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 775 records · Page 43Linked to original sources
PubMed2003

The influence of central review on outcome associations in childhood malignant gliomas: results from the CCG-945 experience.

To examine the influence of the pathology review mechanism on the results of analyses of therapeutic efficacy and biological prognostic correlates for pediatric high-grade gliomas, we evaluated the effects of using single-expert review or consensus review, as alternatives to institutional classification, in determining outcome results of a large randomized trial. The study group was the randomized cohort of Children's Cancer Group study 945, which compared efficacy of 2 chemotherapy regimens adjuvant to surgery and radiation. Trial eligibility required institutional histopathologic diagnosis of high-grade glioma. Sections of study tumors also were centrally reviewed, initially by a study review neuropathologist and subsequently by 5 neuropathologists, including the review pathologist. Reviews were independent, and reviewers were masked to clinical factors and outcomes, and consensus diagnoses of the panel were then established. Among 172 eligible patients, 42 tumors were classified as discordant on single-expert review and 51 on consensus review. Progression-free survival probabilities calculated for patients with tumors classified as high-grade gliomas by either single-expert or consensus review were inferior to those for the overall, institutionally diagnosed cohort. However, conclusions of the study regarding relative efficacy of treatment and clinical and molecular outcome correlates were unaffected by diagnosis method. Resection extent, proliferation index, and p53 expression were associated strongly with outcome, regardless of diagnosis method. However, comparisons between arms in which inclusion was determined by different review criteria for each arm caused spurious conclusions about efficacy differences between treatments. We conclude that the pathology review mechanism had little effect on within-trial comparisons of therapeutic effects or prognostic correlates in this randomized study, but strongly influenced survival distributions that were calculated for each treatment arm. These results support the implementation of expedited central review in therapeutic studies involving childhood malignant gliomas as a way to prospectively identify and exclude cases with discordant diagnoses and indicate the need for additional measures, such as molecular assessments, to increase the reproducibility of neuropathologic classification for these tumors.

Antineoplastic Protocols↗
PubMed1997

[The Hypertension Cochrane Review Group. Presentation and user's guide].

Cochrane collaboration has been developing since 1992 as an international network aiming at performing systematic reviews of available data on therapeutic effectiveness. The fundamental principles of this organisation are trying to avoid duplication of efforts, seeking the best reliability, using reproducible and quantitative synthesis techniques, offering constantly updated results. All health domains are progressively covered. The production unit in one domain is the review group. The Hypertension Cochrane Review Group (HTN CRG) has been officially registered on May 15th 1996. Information and products from the group are available through its news letter, through the Cochrane Library CD-ROM, regularly updated, and on the Internet (http://merece.uthscsa.edu/htncrg). The Hypertension Cochrane Review Group includes an editorial board (with an administrator and three editors), the authors of systematic reviews, internal and external reviewers. The geographic link is the San Antonio Cochrane Centre (Texas, USA). Invitations to participate have been sent to people interested in hypertension and who where known to the Cochrane collaboration, and to authors of previous reviews in hypertension. It is possible to collaborate with the HTN CRG through: performing a systematic review; reviewing protocols and systematic reviews; hand-searching medical journals; being a member of the editorial team. The first protocol for a systematic review edited by the group concerns antihypertensive treatment in the elderly, and is available in the 1996 and subsequent editions of the Cochrane Library. The group welcomes other reviews from domains awaiting registration, and collaborates with related domains review groups such as Diabetes CRG, or Stroke CRG. The group contributes to the effort of hand-searching medical literature, Pr Plouin being responsible for the Archives des Maladies du Coeur et des Vaisseaux. The second edition in 1996 of the Cochrane Library included 114 systematic reviews and 131 protocols, being the only media with similar objectives.

Computer Communication Networks↗
PubMed2026

What's the meta now? More updates on the problems with systematic reviews.

BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews are intended to provide trustworthy evidence synthesis, yet previous iterations of this living review have identified numerous recurring problems in their conduct and reporting. This article presents the third version and second update of the living systematic review examining issues raised across the academic literature. METHODS: Using consistent eligibility criteria and methods from earlier versions, literature searches were updated to May 2025. Eligible meta-research and editorial articles describing problems with systematic reviews were analyzed to identify emerging themes. Additionally, four basic indicators of methodological quality of the included meta-research were presented across review versions. RESULTS: The update included 209 additional articles. Critically low methodological quality and absence of protocols remained among the most frequently reported issues in systematic reviews across disciplines and journals but notably in evidence underpinning clinical practice guidelines. Spin in abstracts and conflicts of interest continued to be common. Apparent improvements in reporting quality were inconsistent, with modest gains in some full-text reporting but persistent deficiencies in abstracts. Authorship diversity of systematic reviews improved in gender representation but remained geographically concentrated in high-income countries, and primary research included in reviews similarly lacked global representativeness. The issue of misalignment between systematic review evidence bases and global burden of disease bring the total number of problems with systematic reviews to 69. Emerging use of automation and artificial intelligence was variably reported. Descriptive comparison of meta-research articles over the three versions of this living review suggests a greater proportion meeting basic quality indicators in more recent updates. CONCLUSION: Across successive updates, problems with systematic reviews remain widespread and consistent rather than isolated. Incremental reporting improvements coexist with persistent concerns about transparency, bias, and representativeness. Future efforts should prioritize evaluating interventions and aligning research incentives to support genuinely trustworthy evidence synthesis.

Humans↗
PubMed1992

Watching the doctor-watchers. How well do peer review organization methods detect hospital care quality problems?

OBJECTIVE: To determine how well one state's peer review organization (PRO) judged the quality of hospital care compared with an independent, credible judgment of quality of care. DESIGN: Retrospective study comparing a PRO's review, including initial screening, physician review, and final judgments, with an independent "study judgment" based on blinded, structured, implicit reviews of hospital records. SETTING: One state's medical and surgical Medicare hospitalizations during 1985 through 1987 audited randomly by the state's PRO. SAMPLE: Stratified random sampling of records: 62 records that passed the PRO initial screening process and were not referred for PRO physician review; 50 records that failed the PRO screen and then were confirmed by PRO physicians to be "quality problems." INTERVENTION: None. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: A study judgment of below standard or standard or above based on the mean of overall ratings by five internists for records in medical diagnosis related groups (DRGs) and by five internists and five surgeons for surgical DRGs. Each step in the PRO review was evaluated for how many records passing or failing that step were judged standard or above or below standard in the study (positive and negative predictive value) and how well that step classified records that the study judged below standard or standard or above (sensitivity and specificity). RESULTS: An estimated 18% of records reviewed by the PRO were below standard according to the study judgment, compared with 6.3% quality problems according to the PRO's final judgment (difference, 12%; 95% confidence interval, 1 to 23). The PRO's initial screening process failed to detect and refer for PRO physician review two of three records that the study judged below standard. In addition, only one of three of the records that PRO physicians judged to be quality problems were judged below standard by the study judgment. Therefore, the PRO's final quality of care judgment and the study judgment agreed little more than expected by chance, especially about poor quality of care. Although the PRO correctly classified 95% of the records that the study judged standard or above, it detected only 11% of records judged below standard by the study. CONCLUSIONS: Most of all, this PRO review process would be improved by additional preliminary screens to identify the 67% of records that the study judged below standard but that passed its initial screening. The screening process also must be more accurate in order to be cost-effective, as it was only slightly better than random sampling at correctly identifying below standard care. More reproducible physician review is also needed and might be accomplished through improved reviewer selection and training, a structured review method, and more physician reviewers per record.

Hospital Records↗
PubMed1998

US and non-US submissions: an analysis of reviewer bias.

