.12, 1.33), and rose in each case with higher doses. Ibuprofen risk was seen only with higher doses. Naproxen was risk-neutral at all doses. Of the less studied drugs etoricoxib, 2.05 (1.45, 2.88), etodolac, 1.55 (1.28, 1.87), and indomethacin, 1.30 (1.19, 1.41), had the highest risks. In pair-wise comparisons, etoricoxib had a higher RR than ibuprofen, RRR = 1.68 (99% CI 1.14, 2.49), and naproxen, RRR = 1.75 (1.16, 2.64); etodolac was not significantly different from naproxen and ibuprofen. Naproxen had a significantly lower risk than ibuprofen, RRR = 0.92 (0.87, 0.99). RR estimates were constant with different background risks for cardiovascular disease and rose early in the course of treatment.
Conclusions
This review suggests that among widely used NSAIDs, naproxen and low-dose ibuprofen are least likely to increase cardiovascular risk. Diclofenac in doses available without prescription elevates risk. The data for etoricoxib were sparse, but in pair-wise comparisons this drug had a significantly higher RR than naproxen or ibuprofen. Indomethacin is an older, rather toxic drug, and the evidence on cardiovascular risk casts doubt on its continued clinical use.
Please see later in the article for the Editors' Summary
Editors' Summary
Background
The analgesic (pain relieving), anti-pyretic (fever reducing), and anti-inflammatory (inflammation reducing) properties of the class of drug called non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs)—so called to distinguish this class of drug from steroids, which have similar but additional effects—make NSAIDs one of the most frequently used drugs for the symptomatic treatment of many common conditions. Some preparations of NSAIDs can be bought over the counter, and all are available on prescription, but this class of drug has well documented side effects and risks: people taking NSAIDs are on average four times more likely to develop gastrointestinal complications than people not taking these drugs (that is, the relative risk of gastrointestinal complications is 4), and the relative risk for associated cardiovascular complications—cardiovascular events during treatment with NSAIDs has been one of the most studied adverse drug reactions in history—ranges from 1.0 to 2.0.
Why Was This Study Done?
Several large systematic reviews, including one conducted by these researchers, have previously highlighted apparent differences in cardiovascular risk between individual drugs, but these reviews have provided limited information on dose effects and relevant patient characteristics and have not directly compared the cardiovascular risks of each drug. Furthermore, most of these analyses extensively investigated only a few drugs, with little information on some widely available compounds, such as etoricoxib, etodolac, meloxicam, indomethacin, and piroxicam. Therefore, the researchers conducted this study to update cardiovascular risk estimates for all currently available NSAIDs and to compare the risks between individual drugs. In order to investigate the likely effects of over-the-counter use of NSAIDS, the researchers also wanted to include in their review an analysis of the cardiovascular risk at low doses of relevant drugs, over short time periods, and in low risk populations.
What Did the Researchers Do and Find?
The researchers included only controlled observational studies in their literature search and review (conducted by searching a wide range of databases for studies published from 1985 until November 2010) because randomized controlled trials have reported only small numbers of cardiovascular events that are insufficient for the purposes of this study. The researchers assessed the methodological quality of selected studies, analyzed adjustment variables (for example, age, sex, other medications), and summarized overall results for individual drugs across studies as pooled relative risk estimates. For the subsets of studies that provided relevant data, they pooled within-study relative risk estimates with high and low doses and in people at high and low risk of cardiovascular events, and performed a series of within-study (pair-wise) comparisons and for each pair of drugs, to estimate their comparative relative risks by using a validated online tool to give a ratio of relative risks.
Using this methodology, the researchers included 30 case-control studies and 21 cohort studies: the highest overall risks were with rofecoxib and diclofenac, and the lowest risks were with ibuprofen and naproxen, The researchers found that risk was elevated with low doses of rofecoxib, celecoxib, and diclofenac, and rose with higher doses. Ibuprofen risk was only evident with higher doses. Naproxen did not cause any additional risks at any dose. Of the less studied NSAIDs, etoricoxib, etodolac, and indomethacin had the highest risks. In the pair-wise comparisons, the researchers found that etoricoxib had a higher relative risk than ibuprofen and naproxen, etodolac was not significantly different from naproxen and ibuprofen, and naproxen had a significantly lower risk than ibuprofen. Finally, the researchers showed that relative risk estimates were constant with different background risks for cardiovascular disease and increased early the course of treatment.
What Do These Findings Mean?
This updated systematic review gives some new information on some familiar NSAIDs, and provides potentially important information on some little studied ones, which will help to inform clinical and regulatory decisions. The specific findings suggest that among widely used NSAIDs, naproxen and low-dose ibuprofen are least likely to increase cardiovascular risk, whereas diclofenac in doses available without prescription elevates risk. Based on sparse data, etoricoxib has a high risk of cardiovascular events and is similar to drugs that have been withdrawn because of safety concerns. Indomethacin is an older, rather toxic drug, and the new evidence on cardiovascular risk casts doubt on its continued clinical use.
