Peer review: issues in physical medicine and rehabilitation

Peer review, although the standard for evaluating scientific research, is not without flaws. Peer reviewers have been shown to be inconsistent and to miss major strengths and deficiencies in studies. Both reviewer and author biases, including conflicts of interest and positive outcome publication biases, are frequent topics of study and debate. Additional concerns have been raised regarding inappropriate authorship and adequate reporting of the ethical process involving human and animal experimentation. Despite these issues, a good peer review can provide positive feedback to authors and improve the quality of research reported in medical journals. This article reviews some issues and points of concern regarding the peer-review process, and it suggests guidelines for new (and established) reviewers in the area of physical medicine and rehabilitation. It also provides suggestions for editorial considerations and improvements in the peer-review process for physical medicine and rehabilitation research journals.     

Ethical issues faced by nursing editors

This study reports on ethical issues faced by editors of nursing journals, a topic which has not appeared in the nursing literature. A survey of nursing editors (n = 88)was conducted via e-mail; this article is the content analysis of survey questions about ethics. Eight categories of ethical issues emerged: problems with society/association/publisher; decisions about inflammatory submissions; informed consent or IRB issues; conflicts of interest; advertising pressures; duplicate publications and/or plagiarism; difficult interactions with authors; and authorship. Some issues were similar to those published about medical editors; however, others were unique. This study can assist authors to better understand some of the ethical issues in publishing, can help editors to view their issues in the context of what others experience, and can assist societies and publishers to work toward avoiding these ethical issues in the future. Professional discussions about ethics in nursing publications should be the subject of ongoing research and scientific inquiry.     

2019年期刊公开发表的中国临床实践指南文献调查与评价——资助与利益冲突

  目的  调查2019年期刊公开发表的中国临床实践指南中资助与利益冲突报告情况,为我国指南的资助与利益冲突规范化管理提供参考。  方法  系统检索并筛选2019年期刊公开发表的中国临床实践指南,对资助与利益冲突相关信息进行提取、统计和分析。  结果  共纳入指南226篇,其中报告资助和利益冲突的指南分别为68篇(30.1%)和120篇(53.1%),二者同时报告的指南仅41篇(18.1%);接受资助的指南涉及170项资金,主要为国家级(82项,48.2%)和省部级(52项,30.6%)基金项目;仅5篇(2.2%)指南报告了资金支持在指南制订过程中的用途。报告利益冲突的指南为120篇,其中102篇(85.0%)仅描述为“无利益冲突”,报告利益冲突收集、评估和管理方法的指南不足10%,且无获取相关信息的公开途径。  结论  2019年期刊公开发表的中国临床实践指南资助与利益冲突报告率较低,报告内容不充分,相关文件无法公开获取。未来我国指南制订者应加强对资助和利益冲突领域的声明与管理。同时,管理者和研究者应积极完善相关政策,研发相应的报告规范。     

Peer Review, Authorship, Ethics, and Conflict of Interest

Purpose: To explore problems in peer review, authorship, ethics, and conflict of interest related to writing and publishing. Publishing and adhering to principles is nurse researchers, educators, administrators, and practitioners, participate in the development and dissemination of knowledge.
Conclusions: The quality and integrity of nursing publications are affected by peer review, author collaboration, and ethical conduct. Understanding the conflicts of interest inherent in each action and being committed to impartial review and meeting the requirements of authorship can ensure fewer difficulties for authors, publishers, and consumers.     

A new JCI conflict-of-interest policy

As stewards of the JCI, we are responsible for instituting and sustaining the highest possible standards for integrity. To this end, we have established a very specific set of guidelines for handling potential conflicts of interest - not only for authors and referees, but also for ourselves.     

Invasive candidiasis in the intensive care unit

OBJECTIVE: To review epidemiologic trends, advances in diagnosis and susceptibility testing, therapeutic options and guidelines, and management strategies for invasive candidiasis as relevant to the intensive care unit physician. DATA SOURCES, STUDY SELECTION, DATA EXTRACTION, DATA SYNTHESIS: Nonstructured review of peer-reviewed original articles, review articles, abstracts, guidelines, and consensus statements appearing in Medline, major scientific journals, and conference proceedings. CONCLUSIONS: Invasive candidiasis is a problem associated with substantial morbidity and mortality that is highly prevalent in the intensive care unit setting. Recent epidemiologic studies have shown a trend toward increasing numbers of infections and a shift toward infections caused by non-albicans Candida species. Guidelines for the management of these diseases have been published and recommend amphotericin B, fluconazole, or caspofungin as the primary therapeutic option. The choice of agent should depend on local epidemiology and patient factors. The role of newer antifungal agents for this population, such as the new azoles and echinocandins, remains to be determined. Priority areas of research include diagnostics, risk identification, and management strategy assessment such as prophylactic, preemptive, and empirical therapy.     