CONTEXT: Reviewers increasingly are asked to review manuscripts from outside their own country, but whether they are more likely to recommend acceptance of such manuscripts is not known. OBJECTIVE: To assess whether US reviewers or non-US reviewers evaluate manuscripts differently, depending on whether the manuscripts are submitted from outside the United States or from the United States. DESIGN AND SETTING: A retrospective analysis of all original submissions received by Gastroenterology in 1995 and 1996. Reviewers ranked manuscripts in 4 decision categories: accept, provisionally accept, reject with resubmission, or reject. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Ranking of papers based on nationality of authors and reviewers. RESULTS: The percentage of non-US manuscripts placed in each decision category by US (n = 2355) and non-US reviewers (n = 1297) was nearly identical (P= .31). However, US reviewers recommended acceptance of papers submitted by US authors more often than did non-US reviewers (P=.001). Non-US reviewers ranked US papers slightly more favorably than non-US papers (P=.09), while US reviewers ranked US papers much more favorably (P=.001). CONCLUSIONS: Reviewers from the United States and outside the United States evaluate non-US papers similarly and evaluate papers submitted by US authors more favorably, with US reviewers having a significant preference for US papers.

Interprofessional Relations↗
PubMed1998

Perceived value of providing peer reviewers with abstracts and preprints of related published and unpublished papers.

CONTEXT: Many journals provide peer reviewers with written instructions regarding review criteria, such as the originality of results, but little research has been done to investigate ways to improve or facilitate the peer review task. OBJECTIVE: To assess the value that peer reviewers place on receipt of supplemental materials (eg, abstracts of related papers and preprints of related unpublished manuscripts). DESIGN: Questionnaire survey sent to all 733 peer reviewers recruited by the Journal of the National Cancer Institute to review 356 manuscripts consecutively sent out for review from February 24, 1997, through January 16, 1998. The inclusion of supplemental materials with manuscript review packages was optional. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: The peer reviewers' assessment of the actual or potential usefulness of supplemental materials on the performance of peer review. RESULTS: A total of 481 (66%) of 733 questionnaires were returned. Of the 471 respondents' questionnaires that could be used, 217 (46%) indicated that they received abstracts, and 44 (10%) of 458 respondents indicated that they received preprints. Higher proportions of peer reviewers who received supplemental materials than those who had not received them felt that they were (or would be) useful to them when reviewing the manuscript (63% [95% confidence interval (CI), 57%-69%] vs 45% [95% CI, 38%-52%]; P<.001) and to the peer review process in general (80% [95% CI, 75%-85%] vs 64% [95% CI, 58%-70%]; P<.001). CONCLUSION: The majority of respondents indicated that supplemental materials helped (or would have helped) them evaluate manuscripts and valued them more highly when they actually received them.

Abstracting and Indexing↗
PubMed1993

How reliable is peer review of scientific abstracts? Looking back at the 1991 Annual Meeting of the Society of General Internal Medicine.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the interrater reproducibility of scientific abstract review. DESIGN: Retrospective analysis. SETTING: Review for the 1991 Society of General Internal Medicine (SGIM) annual meeting. SUBJECTS: 426 abstracts in seven topic categories evaluated by 55 reviewers. MEASUREMENTS: Reviewers rated abstracts from 1 (poor) to 5 (excellent), globally and on three specific dimensions: interest to the SGIM audience, quality of methods, and quality of presentation. Each abstract was reviewed by five to seven reviewers. Each reviewer's ratings of the three dimensions were added to compute that reviewer's summary score for a given abstract. The mean of all reviewers' summary scores for an abstract, the final score, was used by SGIM to select abstracts for the meeting. RESULTS: Final scores ranged from 4.6 to 13.6 (mean = 9.9). Although 222 abstracts (52%) were accepted for publication, the 95% confidence interval around the final score of 300 (70.4%) of the 426 abstracts overlapped with the threshold for acceptance of an abstract. Thus, these abstracts were potentially misclassified. Only 36% of the variance in summary scores was associated with an abstract's identity, 12% with the reviewer's identity, and the remainder with idiosyncratic reviews of abstracts. Global ratings were more reproducible than summary scores. CONCLUSION: Reviewers disagreed substantially when evaluating the same abstracts. Future meeting organizers may wish to rank abstracts using global ratings, and to experiment with structured review criteria and other ways to improve raters' agreement.

