Search PubMed⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “REVIEW”

Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 739 records · Page 41Linked to original sources
PubMed2004

Systematic reviews in laboratory medicine: principles, processes and practical considerations.

BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are generally accepted to represent the highest level of evidence, and are a cornerstone in practising evidence-based medicine. So far, these efforts have been largely confined to the evaluation of the efficacy and effectiveness of therapeutic and preventive interventions. Systematic reviews in laboratory medicine are scarce and many of them do not meet essential quality criteria [Clin. Chem. Lab. Med. 38 (2000) 577]. Most of these problems are related to the poor design and heterogeneity of primary research, and that there are no agreed methods or quality standards for making systematic reviews in laboratory medicine. AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: For better evidence in laboratory medicine, not only higher quality primary studies but also standardized methodologies for designing, conducting and reporting systematic reviews in diagnostics are needed. The aim of this review is to present the general principles and provide a step-by-step process of systematic reviewing in laboratory medicine. METHODS: This narrative review is based on the overview of the medical literature on the methodology of systematic reviewing and that of the "state of the art" of evidence-based diagnosis. RESULTS: Systematic reviews of diagnostic interventions differ from that of therapeutic interventions in the methods of question formulation, the choice of study design, the assessment of study quality and the statistical methods used to combine results. Therefore, the general principles of systematic reviewing are adapted to the specialist field of laboratory medicine. The process of systematic reviewing consists of six key steps: (1) preparation for the review, (2) systematic search of the primary literature, (3) selection of papers for review, (4) critical appraisal of the selected literature, (5) analysis and synthesis of data, and (6) interpretation of data. The most important technical and methodological aspects of each step and the essential elements of a good systematic review in laboratory medicine are presented. CONCLUSIONS: Systematic reviews of diagnostic interventions support clinical and policy decisions, the development of practice guidelines, clinical audit, technology assessment, economic evaluations, education and training, and identify gaps in our knowledge for future research. Systematic reviewing of laboratory data is expected to result in better, bigger and more reliable primary studies, which hopefully will support the diffusion of new diagnostic technologies with scientifically proven efficacy and effectiveness in the future.

Clinical Laboratory Techniques↗
PubMed2001

The external review of quality improvement in health care organizations: a qualitative study.

OBJECTIVE: To explore the use of external approaches to quality improvement in health care organizations, through a descriptive evaluation of the process and impact of external reviews of clinical governance arrangements at health care provider organizations in the National Health Service (NHS) in England. DESIGN: A qualitative study, involving the use of face-to-face and telephone interviews with senior managers and clinicians in health care provider organizations and with members of a regional clinical governance review team. SETTING: The West Midlands region of England, in which there are 47 NHS trusts (health care provider organizations). STUDY PARTICIPANTS: A total of 151 senior clinicians and managers at NHS trusts in the West Midlands and 12 members of a specially constituted regional clinical governance review team. INTERVENTION: Clinical governance review visits which were undertaken by the regional clinical governance review team to all NHS trusts between April 1999 and February 2000. Interviews with senior managers and clinicians took place before and after the review visits had taken place; interviews with members of the clinical governance review team took place when they had undertaken most of their visits. RESULTS: The prospect of external review produced mixed reactions in health care provider organizations, and preparing for such a review was a substantial and time-consuming task. The review itself was often productive, although differences in attitudes and expectations between health care provider organizations and review team members created tensions, especially when the results of the review were reported back. External reviews rarely generated wholly new knowledge, were more confirmatory than revelatory, and did not usually lead to major changes in policy, strategy or practice. CONCLUSIONS: External review systems are widely used in health care to promote quality improvement in health care provider organizations, but their effectiveness is little researched and the optimal design of systems of external review is not well understood. More attention to the design and impact of external review would help to maximize its benefits and minimize costs and adverse effects.

Accreditation↗
PubMed2004

[Bibliometric analysis of systematic reviews in the Neonatal Cochrane Collaboration. Its role in evidence-based decision making in neonatology].

