Articles of Significant Interest Selected from This Issue by the Editors
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER:
PROVIDER: S-EPMC3302508 | biostudies-literature | 2012 Apr
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC1367174 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC2950604 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC7022366 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAlmost all medical journals now require authors to publicly disclose conflicts of interests (COI). The same standard and scrutiny is rarely employed for the editors of the journals although COI may affect editorial decisions.MethodsWe conducted a retrospective observational study to determine the prevalence and magnitude of financial relationships among editors of 60 influential US medical journals (10 each for internal medicine and five subspecialties: cardiology, gastroenterology, neurology, dermatology and allergy & immunology). Open Payments database was reviewed to determine the percentage of physician editors receiving payments and the nature and amount of these payments.Findings703 unique physician editors were included in our analysis. 320/703 (46%) received 8659 general payments totaling $8,120,562. The median number of payments per editor was 9 (IQR 3-26) and the median amount per payment was $91 (IQR $21-441). The median total payment received by each editor in one year was $4,364 (IQR $319-23,143). 152 (48%) editors received payments more than $5,000 in a year, a threshold considered significant by the National Institutes of Health. COI policies for editors were available for 34/60 (57%) journals but only 7/34 (21%) publicly reported the disclosures and only 2 (3.%) reported the dollar amount received.InterpretationA significant number of editors of internal medicine and subspecialty medical journals have financial COI and very few are publicly disclosed. Specialty journal editors have more COI compared to general medicine journal editors. Current policies for disclosing COI for editors are inconsistent and do not comply with the recommended standards.
| S-EPMC5959187 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC514645 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundIn biomedical research, there have been numerous scandals highlighting conflicts of interest (COIs) leading to significant bias in judgment and questionable practices. Academic institutions, journals, and funding agencies have developed and enforced policies to mitigate issues related to COI, especially surrounding financial interests. After a case of editorial COI in a prominent bioethics journal, there is concern that the same level of oversight regarding COIs in the biomedical sciences may not apply to the field of bioethics. In this study, we examined the availability and comprehensiveness of COI policies for authors, peer reviewers, and editors of bioethics journals.MethodsAfter developing a codebook, we analyzed the content of online COI policies of 63 bioethics journals, along with policy information provided by journal editors that was not publicly available.ResultsJust over half of the bioethics journals had COI policies for authors (57%), and only 25% for peer reviewers and 19% for editors. There was significant variation among policies regarding definitions, the types of COIs described, the management mechanisms, and the consequences for noncompliance. Definitions and descriptions centered on financial COIs, followed by personal and professional relationships. Almost all COI policies required disclosure of interests for authors as the primary management mechanism. Very few journals outlined consequences for noncompliance with COI policies or provided additional resources.ConclusionCompared to other studies of biomedical journals, a much lower percentage of bioethics journals have COI policies and these vary substantially in content. The bioethics publishing community needs to develop robust policies for authors, peer reviewers, and editors and these should be made publicly available to enhance academic and public trust in bioethics scholarship.
| S-EPMC6310149 | biostudies-literature
Project description:[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1016/j.cegh.2021.100802.][This corrects the article DOI: 10.1016/j.cegh.2021.100904.][This corrects the article DOI: 10.1016/j.cegh.2021.100850.][This corrects the article DOI: 10.1016/j.cegh.2020.04.019.][This corrects the article DOI: 10.1016/j.cegh.2021.100813.][This corrects the article DOI: 10.1016/j.cegh.2020.02.016.][This corrects the article DOI: 10.1016/j.cegh.2020.100677.][This corrects the article DOI: 10.1016/j.cegh.2019.12.021.][This corrects the article DOI: 10.1016/j.cegh.2021.100786.][This corrects the article DOI: 10.1016/j.cegh.2020.05.017.][This corrects the article DOI: 10.1016/j.cegh.2021.100749.][This corrects the article DOI: 10.1016/j.cegh.2020.04.017.][This corrects the article DOI: 10.1016/j.cegh.2021.100784.][This corrects the article DOI: 10.1016/j.cegh.2021.100727.][This corrects the article DOI: 10.1016/j.cegh.2021.100737.].
| S-EPMC10250821 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Purpose: The purpose of the article is to assist the pharmacist engaged in nutrition support therapy in staying current with pertinent literature. Methods: Several clinical pharmacists engaged in nutrition support therapy compiled a list of articles published in 2017 considered important to their clinical practice. The citation list was compiled into a spreadsheet where the author participants were asked to assess whether the article was considered important to nutrition support pharmacy practice. A culled list of publications was then identified whereby the majority (at least 5 out of 8 authors) considered the article to be of significance. Guideline and consensus articles from professional organizations, important to practice but not scored, were also included. Results: A total of 95 articles were identified; six from the primary literature were voted by the group to be of high importance. An additional 13 organizational guidelines, position, recommendation, or consensus papers were also identified. The top-ranked articles from the primary literature were reviewed. Conclusion: It is recommended that pharmacists engaged in nutrition support therapy be familiar with these articles as it pertains to their practice.
| S-EPMC6050880 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Purpose: The purpose of this article is to assist the pharmacist engaged in nutrition support therapy in staying current with pertinent literature. Methods: Several clinical pharmacists engaged in nutrition support therapy compiled a list of articles published in 2022 considered important to their clinical practice. The citation list was compiled into a spreadsheet where the author participants were asked to assess whether the article was considered important to nutrition support pharmacy practice. A culled list of publications was then identified whereby at least 5 out of the 8 author participants considered the article to be important. Guideline and consensus papers, important to practice but not ranked, were also included. Results: A total of 162 articles were identified; 8 from the primary literature were voted by the group to be of high importance. An additional 10 guidelines, position, recommendation, or consensus papers were also identified. The top-ranked articles from the primary literature were summarized and a narrative regarding its implications to pharmacy nutrition support practice were provided. Conclusion: We recommend that pharmacists engaged in nutrition support therapy be familiar with these articles as it pertains to their practice.
| S-EPMC10498963 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The purpose of this article is to assist the pharmacist engaged in nutrition support therapy in staying current with pertinent literature. Methods: Several clinical pharmacists engaged in nutrition support therapy compiled a list of articles published in 2019 considered important to their clinical practice. The citation list was compiled into a single spreadsheet where the author participants were asked to assess whether the article was considered important to nutrition support pharmacy practice. A culled list of publications was then identified whereby at least 5 out of the 8 author participants considered the paper to be important. Guideline and consensus papers from professional organizations, important to practice but not ranked, were also included. Results: A total of 111 articles were identified; 6 from the primary literature were voted by the group to be of high importance. An additional 9 organizational guidelines, position, recommendation, or consensus papers were also identified. The top-ranked articles from the primary literature were summarized and a narrative regarding its implications to pharmacy nutrition support practice were provided. Conclusion: We recommend that pharmacists engaged in nutrition support therapy be familiar with these articles as it pertains to their practice.
| S-EPMC7672664 | biostudies-literature