Abstracting and Indexing↗
PubMed2001

A review of MRI findings in schizophrenia.

After more than 100 years of research, the neuropathology of schizophrenia remains unknown and this is despite the fact that both Kraepelin (1919/1971: Kraepelin, E., 1919/1971. Dementia praecox. Churchill Livingston Inc., New York) and Bleuler (1911/1950: Bleuler, E., 1911/1950. Dementia praecox or the group of schizophrenias. International Universities Press, New York), who first described 'dementia praecox' and the 'schizophrenias', were convinced that schizophrenia would ultimately be linked to an organic brain disorder. Alzheimer (1897: Alzheimer, A., 1897. Beitrage zur pathologischen anatomie der hirnrinde und zur anatomischen grundlage einiger psychosen. Monatsschrift fur Psychiarie und Neurologie. 2, 82-120) was the first to investigate the neuropathology of schizophrenia, though he went on to study more tractable brain diseases. The results of subsequent neuropathological studies were disappointing because of conflicting findings. Research interest thus waned and did not flourish again until 1976, following the pivotal computer assisted tomography (CT) finding of lateral ventricular enlargement in schizophrenia by Johnstone and colleagues. Since that time significant progress has been made in brain imaging, particularly with the advent of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), beginning with the first MRI study of schizophrenia by Smith and coworkers in 1984 (Smith, R.C., Calderon, M., Ravichandran, G.K., et al. (1984). Nuclear magnetic resonance in schizophrenia: A preliminary study. Psychiatry Res. 12, 137-147). MR in vivo imaging of the brain now confirms brain abnormalities in schizophrenia. The 193 peer reviewed MRI studies reported in the current review span the period from 1988 to August, 2000. This 12 year period has witnessed a burgeoning of MRI studies and has led to more definitive findings of brain abnormalities in schizophrenia than any other time period in the history of schizophrenia research. Such progress in defining the neuropathology of schizophrenia is largely due to advances in in vivo MRI techniques. These advances have now led to the identification of a number of brain abnormalities in schizophrenia. Some of these abnormalities confirm earlier post-mortem findings, and most are small and subtle, rather than large, thus necessitating more advanced and accurate measurement tools. These findings include ventricular enlargement (80% of studies reviewed) and third ventricle enlargement (73% of studies reviewed). There is also preferential involvement of medial temporal lobe structures (74% of studies reviewed), which include the amygdala, hippocampus, and parahippocampal gyrus, and neocortical temporal lobe regions (superior temporal gyrus) (100% of studies reviewed). When gray and white matter of superior temporal gyrus was combined, 67% of studies reported abnormalities. There was also moderate evidence for frontal lobe abnormalities (59% of studies reviewed), particularly prefrontal gray matter and orbitofrontal regions. Similarly, there was moderate evidence for parietal lobe abnormalities (60% of studies reviewed), particularly of the inferior parietal lobule which includes both supramarginal and angular gyri. Additionally, there was strong to moderate evidence for subcortical abnormalities (i.e. cavum septi pellucidi-92% of studies reviewed, basal ganglia-68% of studies reviewed, corpus callosum-63% of studies reviewed, and thalamus-42% of studies reviewed), but more equivocal evidence for cerebellar abnormalities (31% of studies reviewed). The timing of such abnormalities has not yet been determined, although many are evident when a patient first becomes symptomatic. There is, however, also evidence that a subset of brain abnormalities may change over the course of the illness. The most parsimonious explanation is that some brain abnormalities are neurodevelopmental in origin but unfold later in development, thus setting the stage for the development of the symptoms of schizophrenia. Or there may be additional factors, such as stress or neurotoxicity, that occur during adolescence or early adulthood and are necessary for the development of schizophrenia, and may be associated with neurodegenerative changes. Importantly, as several different brain regions are involved in the neuropathology of schizophrenia, new models need to be developed and tested that explain neural circuitry abnormalities effecting brain regions not necessarily structurally proximal to each other but nonetheless functionally interrelated. (ABSTRACT TRUNCATED)

