Search PubMed⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

D Rennie

Publications and source records attributed to D Rennie.

At least 37 records · Page 2Linked to original sources
PubMed1999

Prevalence of asthma, rhinitis and eczema among children in 2 Canadian cities: the International Study of Asthma and Allergies in Childhood.

BACKGROUND: Wide variations in the prevalence of asthma, rhinitis and eczema have been reported between regions within Canada and between different countries. The International Study of Asthma and Allergies in Childhood (ISAAC) was developed to provide a standardized tool and methodology to ascertain the prevalence of asthma and allergies in different regions. Comparisons of prevalence rates across geographic regions and at different times may help to identify factors that contribute to the development of these conditions in individuals. METHODS: Two Canadian centres, Hamilton and Saskatoon, participated in the ISAAC. A standard questionnaire was distributed through schools and completed by 13- and 14-year-old children and by the parents of 6- and 7-year-old children. Prevalence rates and 95% confidence intervals were calculated for asthma, wheezing, rhinitis and eczema. RESULTS: The overall response rates were 75.1% among the children 6 and 7 years old and 68.6% among those 13 and 14 years old. Among the younger children, the lifetime prevalence of asthma was 17.2% in Hamilton and 11.2% in Saskatoon; the corresponding rates among the older children were 19.2% and 12.2% respectively. The prevalence of wheezing in the 12 months before the survey in the younger group was 20.1% in Hamilton and 14.1% in Saskatoon; in the older group it was 30.6% and 24.0% respectively. The prevalence of rhinitis in the 12 months before the survey was 28.6% in Hamilton and 22.6% in Saskatoon in the younger group and 45.8% and 33.8% respectively in the older group. The prevalence of eczema was slightly higher in Saskatoon in both age groups. INTERPRETATION: High prevalence rates of asthma, rhinitis and eczema exist among school children in Hamilton and Saskatoon, similar to rates in other Western countries. Further studies are required to determine the factors associated with the high rates in the 2 regions and possible reasons for the higher rates in Hamilton.

Adolescent↗
PubMed1999

Disclosure of researcher contributions: a study of original research articles in The Lancet.

BACKGROUND: Authorship disputes and abuses have increased in recent years. In response to a proposal that researcher contributions be specified for readers, The Lancet began disclosing such contributions at the end of original articles. OBJECTIVE: To analyze the descriptions researchers use for their contributions and to determine how the order of names on the byline corresponds to these contributions, whether persons listed on the byline fulfill a lenient version of the criteria for authorship specified by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (the Vancouver Group), and whether the contributions of persons listed as contributors overlap with the contributions of those who are acknowledged. DESIGN: Descriptive study. MEASUREMENTS: A taxonomy of researchers' contributions was developed and applied to researchers' self-reported contributions to original research articles published in The Lancet from July to December 1997. RESULTS: Contributors lists occupied little page space (mean, 2.5 cm of column length). Placement on the byline did not indicate the specific category of task performed, although the first-contributor position corresponded to a significantly greater number of contributions (mean numbers of contributions: first-contributor position, 3.23; second-contributor position, 2.51; third-contributor position, 2.20; and fourth-contributor position, 2.51) (P < 0.01). Forty-four percent of contributors on the byline did not fulfill a lenient version of the Vancouver Group's criteria for authorship. Sixty percent of the most common categories of activities described on contributors lists overlapped with those on acknowledgements lists. CONCLUSIONS: Publication of lists that specify contributions to research articles is feasible and seems to impart important information. The criteria for authorship outlined by the Vancouver Group do not seem to be congruent with the self-identified contributions of researchers.

Authorship↗
PubMed1999

Herb Hultgren in Peru: what causes high altitude pulmonary edema?

Herbert Hultgren, a cardiologist who kept a careful diary all his career, arrived in Peru at the beginning of 1959 to study the occurrence of pulmonary hypertension in children at high altitude with patent ductus arteriosus. There, he was told about a strange condition, high altitude pulmonary edema (HAPE), and found that to Peruvian physicians looking after mine employees and their families, its occurrence was almost routine. With his Peruvian colleagues, Herb immediately began a systematic study of the condition, including catheter studies. Though the absence of left ventricular enlargement suggested a non-cardiac form of pulmonary edema, and though this is what he suggested in his first publication, in two subsequent papers, one written with Charles Houston, who contributed cases occurring in mountaineers, Herb wrote that the most probable cause was left ventricular failure. What is extraordinary is that before he finally submitted the two papers, he had certain knowledge that in one case of HAPE at least, left atrial pressure had been shown to be normal. Herb's contributions, then and later, to the elucidation of HAPE were enormous.