Implications for Australian practice of North American guidelines for the support of the family in patient-centred intensive care

Patient-centred care, in which health care professionals inform patients and families, maintain active involvement in decision making, coordinate care across disciplines, provide families with physical comfort and emotional support and ensure care is culturally sensitive, is recommended over clinician- or disease-centred care for better patient outcomes. Patients in intensive care are often too ill to participate in communication and decision making, so the patient's family should be involved in communication and decision making about the patient's care. The Society of Critical Care Medicine published clinical practice guidelines for the support of the family in the patient-centred intensive care unit. The purpose of this paper is to assess whether the 42 recommendations in the guidelines are valid and applicable in Australia. We used a recognised framework for evaluation of clinical practice guidelines. It was found that the guidelines were developed systematically using accepted methods of guideline development as much as possible. An extensive literature review was conducted and publications containing all levels of evidence were considered for inclusion. There were some weaknesses in the guideline development, especially lack of consultation with patients and families and a lack of high-level evidence, however the authors have provided comprehensive recommendations to guide all aspects of patient-centred care. We conclude that the recommendations are largely applicable to the patients and families receiving treatment and support within intensive care units in Australia. Where strong evidence is lacking, the recommendations should be a stimulus to conduct studies that test interventions that may benefit intensive care patients, their families, and intensive care staff.     

Bench-to-bedside review: Human subjects research – are more standards needed?

There are many controversial issues surrounding ethics in study design and conduct of human subjects research. In this review we briefly touch on the origin of ethics in clinical research and how the current regulations and standards came into practice. We then discuss current controversies regarding informed consent, conflicts of interest, institutional review boards, and other relevant issues such as innovative procedures and quality improvement projects. The question of whether we need more standards is a very important yet challenging one to which there is no simple answer. We address this question by reviewing and commenting on relevant literature. We conclude that what is needed are not more standards per se, but rather refinement and uniformity of current standards, and their interpretation and application both to protect human subjects and to advance medicine.     

Bench-to-bedside review: Human subjects research – are more standards needed?

There are many controversial issues surrounding ethics in study design and conduct of human subjects research. In this review we briefly touch on the origin of ethics in clinical research and how the current regulations and standards came into practice. We then discuss current controversies regarding informed consent, conflicts of interest, institutional review boards, and other relevant issues such as innovative procedures and quality improvement projects. The question of whether we need more standards is a very important yet challenging one to which there is no simple answer. We address this question by reviewing and commenting on relevant literature. We conclude that what is needed are not more standards per se, but rather refinement and uniformity of current standards, and their interpretation and application both to protect human subjects and to advance medicine.     

Bench-to-bedside review: human subjects research--are more standards needed?

There are many controversial issues surrounding ethics in study design and conduct of human subjects research. In this review we briefly touch on the origin of ethics in clinical research and how the current regulations and standards came into practice. We then discuss current controversies regarding informed consent, conflicts of interest, institutional review boards, and other relevant issues such as innovative procedures and quality improvement projects. The question of whether we need more standards is a very important yet challenging one to which there is no simple answer. We address this question by reviewing and commenting on relevant literature. We conclude that what is needed are not more standards per se, but rather refinement and uniformity of current standards, and their interpretation and application both to protect human subjects and to advance medicine.     

Reporting of ethical standards: Differences between complementary and orthodox medicine journals?