Brain↗
PubMed2004

FIMR and other mortality reviews as public health tools for strengthening maternal and child health systems in communities: where do we need to go next?

This article examines FIMR in relationship to two other maternal and child health mortality reviews--child fatality review (CFR) and maternal mortality review (MMR), and explores how their approaches to reviewing deaths can complement one another. Identifying opportunities for collaboration among these case review methodologies may lead to greater efficiencies at the local and state levels and strengthen the case review approach as a public health tool for improving maternal and child health outcomes. To enable comparative analysis, a table was constructed that identifies the purpose, structure, and process features of each case review approach. This was followed by an examination of two possible ways to improve maternal and child mortality review processes in states: 1) better coordination; and 2) improving each individual process through adapting and adopting promising practices from the others. A discussion is also provided of the state Title V role in facilitating both the coordination of reviews and the process of sharing best practices. Given the similarities that exist among the three MCH mortality reviews, it is important to view each review as one component of a larger system of maternal and child health death reviews. Implementing widely the recommendations generated by these reviews may increase the likelihood of improvements in services and systems on behalf of women and children.

Child Health Services↗
PubMed2003

The assessment of systematic reviews in dentistry.

The aim of this study was to assess the quality of systematic reviews of effectiveness of interventions in dentistry. The Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effectiveness and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched to identify systematic reviews examining the effectiveness of interventions for oral, dental and craniofacial disorders and diseases. Sixty-five reviews were identified and assessed independently by two reviewers. The area most frequently evaluated within the reviews was pain relief/prevention (20/65, 31%) followed by caries and oral medicine. The quality assessment of the identified systematic reviews highlighted key areas where improvements could be made. One major weakness of the reviews was that the search strategies employed were not always adequate. Only 12 reviews (19%) demonstrated an attempt to identify all relevant studies. Other areas of weakness include the screening and quality assessment of primary studies, the pooling of data and examination of heterogeneity, and the interpretation of findings. This investigation shows that the quality of systematic reviews in dentistry could be improved. If future clinical decisions are to be based upon systematic reviews, it is imperative that the reviews address clinically relevant, focused questions and follow a 'transparent', well-designed protocol.

Databases, Bibliographic↗
PubMed2001

Examining the evidence in anesthesia literature: a critical appraisal of systematic reviews.

UNLABELLED: Systematic reviews are structured reviews that use scientific strategies to reduce bias in the collection, appraisal, and interpretation of relevant studies. We undertook a systematic review of published systematic reviews in perioperative medicine to summarize the areas currently covered by this type of literature, to evaluate the quality of systematic reviews in this field, and to assess some of the methodologic and reporting issues that are unique to systematic reviews. Computerized bibliographic databases, citation review, and hand searches were performed to identify eligible articles. Quality was assessed using the Overview Quality Assessment Questionnaire. Eight-two systematic reviews were found. Reviews in perioperative medicine tended to evaluate prophylactic or therapeutic interventions. No differences were seen in quality between reviews published in anesthesia and nonanesthesia journals. Nearly half of all systematic reviews had only minor or minimal flaws; however, methods can be improved with expanded search strategies, use of least two reviewers to assess each study, use of validated methods to evaluate quality, and assessment of potential sources of bias. IMPLICATIONS: The quality of systematic reviews relating to perioperative medicine was examined systematically and found to be similar in quality to those in other specialties. Adoption of recently published criteria on writing and methods could further improve this type of literature.