Altitude Sickness↗
PubMed1999

A worldwide assessment of medical journal editors' practices and needs--results of a survey by the World Association of Medical Editors.

OBJECTIVES: To identify editors interested in participating in a global organisation and communication network of medical editors; to assess current use of the peer-review process; and to determine current computer capabilities, needs, and interests of medical journal editors around the world. DESIGN: Mail survey of senior editors at 727 medical journals. SETTING: Fifty-seven countries worldwide. RESULTS: Two hundred and sixty-nine editors (37%) responded. Eighty-seven per cent of responding editors expressed interest in a global organisation of medical editors. Almost all editors (94%) reported using peer-review systems. Practices varied widely across journals, but in most cases were not highly correlated with the countries' level of development: 44% reported formal orientation for reviewers; 71% used specific instructions; 39% required reviewers to disclose conflicts of interest; 36% masked the identity of authors; and 42% graded reviews for quality. Seventy-eight per cent of editors reported using a computer in their work and 47% had Internet access; two-thirds of those without access expected to have Internet access within 18 months. CONCLUSIONS: There was strong interest among respondents in a global organisation for medical editors. Peer review was widely reported by medical journal editors throughout the world, although specific practices varied widely. Half of the responding editors reported having access to the Internet, making participation in a worldwide computer network of editors feasible.

Computers↗
PubMed1998

Prevalence of articles with honorary authors and ghost authors in peer-reviewed medical journals.

CONTEXT: Authorship in biomedical publications establishes accountability, responsibility, and credit. Misappropriation of authorship undermines the integrity of the authorship system, but accurate data on its prevalence are limited. OBJECTIVES: To determine the prevalence of articles with honorary authors (named authors who have not met authorship criteria) and ghost authors (individuals not named as authors but who contributed substantially to the work) in peer-reviewed medical journals and to identify journal characteristics and article types associated with such authorship misappropriation. DESIGN: Mailed, self-administered, confidential survey. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 809 corresponding authors (1179 surveyed, 69% response rate) of articles published in 1996 in 3 peer-reviewed, large-circulation general medical journals (Annals of Internal Medicine, JAMA, and The New England Journal of Medicine) and 3 peer-reviewed, smaller-circulation journals that publish supplements (American Journal of Cardiology, American Journal of Medicine, and American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Prevalence of articles with honorary authors and ghost authors, as reported by corresponding authors. RESULTS: Of the 809 articles, 492 were original research reports, 240 were reviews and articles not reporting original data, and 77 were editorials. A total of 156 articles (1 9%) had evidence of honorary authors (range, 11%-25% among journals); 93 articles (11%) had evidence of ghost authors (range, 7%-16% among journals); and 13 articles (2%) had evidence of both. The prevalence of articles with honorary authors was greater among review articles than research articles (odds ratio [OR], 1.8; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.2-2.6) but did not differ significantly between large-circulation and smaller-circulation journals (OR, 1.4; 95% CI, 0.96-2.03). Compared with similar-type articles in large-circulation journals, articles with ghost authors in smaller-circulation journals were more likely to be reviews (OR, 4.2; 95% CI, 1.5-13.5) and less likely to be research articles (OR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.27-0.88). CONCLUSION: A substantial proportion of articles in peer-reviewed medical journals demonstrate evidence of honorary authors or ghost authors.

Authorship↗
PubMed1998

Does masking author identity improve peer review quality? A randomized controlled trial. PEER Investigators.