INTRODUCTION: The Cochrane Neonatal Collaborative Review Group (CNRG) is one of the most important collaborative review groups registered in the Cochrane Collaboration (CC) and provides a growing and readily accessible source of information to help neonatologists base their care on detailed, critical, and up-to-date reviews of the best available evidence. The objective of this article was to perform a bibliometric analysis (quantitative and qualitative) of the systematic reviews (SR) published in the Neonatal Cochrane Collaboration (NCC) and to identify the subject areas studied by the CNRG in which decision-making in clinical practice is based on the best available evidence. METHODS: We performed a bibliometric analysis of the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews in Neonatology, Issue 2, 2003 (n = 147 SR). The following variables were registered in each SR: subject area of the study, authors (number and country), dates (last review and update), characteristics of the clinical trials included (number and type), characteristics of included newborns (number and gestational age), reviewers' conclusions and potential conflicts of interest. RESULTS: The main subject areas of studies in the NCC were respiratory diseases (69 SR) and gastroenterology-nutrition (23 SR). Reviews were relatively scarce on some subjects that are very important in clinical practice in neonatology, such as cardiovascular diseases (10 SR), neurology (10 SR) and infectious diseases (6 SR). All the SR dealt with interventions for the treatment or prevention of diseases of the newborn infant (mainly preterm) and we found no reviews on diagnostic tests. Eighty-two per cent of the SR were signed by 2 or 3 authors, and we found four Bradford's zones of productivity. Ninety-two percent of the authors of SR were from four countries (Australia, United States, United Kingdom and Canada). Seventy-nine percent of all SR were published between 2000 and 2002, and 48 % have been updated. The median number of clinical trials per SR was 5 (range 0-30) and the median number of newborns included per SR was 559 (range 0-5448). Sixty percent of SR also included quasi-randomized clinical trials, and 67 % of SR included only preterm infants. In 54 % of the SR, the reviewers' conclusion was sufficient to infer probable effects (favorable or unfavorable) in clinical practice, and potential conflicts of interest were registered in 22 %. DISCUSSION: Although CC reviews are based on specific guidelines, errors and biases occur, suggesting the need to "review the reviews". The bibliometric analysis of the NCC shows that the quality of published SR varies, and the main conclusion is that almost half of the reviewers' conclusions are insufficient to infer probable effects in clinical practice. There is a lack of scientific evidence on many therapies in neonatology and, at the moment, the SR published in the NCC enable evidence-based decision making mainly in the subject area of respiratory diseases and gastroenterology-nutrition. Challenges for the future include the need for bigger and better clinical trials in this field (with long-term outcomes among surviving children), the preparation of systematic reviews on topics not yet covered, and keeping an increasing number of reviews up-to-date. Every decision in neonatology should be based on a systematic appraisal of the best evidence available in the context of the prevailing values and resources at our disposal.

Bibliometrics↗
PubMed1995

Retrospective versus concurrent review on the quality of care of pediatric trauma patients.

To compare and contrast retrospective versus concurrent quality of care review processes in a Level I Trauma Center, we conducted a retrospective chart review of all pediatric trauma admissions in 1990 (n = 113) and compared it to the concurrent trauma quality assurance program for the same time period. Twenty-four percent (24%) of the patients reviewed in the retrospective study were identified by filters and reviewed through the concurrent process. In both the retrospective and concurrent review process problems in medical care problems, documentation, social and preventive elements of the case, and overall assessment of the patients' care were described. Overall, we found less than 50% agreement between the two reviews. The retrospective review identified medical care issues in 64% of cases, compared with a 44% error rate noted in the concurrent review (P < 0.07). Reviewers were more likely to note the absence of appropriate documentation, and overall assessment of the patients' care in the retrospective process (P < 0.0001). The retrospective review also highlighted issues related to the prevention of the injury and the patients' social situation, which were not considered by the concurrent review. Overall, we found the concurrent review appropriate for case by case medical management, while the retrospective review was relevant to a systems approach to the care of the injured child. To obtain a complete picture of the care of injured children, we recommend 1) a portion of charts be reviewed retrospectively in addition to ongoing concurrent review; or 2) the concurrent review add filters that are specific to pediatric issues and overall system issues.

Adolescent↗
PubMed2001

A critical appraisal of review articles on the effectiveness of conservative treatment for neck pain.