Anesthesia↗
PubMed2000

Evidence-based practice and reviews of therapeutic touch.

PURPOSE: To present principles for accurately representing research for evidence-based practice and health care policies, and to evaluate how original research results indicated adherence to those principles in literature reviews of therapeutic touch. ORGANIZING CONSTRUCTS: Critical thinking and scientific integrity. SOURCES: Reviews of therapeutic touch literature published in nursing journals between 1994 and 1998 and the research studies cited in those reviews. METHODS: Statements made in reviews about the efficacy of therapeutic touch were compared with the results and conclusions of the research cited. General conclusions reported in reviews were evaluated against a broad range of therapeutic touch (TT) research studies, including many not cited in reviews. How accurately reviewers represented the research studies was evaluated by comparing reviewers' conclusions with those of the researchers. Findings were organized into principles to guide evidence-based reviews. FINDINGS: Literature reviews about therapeutic touch often cited only research with favorable findings. When citing studies with contradictory findings, only the favorable findings were usually mentioned. In many reviews, research cited as indicating the efficacy of therapeutic touch indicated it was ineffective. Every review examined had at least one significant mistake concerning how research studies were represented. CONCLUSIONS: Accurate presentation of original research results is needed to make evidence-based decisions and to ensure that limited healthcare resources are used effectively and safely. Evidence-based principles should be followed in reviewing therapies and practices, including alternative therapies.

Evidence-Based Medicine↗
PubMed2002

Statistical heterogeneity in systematic reviews of clinical trials: a critical appraisal of guidelines and practice.

OBJECTIVE: Heterogeneity between study results can be a problem in any systematic review or meta-analysis of clinical trials. Identifying its presence, investigating its cause and correctly accounting for it in analyses all involve difficult decisions for the researcher. Our objectives were: to collate recommendations on the subject of dealing with heterogeneity in systematic reviews of clinical trials; to investigate current practice in addressing heterogeneity in Cochrane reviews; and to compare current practice with recommendations. METHODS: We review guidelines for those undertaking systematic reviews and examine how heterogeneity is addressed in practice in a sample of systematic reviews, and their protocols, from the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. RESULTS: Advice to reviewers is on the whole consistent and sensible. However, examination of a sample of Cochrane protocols and reviews demonstrates that the advice is difficult to follow given the small numbers of studies identified in many systematic reviews, the difficulty of pre-specifying important effect modifiers for subgroup analysis or meta-regression and the unresolved debate concerning fixed versus random effects meta-analyses. There was disagreement between protocols and reviews, often either regarding choice of important potential effect modifiers or due to the review identifying too few studies to perform planned analyses. CONCLUSION: Guidelines that address practical issues are required to reduce the risk of spurious findings from investigations of heterogeneity. This may involve discouraging statistical investigations such as subgroup analyses and meta-regression, rather than simply adopting a cautious approach to their interpretation, unless a large number of studies is available. The notion of a priori specification of potential effect modifiers for a retrospective review of studies is ill-defined, and the appropriateness of using a statistical test for heterogeneity to decide between analysis strategies is suspect.

