SEARCH · Search PubMed
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.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
This project evaluated an intervention for preventing peer rejection in middle school that promoted social acceptance in the classroom environment. The systems-level and preventive focus of this intervention differed markedly from traditional interventions that target putative deficits within individual rejected children. In collaboration with 24 teachers and their classrooms, the intervention team led mixed groups of accepted and rejected children in cooperative games that required teamwork and mutual respect among all members in order to succeed. To reinforce these alliances between children, as well as to prevent future peer rejection, teachers were encouraged to use cooperative, teamwork-based group activities for academic instruction. The intervention was evaluated using a randomized control (waitlist) design. Results suggested that the intervention reduced the amount of self-reported peer rejection in classrooms. Implications for the further development and evaluation of systems-level interventions to prevent peer rejection are discussed. EDITORS' STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS: The use of a systems-based prevention program shows promise for the prevention of children's perceived peer rejection. The authors demonstrate a model of university-community collaboration with a plan for sustainability and a focus on low-income and minority populations. Educators, school administrators, and researchers will be intrigued by the positive experiences of non-rejected peers and teachers in promoting a socially accepting school climate.
BACKGROUND: Problems with statistical methods and reporting have been noted in articles published in dermatology journals. Conclusions presented in published reports may be misleading if based on inappropriate or misinterpreted statistical analysis. OBJECTIVE: We sought to assess dermatology journal editors' policies and perceptions regarding statistical review of submitted manuscripts. DESIGN: We mailed and e-mailed a questionnaire survey. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 43 dermatology journal editors, representing 35 dermatology journals from the United States and abroad, participated in this study. RESULTS: In all, 32 editors (74.4%), representing 30 journals (85.7%), returned questionnaires. A total of 24 editors (75%) reported having requested statistical reviews on less than 5% of published manuscripts containing original quantitative analysis (ie, excluding reviews and case reports), whereas 3 editors (9.4%) reported having requested statistical reviews on more than 75% of such manuscripts. Most editors reported requesting statistical reviews on a case-by-case basis either after initial favorable review by subject-matter (nonstatistical) reviewers (12 editors; 37.5%) or at the same time that subject-matter review was requested (6 editors; 18.8%). A total of 4 editors (12.5%) reported requesting statistical review for all manuscripts at the same time they are sent for subject-matter review. Another 10 editors (31.3%) said their journals had no general policy on statistical reviewing, and statistical review is almost never needed. For 15 editors (46.9%), ideal statistical reviewing policy was identical to their current policy, whereas 13 (40.6%) favored a more rigorous and 3 (9.4%) a less rigorous policy. CONCLUSIONS: Dermatology journals infrequently perform statistical reviews of submitted manuscripts. Dermatology journal editors' statistical review policies range from no general policy to (most frequently) requesting reviews on a case-by-case basis to reviewing all submitted manuscripts. Many editors favor more rigorous statistical reviewing policies for their journals. Increased use of statistical reviewing may increase the reliability of conclusions published in dermatology journals.
Lasers in Surgery and Medicine regrets to inform readers that the article, "Effects of low-power He-NE laser irradiation on rabbit articular chondrocytes in vitro," by YL Jia and ZY Guo(Vol.34, No.4, pp. 323-328, 2004, DOI.10.1002/lsm.20017 is being retracted on account of concerns over the validity of the data reported therein based on further consideration by the journal's Editor.
A method is presented to obtain realistic modifications of faces represented as sequences of tomograms, to be used for geometrical modelling or for planning of plastic surgery. This method uses a mathematical model consisting of the harmonic expansion of tomograms whose harmonic parameters are represented by cubic spline functions of the z variable. Based on this model a three dimensional shape editor is proposed that allows for local modifications. The results obtained using tomograms of a plaster mould are presented.