STUDY DESIGN: A criteria-based appraisal of review articles on neck pain. OBJECTIVES: To assess the methodologic quality, conclusions, and extent of concordance among reviews on the conservative treatment of neck disorders. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: During the past decades there has been an increasing interest in summarizing and analyzing the available evidence on the effectiveness of conservative management of neck pain. Considering the growing number and quality of reviews, consumers may question which reviews to read and believe. METHODS: Computerized bibliographic databases were searched without language restriction. The reviews assessed had been published before January 1998, included neck pain and evaluated conservative therapies, and reported at least one controlled clinical trial. Identification, selection, and quality assessment were performed independently by two investigators. RESULTS: Of the 108 identified articles, 25 review articles were selected, of which 12 were systematic reviews. The reviews differed in their reporting of study population, interventions, and outcomes. Statistical pooling was performed in two high-quality systematic reviews, whereas in other reviews, the investigators explicitly decided not to pool data. The results of the current study show that the concordance among reviews varied. Regarding manipulation and traction, there is inconclusive evidence among reviews. Concordance regarding the effectiveness of other conservative interventions was absent. Many of the reviews displayed major methodologic flaws. CONCLUSIONS: Consumers should consider reports of reviews both carefully and critically, given the wide variety of review methodology, descriptive information, and final conclusions. There is a paucity of evidence from primary studies on neck pain. Therefore, more research is needed to allow systematic reviews to formulate stronger conclusions.

Databases, Bibliographic↗
PubMed2006

State-mandated benefit review laws.

OBJECTIVE: To determine which states have laws that require the review of mandated health insurance benefits and describe the various approaches states take in reviewing mandated benefits, as stated in the mandated benefit review (MBR) laws. DATA SOURCES: We queried online databases of the individual state statutes and reviewed the state statutes and state legislative agendas for all 50 states and Washington, DC to identify those states with active MBR laws as of September 2004. STUDY DESIGN: We reviewed the identified MBR laws to catalog their various components. The components chosen for this analysis include: general review strategy, designated reviewers, time frame for conducting reviews, criteria used in the review, requirements to use actuaries, sources of funding, and state data collection systems. Two of the authors independently created analysis categories and coded the MBR laws to document details on the major components of the laws. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: We identified 26 state MBR laws active as of September 2004. A majority of the MBR laws specified a prospective review approach and only one law used an exclusively retrospective review approach. A substantial amount of variation was found with regards to the designated reviewers, time frames for conducting reviews, and criteria used in the review. Few states specified the use of actuaries, sources of funding, and state data collection systems. CONCLUSIONS: The number of states that have enacted MBR laws has increased substantially in recent years, however, different states have structured the review of mandated benefits differently, according to the values and perceived needs of the state legislatures. It is important that states increasingly consider a broader scope of review criteria so state decision makers can position themselves to mandate only those benefits that add real value to the state's health care system.

Insurance Benefits↗
PubMed1995

The relationship between methodological quality and conclusions in reviews of spinal manipulation.

OBJECTIVE: To study the relationship between the methodological quality and other characteristics of reviews of spinal manipulation for low back pain on the one hand and the reviewers' conclusions on the effectiveness of manipulation on the other hand. DATA SOURCES: Reviews identified by MEDLINE search, citation tracking, library search, and correspondence with experts. STUDY SELECTION: English- or Dutch-language reviews published up to 1993 dealing with spinal manipulation for low back pain that include at least two randomized clinical trials (RCTs). DATA EXTRACTION: Methodological quality was assessed using a standardized criteria list applied independently by two assessors (range, 0% to 100%). Other extracted characteristics were the comprehensiveness of the search, selective citation of studies, language, inclusion of non-RCTs, type of publication, reviewers' professional backgrounds, and publication in a spinal manipulation journal or book. The reviewers' conclusions were classified as negative, neutral, or positive. DATA SYNTHESIS: A total of 51 reviews were assessed, 17 of which were neutral and 34 positive. The methodological quality was low, with a median score of 23%. Nine of the 10 methodologically best reviews were positive. Other factors associated with a positive reviewers' conclusion were review of spinal manipulation only, inclusion of a spinal manipulator in the review team, and a comprehensive literature search. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of the reviews concluded that spinal manipulation is an effective treatment for low back pain. Although, in particular, the reviews with a relatively high methodological quality had a positive conclusion, strong conclusions were precluded by the overall low quality of the reviews. More empirical research on the review methods applied to other therapies in other professional fields is needed to further explore our findings about the factors related to a positive reviewers' conclusion.