Clinical Protocols↗
PubMed2000

Treatments for fatigue in multiple sclerosis: a rapid and systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Multiple sclerosis (MS) is an important problem both for people with the disease and for society. There is no cure, and alleviation of symptoms forms the cornerstone of care. Excessive fatigue that severely limits activity is experienced by at least two-thirds of the estimated 60,000 people with MS in the UK. OBJECTIVES: (1) To identify current treatments for fatigue in MS and their evidence-base. (2) To systematically review the evidence for those treatments that have been investigated in more than one rigorous study, in order to determine their effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. METHODS: The review was carried out in two stages: a formal scoping review (to assess the range of interventions used by people with MS), and a systematic review for treatments that had been identified as promising and that had been investigated in clinical trials (as identified in the scoping review). A systematic review of research on costs and cost-effectiveness of those interventions identified as promising was also performed. Electronic databases, including MEDLINE and EMBASE, were searched for the period 1991-June 1999 (scoping review) and 1966-December 1999 (systematic review). Reference lists from publications were also searched, and experts were contacted for any additional information not already identified. RESULTS: Interventions identified for the treatment of fatigue in MS (1) Behavioural advice. This is the main element of initial clinical management and no rigorous research of its effectiveness was identified. (2) Drugs (amantadine, pemoline, potassium-channel blockers and antidepressants). (3) Training, rehabilitation and devices (cooling vests and electromagnetic fields). (4) Alternative therapies (bee venom, cannabis, acupuncture/acupressure and yoga). Only two drugs, amantadine and pemoline, met the criteria for full systematic review. RESULTS - EFFECTIVENESS OF AMANTADINE: One parallel and three crossover trials were found, involving a total of 236 people with MS. All studies were open to bias. All studies showed a pattern in favour of amantadine compared with placebo, but there is considerable uncertainty about the validity and clinical significance of this finding. This pattern of benefit was considerably undermined when different assumptions were used in the sensitivity analysis. RESULTS - EFFECTIVENESS OF PEMOLINE: One parallel and one crossover trial were found involving a total of 126 people with MS. Both studies were open to bias. There was no overall tendency in favour of pemoline over placebo and an excess of reports of adverse effects with pemoline. RESULTS - HEALTH ECONOMIC ANALYSIS: The drug costs of amantadine and pemoline are modest (pound 200 and pound 80 per annum, respectively). No economic evaluations were identified in the systematic review, and available data were insufficient to allow modelling of cost-effectiveness in this rapid review. CONCLUSIONS: There is insufficient evidence to allow people with MS, clinicians or policy makers to make informed decisions on the appropriate use of the many treatments on offer. Only amantadine appears to have some proven ability to alleviate the fatigue in MS, though only a proportion of users will obtain benefit and then only some of these patients will benefit sufficiently to take the drug in the long term. CONCLUSIONS - RECOMMENDATIONS FOR RESEARCH: The frequency, severity and impact of fatigue, the poverty of available research, and the absence of any ongoing research, suggest that new research is an urgent priority. People with MS, clinicians and policy makers should work together to ensure that the evidence required is collected as quickly as possible by encouraging involvement in rigorous research. Research should not be restricted to the two drugs reviewed in depth in this report. All interventions identified in the scoping review (see above) should be considered, as should basic scientific research into the underlying mechanism of fatigue in MS.

Amantadine↗
PubMed1986

Book reviews in medical journals.

In a study of book reviews published in four general medical journals over a six-month period, 480 reviews were analyzed. Twenty-five features that reviewers address when evaluating a text were identified, and the frequency of commentary for each feature was determined. The mean number of features addressed per review was 9.0. Reviews averaged 389 words, but review length did not correlate with the length or scope of the book, with the number of features addressed, nor with the reviewer's assessment of the text. Extraneous commentary by the reviewer occurred in 16% of the reviews. This editorializing appeared in lengthier reviews that addressed fewer features. Favorable reviews were far more common than unfavorable ones (88.5% vs. 11.5%). Consequently, for the fifty-five books reviewed in more than one journal, agreement regarding rating of the text was high (86%). Results of this study may provide useful guidelines for reviewers of medical texts.

Book Reviews as Topic↗
PubMed1994

Is there gender bias in JAMA's peer review process?