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed at assessing whether there are differences in the reporting of ethical aspects of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) and mainstream medical research. DESIGN: Review of published literature. SETTING: Research department of medical school. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Reports of ethical aspects including adherence to clinical guidelines, ethical approval from ethics committees, consent of the patient, declaration of conflict of interest, and declaration of funding for a study. RESULTS: We included 21 articles from CAM journals, as well as 16 from equal impact factor mainstream (EIF) journals and 27 from high impact factor (HIF) journals. A statistically significant difference was found in the reporting of ethical approval: 62% of all CAM articles, 75% of the EIF and 93% of the HIF journal articles reported approval from ethics committees [chi2 = (2, n = 64) 6.631, p<0.05]. Regarding the reporting of obtaining patients' consent there were no statistically significant differences: 48% of all CAM articles, 38% of the EIF mainstream and 67% of the HIF mainstream journal articles explicitly stated that patients signed a consent form [chi2 = (2, n = 64) 3.813, p>.05]. High impact factor journals were more likely to report on ethical standards than other journals on conflicts of interests and sponsorship. However, they were less likely to report a reference to ethical guidelines. Articles from CAM journals had more strict reporting requirements than mainstream medicine journals with comparable impact factors. CONCLUSIONS: Differences exist between complementary and orthodox medical journals in the reporting of ethical aspects of trial design.     

International participation in major intensive care journals

Objective

This study seeks to assess the scientific contributions in the field of intensive care medicine from each of the major countries (per million inhabitants) and discusses the possible factors which may contribute to any differences.

Data source

Review of scientific journals.

Study selection

We examined the total number of published papers (between 1989 and 1993) in five major respiratory and intensive care journals:Intensive Care Medicine, Critical Care Medicine, Chest, The American Review of Respiratory Disease, andCirculatory Shock.

Data synthesis

Amongst the American journals, USA and Canada were the predominant contributors followed by the other countries in the following order: Switzerland, Sweden, Belgium, the Netherlands, Finland, Austria, Denmark, UK, France, Spain, Italy, Norway, Japan and Germany.

Conclusions

The present study reveals that the smaller European nations have a greater participation than the larger European nations in the major intensive care journals. This phenomenon could be due to different submission practices in these countries compared with the larger European countries, where a considerable number of papers are submitted to local renowned journals. There was no absolute correlation between a nation's gross national product and the total number of publications.     

Quantitative analysis of the scientific literature on acetaminophen in medicine and biology: a 2003–2005 study†

This study quantifies the utilization of acetaminophen in life sciences and clinical medicine using bibliometric indicators. A total of 1626 documents involving acetaminophen published by 74 countries during 2003–2005 in the Thompson‐Scientific Life sciences and Clinical Medicine collections were identified and analyzed. The USA leads in the number of publications followed by the UK, and industrialized countries, including France, Japan and Germany; the presence of countries such as China, India and Turkey among the top 15 countries deserves to be noticed. The European Union stands as a comparable contributor to the USA, both in terms of number of publications and in terms of profile of papers distributed among subcategories of Life Sciences and Clinical Medicine disciplines. All documents were published in 539 different journals. The most prolific journals were related to pharmacology and/or pharmaceutics. All aspects of acetaminophen (chemistry, pharmacokinetics, metabolism, etc.) were studied with primary interest for therapeutic use (42%) and adverse effects (28%) comprising a large part of publications focusing on acetaminophen hepatotoxicity. This quantitative overview provides as to the interest of the scientific community in this analgesic and completes the various review documents that regularly appear in the scientific literature.     

Ideas and ideals in medicine: fruits of reason or props of power?

Editors of medical journals play a central role in the promotion – or suppression – of ideas and ideals in medicine. Recently eminent among these have been the advocacies of the Evidence-based Medicine (EBM) movement and colleagues concerned with evidence and guidelines for health care. With regard to these topics, it still remains for editors of journals either to advance or to retard even the consolidation of the associated core concepts, most notably those of evidence in medicine, scientific medicine, and rational medicine. I present, first, a case study on the conduct of the editors of three medical journals, specifically their assumption of the role of authority on the scholarly fundamentals of evidence in medicine and their responding to propositions on the topic with commentaries well below the intellectual standards that should prevail in the journals of a learned profession. Then, following a brief review of the Flexnerian and EBM ideas and ideals on the practice of medicine, supplemented by observations drawn from medical sociology and the precepts of the philosophy of science, I posit a way of understanding such behaviour by editors of medical journals. They can have a temptation, and apparently some propensity, to play a regressive role in the development of the fundamentals of medicine. This is prone to occur whenever reason constitutes a threat to power, whether solely to the editors' own or to that of the profession at large. A full realization of the dream of reason in medicine requires an immense integrity of its journal editors and of its other intellectual leaders.     