Additional Information
Please access these websites via the online version of this summary at http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001098.
Wikipedia defines and discusses NSAIDs
The UK National Health Service and MedicineNet have useful information on NSAIDs that is suitable for patients
The National Prescribing Service in Australia has a range of information on the use of NSAIDs
doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1001098
PMCID: PMC3181230  PMID: 21980265
21.  Acupuncture for glaucoma 
Background
Glaucoma is a multifactorial optic neuropathy in which there is an acquired loss of retinal ganglion cells at levels beyond normal age-related loss and corresponding atrophy of the optic nerve. Although there are many existing treatments, glaucoma is a chronic condition. Some patients may seek complementary or alternative medicine such as acupuncture to supplement their regular treatment. The underlying plausibility of acupuncture is that disorders related to the flow of Chi (the traditional Chinese concept translated as vital force or energy) can be prevented or treated by stimulating the relevant points on the body surface.
Objectives
The objective of this review was to assess the effectiveness and safety of acupuncture in people with glaucoma.
Search methods
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Group Trials Register) (The Cochrane Library 2010, Issue 3), MEDLINE (January 1950 to March 2010), EMBASE (January 1980 to March 2010), Latin American and Caribbean Literature on Health Sciences (LILACS) (January 1982 to March 2010), ZETOC (January 1993 to March 2010), Allied and Complementary Medicine Database (AMED) (January 1985 to March 2010), the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) (www.controlled-trials.com), ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov) and the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine web site (NCCAM) (http://nccam.nih.gov). There were no language or date restrictions in the search for trials. The electronic databases were last searched on 23 March 2010 with the exception of NCCAM which was last searched on 14 July 2010. We also handsearched Chinese medical journals at Peking Union Medical College Library in April 2007.
Although the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), the Chinese Acupuncture Trials Register, the Traditional Chinese Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System (TCMLARS), and the Chinese Biological Database (CBM) were searched for the original review, we did not search these databases for the 2010 review update.
Selection criteria
We planned to include randomized and quasi-randomized clinical trials in which one arm of the study involved acupuncture treatment.
Data collection and analysis
Two authors independently evaluated the search results against the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Discrepancies were resolved by discussion.
Main results
We found no randomized clinical trials and subsequently no meta-analysis was conducted. Evidence was limited to a few case series of small sample size.
Authors’ conclusions
At this time, it is impossible to draw reliable conclusions from the available data to support the use of acupuncture for the treatment of glaucoma. Since most glaucoma patients currently cared for by ophthalmologists do not use non-traditional therapy, the clinical practice decisions will have to be based on physician judgement and patients’ value given this lack of data in the literature.
doi:10.1002/14651858.CD006030.pub2
PMCID: PMC3804313  PMID: 17943876
22.  Neglected Tropical Diseases: A Systematic Evaluation of Research Capacity in Nigeria 
Background
Nigeria carries the highest burden and diversity of neglected tropical diseases (NTDs) in sub-Saharan Africa and is preparing to scale up its efforts to control/eliminate these diseases. To achieve this it will require a range of internal technical support and expertise for mapping, monitoring and evaluating, operational research and documenting its success. In order to begin to evaluate this potential in Nigeria, this study collated and analysed information for lymphatic filariasis (LF), onchocerciasis, schistosomiasis and soil-transmitted helminths (STH), which are currently being targeted with preventive chemotherapy through mass drug administration (MDA).
Methodology/Principal Findings
Information from 299 scientific articles published on the selected NTDs in 179 journals between January 2008 and September 2013 was extracted and systematically compiled into a geo-referenced database for analysis and mapping. The highest number of articles was from the southern geo-political zones of the country. The majority of articles focused on one specific disease, and schistosomiasis and STH were found to have the highest and most wide ranging research output. The main type of study was parasitological, and the least was biotechnological. Nigerian authors were mostly affiliated with universities, and there was a wide range of international co-authors from Africa and other regions, especially the USA and UK. The majority of articles were published in journals with no known impact factor.
Conclusions/Significance
The extensive database and series of maps on the research capacity within Nigeria produced in this study highlights the current potential that exists, and needs to be fully maximized for the control/elimination of NTDs in the country. This study provides an important model approach that can be applied to other low and middle income countries where NTDs are endemic, and NTD programmes require support from the expertise within their own country, as well as internationally, to help raise their profile and importance.