Editors of medical journals select manuscripts for publication based, in part, on the perceived quality of the manuscript submitted. The objective of this study was to describe associations between acceptance for publication and quality-related methodologic characteristics of meta-analyses. This was a prospective observational study. The setting was editorial offices of JAMA and offices of external reviewers. The manuscripts reviewed were 112 consecutive meta-analyses submitted to JAMA during 1996 and 1997 whose authors agreed to participate. The main outcome measures were ratings of 16 methodologic characteristics reflecting quality of the meta-analysis and acceptance for publication. A "high" rating for one methodologic characteristic, whether the report of the meta-analysis provided sufficient detail to enable replication, was related significantly to publication (RR = 2.79, 95% CI = 1.13-6.89). This relationship persisted when other variables were controlled for in the model. Generally, rejected manuscripts had fewer factors rated "high," but differences were not significant. We found that inclusion of sufficient detail to allow a reader to replicate meta-analytic methods was the only characteristic related to acceptance for publication.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Publication bias is the tendency on the parts of investigators, reviewers, and editors to submit or accept manuscripts for publication based on the direction or strength of the study findings. Much of what has been learned about publication bias comes from the social sciences, less from the field of medicine. In medicine, three studies have provided direct evidence for this bias. Prevention of publication bias is important both from the scientific perspective (complete dissemination of knowledge) and from the perspective of those who combine results from a number of similar studies (meta-analysis). If treatment decisions are based on the published literature, then the literature must include all available data that is of acceptable quality. Currently, obtaining information regarding all studies undertaken in a given field is difficult, even impossible. Registration of clinical trials, and perhaps other types of studies, is the direction in which the scientific community should move.
Articles pertaining to evidence-based practice have become increasingly visible in occupational therapy literature. Authors have defined and described evidence-based practice for occupational therapy (Lloyd-Smith 1997; Taylor 1997), identified resources that therapists can draw upon to inform their practice (Hayes & McGrath, 1998; Lieberman & Scheer, 2002), and articulated strategies to gather research evidence in practice (Tickle-Degnen 2000a; Unsworth, 2000). As associate editor of the American Journal of Occupational Therapy Evidence-Based Practice Forum, Tickle-Degnen has also written a series of articles that explain how to engage clients in the research process, and communicate research evidence to clients and families (1998, 2002).
As users of RCT results, we must understand the potential for humans to interject bias. By describing assessments of allocation concealment and blinding, abstracts included in Evidence-Based Nursing will help readers to discern those trials that have made superior efforts to minimise bias. Judging the quality of allocation concealment and blinding reflects current empirical research and reflects the commitment of the editors of this journal to apply the principles of evidence-based practice to reporting of study findings.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
PURPOSE: To discuss a variety of tests used to diagnose the subfertile male and to impart based on clinical experience, reading, and personal research, this editor's view of the relative value of these tests. METHODS: The tests discussed include motile density, sperm morphology, the hypo-osmotic swelling test, antisperm antibodies, sperm chromatin structure assay, DNA integrity tests, reactive oxygen species, sperm penetration assay, sperm-zona pellucida binding tests, sperm creatine kinase activity, plasma membrane mannose-ligand receptor assay, and nuclear morphology. RESULTS: Except when extremely low (< 2.5 x 10(6)/ml) motile density does not identify the subfertile male very well. In contrast to other studies, my group's data suggest that neither low normal morphology by WHO standards or strict criteria identify the subfertile male. The best predictor of male subfertility is the hypo-osmotic swelling test when it is < 50%, which does not result in fertilization failure, but implantation failure. A high percentage of sperm coated by antisperm antibodies is very predictive of fertilization failure. CONCLUSIONS: The physician must be careful when concluding that the male is subfertile or fertile based on standard tests of concentration, motility, and especially morphology.
Preventive interventions may have few or unproven benefits, or they may even be harmful. Since three of the fundamental precepts of Western biomedical ethics are beneficence, non-maleficence and respect for individual autonomy, failure to obtain truly informed consent for many current preventive interventions may be unethical. However, there are many impediments to obtaining such consent. Physicians need to be aware of an immense amount of up-to-date, complex information. It may be difficult for patients to assimilate this information, and there is rarely time for physicians to become informed and to inform their patients. Clinical practice guidelines may be helpful, but not all are based on evidence, and recommendations are often conflicting. Medical institutions, as well as individual clinicians, can help solve these dilemmas. Authors and journal editors can make a commitment to report and publish well-referenced evidence-based guidelines. Organizations such as the Canadian Task Force on the Periodic Health Examination and the US Preventive Services Task Force can develop balanced, evidence-based patient-information material. Faculty at all levels of medical education can increase their emphasis on the ethics of prevention. Individual clinicians should avoid making clinical decisions on the basis of relative reductions of morbidity or mortality, should use evidence-based clinical practice guidelines rather than those based on authority whenever possible, should make use of patient-information material and, most important, should have a consistent policy of obtaining informed consent from patients before they participate in potentially harmful preventive programs.