CONTEXT: All authors may not be equal in the eyes of reviewers. Specifically, well-known authors may receive less objective (poorer quality) reviews. One study at a single journal found a small improvement in review quality when reviewers were masked to author identity. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether masking reviewers to author identity is generally associated with higher quality of review at biomedical journals, and to determine the success of routine masking techniques. DESIGN AND SETTING: A randomized controlled trial performed on external reviews of manuscripts submitted to Annals of Emergency Medicine, Annals of Internal Medicine, JAMA, Obstetrics & Gynecology, and Ophthalmology. INTERVENTIONS: Two peers reviewed each manuscript. In one study arm, both peer reviewers received the manuscript according to usual masking practice. In the other arm, one reviewer was randomized to receive a manuscript with author identity masked, and the other reviewer received an unmasked manuscript. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Review quality on a 5-point Likert scale as judged by manuscript author and editor. A difference of 0.5 or greater was considered important. RESULTS: A total of 118 manuscripts were randomized, 26 to usual practice and 92 to intervention. In the intervention arm, editor quality assessment was complete for 77 (84%) of 92 manuscripts. Author quality assessment was complete on 40 (54%) of 74 manuscripts. Authors and editors perceived no significant difference in quality between masked (mean difference, 0.1; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.2 to 0.4) and unmasked (mean difference, -0.1; 95% CI, -0.5 to 0.4) reviews. We also found no difference in the degree to which the review influenced the editorial decision (mean difference, -0.1; 95% CI,-0.3 to 0.3). Masking was often unsuccessful (overall, 68% successfully masked; 95% CI, 58%-77%), although 1 journal had significantly better masking success than others (90% successfully masked; 95% CI, 73%-98%). Manuscripts by generally known authors were less likely to be successfully masked (odds ratio, 0.3; 95% CI, 0.1-0.8). When analysis was restricted to manuscripts that were successfully masked, review quality as assessed by editors and authors still did not differ. CONCLUSIONS: Masking reviewers to author identity as commonly practiced does not improve quality of reviews. Since manuscripts of well-known authors are more difficult to mask, and those manuscripts may be more likely to benefit from masking, the inability to mask reviewers to the identity of well-known authors may have contributed to the lack of effect.

Authorship↗
PubMed1998

Masking author identity in peer review: what factors influence masking success? PEER Investigators.

CONTEXT: In a previous study, we found that masking success was higher at a journal that masked reviewers to author identity. We hypothesized that masking policy or other factors could be associated with masking success. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate differences in success of masking reviewers to author identity at 7 biomedical journals and to identify factors associated with these differences. DESIGN: Written questionnaire. PARTICIPANTS: Reviewers at 3 journals with a long-standing policy of masking author identity (Annals of Emergency Medicine, Epidemiology, and Journal of the American Geriatrics Society) and 4 journals without a policy of masking author identity (Annals of Internal Medicine, JAMA, Obstetrics & Gynecology, and Ophthalmology). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Masking success (percentage of reviewers successfully masked) and reviewer characteristics associated with masking. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in masking success between journals with a policy of masking (60%) and those without (58%) (P= .92). We found no association between masking success and a policy of masking when adjusted for the reviewer characteristics of age, sex, years of reviewing experience, number of articles published, number of articles reviewed, percentage of time spent in research, editorial experience, or academic rank (odds ratio [OR], 1.3; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.64-2.8; P=.43). In multivariable analysis of reviewer characteristics, reviewers spending a greater percentage of time in research, the only significant predictor of masking success, were less likely to be successfully masked (OR, 1.01; 95% CI, 1.00-1.02) (P=.04). CONCLUSIONS: Masking success appears unrelated to a journal policy of masking, but is associated with reviewers' research experience and could be affected by other characteristics. Using reviewers with less research and reviewing experience might increase masking success, but the effect on review quality is unknown.

Authorship↗
PubMed1997

When authorship fails. A proposal to make contributors accountable.

A published article is the primary means whereby new work is communicated, priority is established, and academic promotion is determined. Publication depends on trust and requires that authors be held to standards of honesty, completeness, and fairness in their reporting, and to accountability for their statements. The system of authorship, while appropriate for articles with only 1 author, has become inappropriate as the average number of authors of an article has increased; as the work of coauthors has become more specialized and relationships between them have become more complex; and as both credit and, even more, responsibility have become obscured and diluted. Credit and accountability cannot be assessed unless the contributions of those named as authors are disclosed to readers, so the system is flawed. We argue for a radical conceptual and systematic change, to reflect the realities of multiple authorship and to buttress accountability. We propose dropping the outmoded notion of author in favor of the more useful and realistic one of contributor. This requires disclosure to readers of the contributions made to the research and to the manuscript by the contributors, so that they can accept both credit and responsibility. In addition, certain named contributors take on the role of guarantor for the integrity of the entire work. The requirement that all participants be named as contributors will eliminate the artificial distinction between authors and acknowledgees and will enhance the integrity of publication.

Authorship↗