Author Summary
Nigeria carries the highest burden and diversity of neglected tropical diseases (NTDs) in sub-Saharan Africa and is preparing to increase the control and elimination of these diseases. The aim of this study was to provide information on the disease focus and type of studies carried out by scientists working on lymphatic filariasis (LF), onchocerciasis, schistosomiasis, soil-transmitted helminths (STH)) and Loa loa filariasis in Nigeria. Information on these diseases from all published literature on the scientific articles by Nigerian authors published between January 2008 and September 2013 was collated and mapped. The results show that many institutions are working on NTDs in Nigeria and their capacity could be readily enhanced with training and resources to boost their skills and to increase their range of technical activities and research visibility, which will also help to provide essential technical and laboratory support to the national NTD programmes.
doi:10.1371/journal.pntd.0003078
PMCID: PMC4133230  PMID: 25121582
23.  Twelve Years of Scientific Production on Medline by Latin American Spine Surgeons 
PLoS ONE  2014;9(2):e87945.
Background
Despite the small contribution of LA in the Science Citation Index (SCI), a growing contribution by LA research to international literature has been observed in recent years.
Study Design
Systematic review.
Purpose
To evaluate the scientific contribution of Latin American (LA) Spine Surgeons in the last decade.
Methods
A literature search of publications by LA spinal surgeons on topics concerning the spine or spinal cord was performed using an online database; Pubmed.gov. The results were limited to articles published from January 2000 to December 2011. The quality of the publication was evaluated with the journal impact factor (IF), Oxford classification and number of citations.
Results
This study comprised 320 articles published in the Medline database by LA spine surgeons from 2000 to 2011. In recent years, there has been an increase in the number of publications by LA spine surgeons. It was observed that 38.4% of LA papers were published in LA journals. 46.6% of the articles were published in journals with an IF lower than 1, and there was no statistically significant difference in the number of articles published in journals with a higher IF during the period. Linear-by-linear association analysis demonstrated an improvement in the level of evidence provided by LA articles published in recent years.
Conclusions
This study showed a growth in the number of publications in last 12 years by LA spinal surgeons. It is necessary to discuss a way to increase quantity and quality of scientific publications, mainly through a better education in research.
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0087945
PMCID: PMC3914870  PMID: 24505336
24.  Assessing the evolution of publications by Brazilian spine surgeons in the last decade 
European Spine Journal  2013;22(9):2084-2088.
Purpose
To evaluate the scientific contribution of Brazilian Spine Surgeons not only in number of publications but also in their quality between January 2000 to December 2011.
Methods
A literature search of publications by Brazilian spinal surgeons on topics concerning the spine or spinal cord was performed using an online database; Pubmed.gov. The results were limited to articles published from January 2000 to December 2011. A total of 1,778 articles were identified after a Medline search. After exclusion criteria, the study comprised 206 articles. The quality of the Journals was assessed with IF and the article quality using the Oxford classification.
Results
An increasing number of publications by Brazilian spine surgeons was observed in recent years: 45.1 % of those papers were published during the last 4 years (2008–2011). Clinical studies and case reports were the most frequent types of article published (37.5 vs 31.1 %). An increasing number of Brazilian publications in non-Brazilian journals has been observed in recent years (linear-by-linear association: 5.449, P = 0.020). The Arquivos de Neuro-Psiquiatria was the most frequent journal in which the papers were published (N = 67, 32 %). The IF of the publications varied from 0.021 to 8.017. The analysis of quality of the articles using the Oxford classification demonstrated that most of them provided LOE 4 (N = 113, 54.9 %) or 5 (N = 45, 21.8 %).
Conclusions
There have been an increasing number of publications by Brazilian spine surgeons in recent years and the quality of the articles published has improved. Also the number of publications by Brazilians in non-Brazilian journals has increased in recent years.
doi:10.1007/s00586-013-2824-3
PMCID: PMC3777051  PMID: 23700230
Spine surgery; Manuscript preparation; Medical publication; Research; Brazil
25.  Piriformis syndrome: an annotated bibliography 
Objective:
To review the literature on Piriformis Syndrome, including signs, symptoms, diagnosis, differential diagnosis, treatment and management.
Design:
An annotated bibliography.
Methods:
A literature search of MEDLINE from January 1987 to November 1996, MANTIS from 1990 to 1997, EMBASE from January 1986 to December 1996, and Index to Chiropractic Literature from 1985 to 1994. The key words utilized in the search were Piriformis, Piriformis Syndrome, and Piriformis Muscle. Only English language articles were selected.
Results:
This annotated bibliography identifies twelve case reports, four case series, nine commentaries, and one quasi experiment. Twenty of the articles were published in peer-reviewed journals.
Conclusions:
Future research should address diagnostic criteria, treatment protocols, and effectiveness of therapeutic options.
PMCID: PMC2485454
piriformis; muscle; syndrome

Results 1-25 (525802)