PURPOSE: To describe the editorial practices of nurse editors, including proprietary arrangements, manuscript processing systems, and editorial review, and to ascertain editors' opinions on effective editorial practices. DESIGN: A descriptive study in which an author-designed 108-question survey was distributed and collected by e-mail. Of 177 international nursing editors identified, 164 e-mail addresses could be located, and 137 nurse editors expressed willingness to participate. Ninety journals were represented in the final purposive convenience sample, including 71 published in the US and 19 outside the US. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, t test, chi square, and content analysis. FINDINGS: Of the 90 journals, 78 were characterized by their editors as scholarly journals. Fifty-two were official journals of associations. The nurse editors' average age was 53, with over 20 years of experience in nursing and 8 years as editor. Although practices and compensation at U.S. and international journals did not differ significantly, scholarly journals and "other" publications such as magazines and newsletters were managed differently. Blinded peer review was in place at 98% of journals. Editors generally used manuscript reviewers as advisors rather than as voters; only 30% of editors thought their ultimate decision must agree with the majority of reviewers. Nurse editors often needed 3-5 years to feel comfortable in the role. Editors of association journals often reported struggling with the issue of editorial independence versus association control. Editors believed their role was influential in maintaining scholarly excellence and evidence-based practice, but many noted the constant pressure of deadlines and dealing with poor writing from authors as challenges of the work. CONCLUSIONS: The role of nurse editor is not part of the formal preparation of nurse scholars or clinicians; standards for nurse editors are not readily apparent, and nurse editors often work in isolation, lacking professional support. This survey included data by which nurse authors and readers of nursing journals can understand how nurse editors work and make decisions about manuscripts, ultimately influencing knowledge dissemination in nursing journals. Nurse editors can use this information to compare their practices with that of others, and advocate for adequate preparation, compensation, and assistance with production.
DSM-IV cautions clinicians and researchers to rule out malingering when issues of compensation apply. Until this admonition is followed by authors, and enforced by journal editors, there remains the risk that inflated rates of psychiatric morbidity will enter the PTSD data base.
We have built a knowledge-based genetic engineering simulation system-- GENESIS-- capable of representing both domain-specific and general knowledge. Information is stored within a hierarchically-organized framework composed of structures called units. A series of sophisticated editors enables no-computer specialist molecular geneticists to construct a knowledge base through direct interaction with the computer. Three types of knowledge specific to the domain of molecular genetics, MAPS, sequences and RULES are discussed in detail with examples.
AIM: This paper highlights some of the areas where there are problems with the way that statistics are conducted and reported in psychology journals. Recommendations are given for improving these problems. SAMPLE: The choice of topics is based largely on the questions that authors, reviewers, and editors have asked in recent years. The focus is on null hypothesis significance testing (NHST), choosing a statistical test, and what should be included in results sections. RESULTS: There are several ways to improve how statistics are reported. These should improve both the authors' and the readers' understanding of the data. CONCLUSIONS: Psychology as a discipline will improve if the way in which statistics are conducted and reported is improved. This will require effort from authors, scrutiny from reviewers, and stubbornness from editors.
It has long been recognized that investigators frequently fail to report their research findings (Dickersin, 1990). Chalmers (1990) has suggested that this failure represents scientific misconduct since volunteers who consent to participate in research, and agencies that provide funding support for investigations, do so with the understanding that the work will make a contribution to knowledge. Clearly, knowledge that is not disseminated is not making a "contribution". This failure to publish is not only inappropriate scientific conduct, it also influences the information available for interpretation by the scientific community. Of course, if research is left randomly unpublished, there is less information available, but that information is unbiased. We now have solid evidence that failure to publish is not a random event; rather, publication is dramatically influenced by the direction and strength of research findings (Dickersin et al., 1987, 1992; Dickersin & Min, 1993; Easterbrook et al., 1991; Simes, 1986). This tendency of editors and reviewers to accept manuscripts submitted by investigators based on the strength and direction of the research findings is termed "publication bias". The problem has been under discussion for many years and has recently been studied directly in medicine and public health. This article will review the major evidence available regarding publication bias and will suggest measures for overcoming the problem.