Humans↗
PubMed2006

The Ponseti method for treatment of congenital club foot.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This review of the Ponseti technique for the treatment of congenital club foot covers a topic of recently renewed interest. Pediatric orthopedists and parents have become increasingly enthusiastic about the success of this technique, which has been practiced continuously at the University of Iowa since 1948 but only recently become widely utilized. RECENT FINDINGS: Current literature has emphasized the reproducibility of these excellent results among multiple centers throughout the world. In addition, the role of the Internet, and accessibility of medical information have been central elements in the development of this phenomenon. SUMMARY: The current research should convince physicians that all children should be managed by the Ponseti technique at the outset. This research should also reassure physicians and parents that the overwhelming majority of children with club feet can be successfully managed, without the need for major reconstructive surgery.

Braces↗
PubMed2006

Room for improvement? A survey of the methods used in systematic reviews of adverse effects.

BACKGROUND: Although the methods for conducting systematic reviews of efficacy are well established, there is much less guidance on how systematic reviews of adverse effects should be performed. METHODS: In order to determine where methodological research is most needed to improve systematic reviews of adverse effects of health care interventions, we conducted a descriptive analysis of systematic reviews published between 1994 and 2005. We searched the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE) and The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) to identify systematic reviews in which the primary outcome was an adverse effect or effects. We then extracted data on many of the elements of the systematic review process including: types of interventions studied, adverse effects of interest, resources searched, search strategies, data sources included in reviews, quality assessment of primary data, nature of the data analysis, and source of funding. RESULTS: 256 reviews were included in our analysis, of which the majority evaluated drug interventions and pre-specified the adverse effect or effects of interest. A median of 3 resources were searched for each review and very few reviews (13/256) provided sufficient information to reproduce their search strategies. Although more than three quarters (185/243) of the reviews sought to include data from sources other than randomised controlled trials, fewer than half (106/256) assessed the quality of the studies that were included. Data were pooled quantitatively in most of the reviews (165/256) but heterogeneity was not always considered. Less than half (123/256) of the reviews reported on the source of funding. CONCLUSION: There is an obvious need to improve the methodology and reporting of systematic reviews of adverse effects. The methodology around identification and quality assessment of primary data is the main concern.

Data Interpretation, Statistical↗
PubMed2006

Laboratory productivity and the rate of manual peripheral blood smear review: a College of American Pathologists Q-Probes study of 95,141 complete blood count determinations performed in 263 institutions.

CONTEXT: Automated laboratory hematology analyzers are capable of performing differential counts on peripheral blood smears with greater precision and more accurate detection of distributional and morphologic abnormalities than those performed by manual examinations of blood smears. Manual determinations of blood morphology and leukocyte differential counts are time-consuming, expensive, and may not always be necessary. The frequency with which hematology laboratory workers perform manual screens despite the availability of labor-saving features of automated analyzers is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To determine the normative rates with which manual peripheral blood smears were performed in clinical laboratories, to examine laboratory practices associated with higher or lower manual review rates, and to measure the effects of manual smear review on the efficiency of generating complete blood count (CBC) determinations. DESIGN: From each of 3 traditional shifts per day, participants were asked to select serially, 10 automated CBC specimens, and to indicate whether manual scans and/or reviews with complete differential counts were performed on blood smears prepared from those specimens. Sampling continued until a total of 60 peripheral smears were reviewed manually. For each specimen on which a manual review was performed, participants indicated the patient's age, hemoglobin value, white blood cell count, platelet count, and the primary reason why the manual review was performed. Participants also submitted data concerning their institutions' demographic profiles and their laboratories' staffing, work volume, and practices regarding CBC determinations. The rates of manual reviews and estimations of efficiency in performing CBC determinations were obtained from the data. SETTING: A total of 263 hospitals and independent laboratories, predominantly located in the United States, participating in the College of American Pathologists Q-Probes Program. RESULTS: There were 95,141 CBC determinations examined in this study; participants reviewed 15,423 (16.2%) peripheral blood smears manually. In the median institution (50th percentile), manual reviews of peripheral smears were performed on 26.7% of specimens. Manual differential count review rates were inversely associated with the magnitude of platelet counts that were required by laboratory policy to trigger smear reviews and with the efficiency of generating CBC reports. Lower manual differential count review rates were associated with laboratory policies that allowed manual reviews solely on the basis of abnormal automated red cell parameters and that precluded performing repeat manual reviews within designated time intervals. The manual scan rate elevated with increased number of hospital beds. In more than one third (35.7%) of the peripheral smears reviewed manually, participants claimed to have learned additional information beyond what was available on automated hematology analyzer printouts alone. CONCLUSION: By adopting certain laboratory practices, it may be possible to reduce the rates of manual reviews of peripheral blood smears and increase the efficiency of generating CBC results.

