Search PubMed⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

Richard Horton

Publications and source records attributed to Richard Horton.

At least 91 records · Page 5Linked to original sources

WHO: the casualties and compromises of renewal.

The World Health Organization is the leading international agency in health. WHO's reputation reached a peak in the 1970s with the then director-general Halfdan Mahler's advocacy of Health for All by the Year 2000 and the successful worldwide eradication of smallpox. The 1980s and 1990s saw WHO lose much of its authority. Too easily, the blame was put on one man-Mahler's successor, Hiroshi Nakajima. In 1998, Gro Harlem Brundtland, Figure 1 a former Prime Minister of Norway, took office and WHO began a period of major strategic and structural reform. Almost 4 years into her first term as director-general, I visited WHO's headquarters in Geneva to learn about Dr Brundtland's successes and failures. Figure 2 The ground rules of my visit were that I could talk with anybody and attend almost any meeting (budget discussions were excluded). I interviewed Dr Brundtland, executive directors, members of the staff association, and directors and project managers of programmes such as StopTB, Roll Back Malaria, HIV-AIDS, violence prevention, polio eradication, essential drugs and medicines, and sustainable development. At senior levels, WHO is confident and clear about its purpose-in a way that matches Mahler's vision and goes beyond it in results. Brundtland told me that her most important achievements were to have "strengthened the credibility of WHO" and to have "raised the awareness of health on to the political and global development agendas". But there is a troubling schism between the aspirations of its leadership and the realities faced by the organisation on the ground. Rapid change during the past 4 years has reinvigorated WHO's mandate, but poor management has created new tensions that the organisation's leadership seems unwilling to address.

Administrative Personnel↗

Peer review in a small and a big medical journal: case study of the Croatian Medical Journal and the Lancet.

AIM: To compare reviewers recommendations and editorial decisions in The Lancet, a high-impact journal, and Croatian Medical Journal (CMJ), a small general medical journal. METHOD: Case study of research manuscripts submitted to the CMJ (n=140 manuscripts; 308 review forms) and a sample of similar manuscripts submitted to The Lancet (n=141; 348 review forms) in 1999 and the first half of 2000. Reviewers recommendations and their influence on editorial decisions on manuscripts were analyzed by logistic regression. Agreement between reviewers was assessed by the kappa statistic. RESULTS: Although reviewers scores were identical in the two journals (median=3 for both journals, range 0 to 5), Lancet reviewers more often recommended rejection than CMJ reviewers (44% vs 17%; chi-square=52.1, p=0.029), and agreed best on rejection (kappa=0.29 [95% CI=0.04 to 0.53] vs kappa=-0.04 [-0.45 to 0.36] for CMJ). Lancet editors were even stricter than their reviewers and accepted for publication only 53% [95% CI=37 to 68] of manuscripts graded acceptable by the reviewers, compared with 85% [73 to 91] for CMJ editors (chi-square=10.0, p=0.001). For nine questions about manuscript quality in the review form, multiple regression analysis showed significant association between editorial decision and reviewers scores for the suitability of research design (B=0.70, OR=2.01, 95% CI=1.40 to 2.89, p<0.001) and discussion of systematic/random error (B=0.32, OR=1.38 [1.03 to 1.85], p=0.031) for The Lancet, and scores for novelty of information (B=0.56, OR=1.75 [1.35 to 2.27], p<0.001) for the CMJ. CONCLUSION: Reviewers of big journals, such as The Lancet, are stricter in their recommendations reviewers of a smaller journal, such as the CMJ. The Lancet editors rely on reviewers to identify methodologically superior studies, whereas CMJ editors look for the novelty of information in a manuscript.

Croatia↗

Urine microalbumin excretion in relation to exercise-induced electrocardiographic myocardial ischaemia.

BACKGROUND: Microalbuminuria, a marker of endothelial cell dysfunction, is associated with atherosclerosis and is a predictor of coronary heart disease. It has been suggested that patients with coronary heart disease have exaggerated exercise-induced urinary microalbumin excretion but this is controversial. We, therefore, measured urine microalbumin excretion in men before and after an exercise electrocardiogram. MATERIAL/METHODS: Urine microalbumin excretion expressed as the albumin-creatinine ratio (ACR) was measured before and after an exercise electrocardiogram in 10 subjects with exercise-induced myocardial ischaemia and 14 subjects without exercise-induced myocardial ischaemia. RESULTS: In subjects with a positive exercise electrocardiogram, the pre-exercise electrocardiogram ACR 3.3 +/- 5.50; (mean+/-SD) significantly increased (p=0.0371) following exercise (6.30 +/-10.25). In subjects with a negative exercise electrocardiogram, the pre-exercise electrocardiogram ACR (0.73 +/-0.52) also significantly increased (p=0.0295) following exercise (2.04 +/-1.81). Pre-exercise ACR was higher (p=0.0164) in subjects with a positive exercise electrocardiogram (3.3 +/-5.50) than in those subjects with a negative exercise electrocardiogram (0.73 +/-0.52). Incremental and post-exercise ACR were not significantly different in those with normal and abnormal exercise electrocardiograms. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with exercise-induced myocardial ischaemia have pre-exercise urine microalbumin excretion. Exaggerated urine microalbumin excretion in response to exercise is not associated with exercise-induced myocardial ischaemia.

Aged↗