OBJECTIVE: To assess whether manuscripts received by JAMA in 1991 possessed differing peer review and manuscript processing characteristics, or had a variable chance of acceptance, associated with the gender of the participants in the peer review process. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study of 1851 research articles. SETTING: JAMA editorial office. PARTICIPANTS: Eight male and five female JAMA editors, 2452 male and 930 female reviewers, and 1698 male and 462 female authors. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Statistically significant gender bias. RESULTS: Female editors were assigned manuscripts from female corresponding authors more often than were male editors (P < .001). Female editors used more reviewers per manuscript if sent for other review. Male reviewers assisted male editors more often than female editors, and male reviewers took longer to return manuscripts than did their female counterparts (median, 25 vs 22 days). Content reviewer recommendations were independent of corresponding author and review gender, while male statistical reviewers recommended the highest and lowest categories more frequently than did female statistical reviewers (P < .001). Manuscripts handled by female editors were rejected summarily at higher rates (P < .001). Articles submitted to JAMA in 1991 were not accepted at significantly different rates based on the gender of the corresponding author or the assigned editor (P < .4). CONCLUSIONS: Gender differences exist in editor and reviewer characteristics at JAMA with no apparent effect on the final outcome of the peer review process or acceptance for publication.

American Medical Association↗
PubMed2006

Quality assessment of observational studies is not commonplace in systematic reviews.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: To review current practice in the assessment of the quality of original observational studies included in systematic reviews. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Examination of all systematic reviews identified by a basic PubMed search for the years 1999-2000 (32 reviews) and 2003-2004 (98 reviews). English language systematic reviews published in peer-reviewed journals was the setting. Each review was evaluated for the use of quality assessment of original observational studies and if quality assessment occurred, what type of assessment was used. RESULTS: Quality assessment occurred in 22% of systematic reviews identified in 1999-2000 compared with 50% of reviews identified from 2003-2004. All earlier reviews devised their own quality assessment criteria, whereas in 2003-2004 10 different quality assessment techniques were identified. CONCLUSIONS: Quality assessment does not routinely occur in systematic reviews of observational studies. Where it does occur, there is no clear consensus in the method used.

Humans↗
PubMed1998

Histopathologic review of prostate biopsies from patients referred to a comprehensive cancer center: correlation of pathologic findings, analysis of cost, and impact on treatment.

BACKGROUND: Clinicians at the Fox Chase Cancer Center (FCCC) base prostate carcinoma treatment decisions regarding need to treat, field size, total dose, and adjuvant hormonal therapy on known prognostic factors including clinical stage, Gleason score (GS), perineural invasion (PNI), and pretreatment prostate specific antigen levels. The pathology of every patient is reviewed at FCCC to confirm a diagnosis of malignancy. The objective of this study was to define differences between pathologic reviews and their impact on treatment between outside institutions and FCCC. METHODS: The authors reviewed 538 pathology reports of prostate biopsies performed at both outside pathology departments and FCCC on patients evaluated between January 1993 and December 1996. The outside pathology reviews represented 107 community hospitals, academic institutions, and private pathology laboratories. Patients who had received hormonal therapy, cryosurgery, or radical prostatectomy prior to prostate biopsy were excluded from analysis. Final FCCC pathology determinations were compared with pathology reports from outside institutions. Reports then were analyzed to determine whether differences in interpretation would have resulted in different treatment strategies. Differences in percentages according to institutional type were evaluated using the chi-square statistic. The cost was assessed and cost per change in treatment estimated. RESULTS: The 538 pathology reviews identified a nearly 40% change in GS and a 13% change in > or =2 GS between the FCCC pathology review and 107 outside academic institutions. The results of this study showed that 22% of community hospitals, 10% of private laboratories, and 8% of academic institutions demonstrated at least 2 GS changes compared with the FCCC pathology review (p = 0.001). There was no significant difference observed between types of institutions in the incidence of PNI. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis provides evidence of a significant difference in the pathologic reviews of prostate biopsies conducted at FCCC and outside pathology departments. There was a nearly 40% change in GS and a 13% change in > or =2 GS between the FCCC pathology review and 107 outside institutions. The second pathology review added approximately $104 per case for a total of $55,952 to review all 538 cases. Overall, the savings in health care dollars resulting from the second pathologic review totaled $12,997. This second review of outside pathology in prostate cancer appears to be justified based on the treatment changes and on cost.

Adenocarcinoma↗