Blood Cell Count↗
PubMed1998

Statistical reviewing policies of medical journals: caveat lector?

OBJECTIVE: To describe the current policies regarding statistical review of clinical research in biomedical journals. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey. PARTICIPANTS: Editors of biomedical journals that publish original clinical research. MEASUREMENTS: General policies on statistical review, types of persons used for statistical reviewing, compensation of statistical reviewers, percentage of articles subject to such review, percentage of time statistical review makes an important difference, journal circulation, and selectivity. MAIN RESULTS: Of 171 journals, 114 (67%) responded to the survey. About one third of journals had policies that guaranteed statistical review for all accepted manuscripts. In approximately half of the journals, articles were sent for statistical review at the discretion of the editor. There was some evidence that statistical review policies differed between journals of different circulation size. In journals in the top quartile of circulation (> 25,000) the probability of definitely having a statistical review before an acceptance decision was 52%, but it was only 27% in journals in the lower three quartiles (p = .09). The probability of a statistical consultant on staff ranged from 31% in the bottom quarter, to 58% in the middle two, to 82% in the highest quarter (p < .001). Editors judged that statistical review resulted in an important change in a manuscript about half of the time. CONCLUSIONS: Except in the largest circulation medical journals, the probability of formal methodologic review of original clinical research is fairly low. As readers and researchers depend on the journals to assess the validity of the statistical methods and logic used in published reports, this is potentially a serious problem. This situation may exist because the cost of such statistical review can be considerable, and because finding appropriate reviewers can be difficult. It may also exist partly because editors or publishers may not regard such review as important. The professions of medical publishing, statistics, epidemiology, and other quantitative disciplines should work together to address this problem.

Cross-Sectional Studies↗
PubMed2001

Evaluating the quality of systematic reviews in the emergency medicine literature.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to examine the scientific quality of systematic reviews published in 5 leading emergency medicine journals. METHODS: MEDLINE and EMBASE databases were electronically searched to identify published systematic reviews. Searches were only conducted in emergency medicine journals during the past 10 years; 4 of the journals were also hand searched. Potential reviews were assessed independently by 2 reviewers for inclusion. Data regarding methods were extracted from each review independently by 2 reviewers. All systematic reviews were retrieved and rated for quality by using the 10 questions from the overview quality assessment questionnaire. RESULTS: Twenty-nine reviews were identified from more than 100 citations. The overall scientific quality of the systematic reviews was low (mean score, 2.7; 95% confidence interval 2.1 to 3.2; maximum possible score, 7.0). Selection and publication biases were rarely addressed in this collection of reviews. For example, the search strategies were only identified in 9 (31%) reviews, whereas independent study selection (6 [21%]) and quality assessment of included studies (9 [31%]) were infrequently performed. Overall, the majority of reviews had extensive flaws, and only 3 (10%) had minimal flaws. CONCLUSION: The results of the study indicate that many of the systematic reviews published in the emergency medicine literature contain major flaws; reviews with poor methodology may limit the validity of reported results. Further efforts should be made to improve the design, reporting, and publication of systematic reviews in emergency medicine.

Emergency Medicine↗
PubMed2006

To blind or not to blind? What authors and reviewers prefer.

In order to inform discussions about possible changes to Medical Education's blinding policy, members of the journal's editorial board were interested in discovering reviewers' and authors' preferences with regard to the current double-blind policy and various alternatives. In September 2005, an 8-question, web-based survey was sent to all authors and reviewers who had submitted or reviewed a manuscript for Medical Education in 2003 and 2004 (n = 2632). The questions asked about authorship and reviewing experiences and preferences regarding 5 types of blinding procedure, from double-blinding to fully unblinded, open reviews. Following 2 electronic mailings, 838 surveys were completed. There was a range of experience among respondents, with a high proportion of experienced authors (49% with over 20 publications) and reviewers (41% with over 20 reviews). Overall, 68% of respondents preferred a review process that concealed author names and 72% preferred a process that allowed for concealment of reviewer names. Less experienced authors and reviewers were significantly more likely to prefer concealing author names, but even the most experienced respondents had a 54% preference for author concealment. Reasons for concealing identities included facilitating fairness and honesty in reviews and acknowledging the need to avoid personal conflicts or rivalries. Reasons for revealing identities included facilitating greater transparency and accountability, and a better understanding of the author's and reviewer's contexts and credentials. The Medical Education authors and reviewers who chose to respond to the survey voted strongly in favour of continuing the double-blinding procedure of concealing both author and reviewer identities during the review process.