Critical care medicine update

The intensive care unit (ICU) can be a challenging environment for health care practitioners who are not trained in critical care medicine. A structured approach to patient care is necessary in order to achieve optimal clinical outcomes. The purpose of this two-part article is to review essential highlights of critical care medicine for the nonintensivist. We provide a structured overview of the management of the critically ill patient and focus on problems commonly encountered in the heterogeneous ICU patient population. In Part 1 we review (a) altered states, of consciousness and sedation, (b) respiratory failure and ventilators, (c) cardiovascular monitoring and management, and (d) fluid and electrolyte disorders. This authors have stated that they do not have a significant financial interest or other relationship with any product manufacturer or provider of services discussed in this article. The authors do not discuss the use of off-label products, which includes unlabeled, unapproved, or investigative products or devices.     

Investigating the effectiveness of critical care outreach services: a systematic review

Objective We explored the impact of critical care outreach activity on patient and service outcomes and aimed to contribute to developing a typology of critical care outreach services.Design Following a sample search of Medline 15 relevant electronic databases were systematically searched from 1996 to 2004. Searches for publications from nine key authors and citations of eight key articles were performed. Hand searches of journals, bibliographies of reports and review articles, and conference abstracts were conducted. Relevant experts were contacted. A further two studies published after the review date were also included. Two reviewers assessed studies for inclusion, conducted quality assessment and extracted data. Data were synthesised using narrative techniques.Measurements and results Seventeen papers and six brief reports were selected for inclusion from a list of 1,760 titles. As anticipated with a relatively new service such as critical care outreach, there were few controlled trials. There were two randomised controlled trials, 16 uncontrolled before and after studies, three quasi-experimental studies, one controlled before and after study and one post-only controlled study. The most frequent outcomes measured were mortality, cardiac arrest, unplanned critical care admissions from wards, length of stay, and critical care readmission rates.Conclusions Although improvements in patient outcomes were found, the evidence in this review is insufficient to demonstrate this conclusively. The many differences in service delivery do not permit identification of service typology. Our findings point to a need for more comprehensive research of this expanding service in the United Kingdom. Electronic supplementary material Electronic supplementary material to this contribution can be obtained by using the Springer Link server located at and is accessible for authorized users.     

How is life support withdrawn in intensive care units: A narrative review

PurposeDecisions to withdraw life-sustaining therapy (WDLS) are relatively common in intensive care units across Canada. As part of preliminary work to develop guidelines for WDLS, we performed a narrative review of the literature to identify published studies of WDLS.Materials and methodsA search of MEDLINE and EMBASE databases was performed. The results were reviewed and only articles relevant to WDLS were included. Any references within these articles deemed to be relevant were subsequently included.ResultsThe initial search identified 3687 articles. A total of 100 articles of interest were identified from the initial search and a review of their references. The articles were primarily composed of observational data and expert opinion. The information from the literature was organized into 6 themes: preparation for WDLS, monitoring parameters, pharmacologic symptom management, withdrawing life-sustaining therapies, withdrawal of mechanical ventilation, and bereavement.ConclusionsThis review describes current practices and opinions about WDLS, and also demonstrates the significant practice variation that currently exists. We believe that the development of guidelines to help increase transparency and standardize the process will be an important step to ensuring high quality care during WDLS.     

Conflicts of interest in the context of end of life care for potential organ donors in Australia

End-of-life (EOL) care has become an integral part of intensive care medicine and includes the exploration of possibilities for deceased organ and tissue donation. Donation physicians are specialist doctors with expertise in EOL processes encompassing organ and tissue donation, who contribute significantly to improvements in organ and tissue donation services in many countries around the world. Donation physicians are usually also intensive care physicians, and thus they may be faced with the dual obligation of caring for dying patients and their families in the intensive care unit (ICU), whilst at the same time ensuring organ and tissue donation is considered according to best practice. This dual obligation poses specific ethical challenges that need to be carefully understood by clinicians, institutions and health care networks. These obligations are complementary and provide a unique skillset to care for dying patients and their families in the ICU.In this paper we review current controversies around EOL care in the ICU, including the use of palliative analgesia and sedation specifically with regards to withdrawal of cardiorespiratory support, the usefulness of the so-called doctrine of double effect to guide ethical decision-making, and the management of potential or perceived conflicts of interest in the context of dual professional roles.