Attitude↗
PubMed2000

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses on treatment of asthma: critical evaluation.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the clinical, methodological, and reporting aspects of systematic reviews and meta-analyses on the treatment of asthma and to compare those published by the Cochrane Collaboration with those published in paper based journals. DESIGN: Analysis of studies identified from Medline, CINAHL, HealthSTAR, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, personal collections, and reference lists. STUDIES: Articles describing a systematic review or a meta-analysis of the treatment of asthma that were published as a full report, in any language or format, in a peer reviewed journal or the Cochrane Library. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: General characteristics of studies reviewed and methodological characteristics (sources of articles; language restrictions; format, design, and publication status of studies included; type of data synthesis; and methodological quality). RESULTS: 50 systematic reviews and meta-analyses were included. More than half were published in the past two years. Twelve reviews were published in the Cochrane Library and 38 were published in 22 peer reviewed journals. Forced expiratory volume in one second was the most frequently used outcome, but few reviews evaluated the effect of treatment on costs or patient preferences. Forty reviews were judged to have serious or extensive flaws. All six reviews associated with industry were in this group. Seven of the 10 most rigorous reviews were published in the Cochrane Library. CONCLUSIONS: Most reviews published in peer reviewed journals or funded by industry have serious methodological flaws that limit their value to guide decisions. Cochrane reviews are more rigorous and better reported than those published in peer reviewed journals.

Asthma↗
PubMed2004

Survey of systematic reviews in dentistry.

BACKGROUND: Although systematic reviews are the backbone of evidence-based dentistry, they have appeared infrequently in the clinical dental literature and their importance may not be recognized by dentists. The authors describe the steps taken in systematic reviews and perform a literature survey to identify published systematic reviews of topics relevant to clinical dentistry. METHODS: The authors searched MEDLINE and the Cochrane databases of systematic reviews and abstracts of reviews of effectiveness, as well as identified reviews that were known to the authors but not found in the searches. Systematic reviews included in this survey stated the intention to identify all relevant articles within predefined limitations, applied defined exclusion and inclusion criteria, and presented complete raw or synthesized data from included studies. RESULTS: This literature survey identified 131 systematic reviews, 96 of which had direct clinical relevance. During the past 14 years, clinically relevant systematic reviews have been published with increasing frequency. These reviews vary in the types of studies included and the assessment of those studies. The results of the reviews also varied in their definitiveness, with 17 percent finding the evidence to be insufficient to answer the key question. An additional 50 percent of the 96 reviews hedged in answering the key question, by noting that the supporting evidence was weak in quality or limited in quantity. CONCLUSION: The number of systematic reviews that address clinical topics in dentistry is small but growing. However, the authors of more than one-half of these reviews believed that the evidence available to answer the key question was not strong. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: As systematic reviews continue to grow, dentistry will become better informed about the adequacy and congruence of the scientific evidence underpinning clinical practice.

Data Collection↗
PubMed2002

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↗
PubMed2004

A primer on current evidence-based review systems and their implications for behavioral medicine.

BACKGROUND: Multiple review systems have been established within medicine and psychology to evaluate and disseminate research findings to clinical practice. PURPOSE: Within this article, five evidence-based review systems are reviewed to inform the development or the use of an evidence review system for the behavioral medicine field. METHODS: Each review system is described on several dimensions: history of the review system, the review process, and details about translation/sustainability efforts. RESULTS: Various factors from each system have been identified that would benefit a behavioral medicine evidence review system, such as a discussion of clinical features that influence the generalizability of review findings (i.e., the American Psychiatric Association) and the use of pre-review protocols (i.e., the Cochrane Collaboration). CONCLUSIONS: Although each review system has limitations, it is important for behavioral medicine to join one system because (a) systematic reviews are the only feasible means to evaluate and judge the usefulness of our interventions, and (b) reviews can inform policy, and, with effort, influence patient well-being. This group of behavioral medicine experts recommends that the Cochrane Collaboration review behavioral medicine interventions.

Behavioral Medicine↗
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↗