Dianna Wolfe

Stop this waste of people, animals and money

Our evidence disputes this view. We spent 12 months rigorously characterizing nearly 2,000 biomedical articles from more than 200 journals thought likely to be predatory. More than half of the corresponding authors hailed from highand upper-middle-income countries as defined by the World Bank. Of the 17% of sampled articles that reported a funding source, the most frequently named funder was the US National Institutes of Health (NIH). The United States produced more articles in our sample than all other countries save India. Harvard University (with 9 articles) in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and the University of Texas (with Predatory journals are easy to please. They seem to accept papers with little regard for quality, at a fraction of the cost charged by mainstream openaccess journals. These supposedly scholarly publishing entities are murky operations, making money by collecting fees while failing to deliver on their claims of being open access and failing to provide services such as peer review and archiving. Despite abundant evidence that the bar is low, not much is known about who publishes in this shady realm, and what the papers are like. Common wisdom assumes that the hazard of predatory publishing is restricted mainly to the developing world. In one famous sting, a journalist for Science sent a purposely flawed paper to 140 presumed predatory titles (and to a roughly equal number of other open-access titles), pretending to be a biologist based in African capital cities. At least two earlier, smaller surveys found that most authors were in India or elsewhere in Asia. A campaign to warn scholars about predatory journals has concentrated its efforts in Africa, China, India, the Middle East and Russia. Frequent, aggressive solicitations from predatory publishers are generally considered merely a nuisance for scientists from rich countries, not a threat to scholarly integrity. Stop this waste of people, animals and money

Effect of Blood Donor Characteristics on Transfusion Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Optimal selection of blood donors is critical for ensuring the safety of blood products. The current selection process is concerned principally with the safety of the blood donor at the time of donation and of the recipient at the time of transfusion. Recent evidence suggests that the characteristics of the donor may affect short- and long-term transfusion outcomes for the transfused recipient. We conducted a systematic review with the primary objective of assessing the association between blood donor characteristics and red blood cell (RBC) transfusion outcomes. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central databases and performed manual searches of top transfusion journals for all available prospective and retrospective studies. We described study characteristics, methodological quality, and risk of bias and provided study-level effect estimates and, when appropriate, pooled estimates with 95% confidence intervals using the Mantel-Haenszel or inverse variance approach. The overall quality of the evidence was graded using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology. From 6121 citations identified by our literature search, 59 studies met our eligibility criteria (50 observational, 9 interventional). We identified the evaluation of association of 17 donor characteristics on RBC transfusion outcome. The risk of bias and confounding of the included studies was high. The quality of evidence was graded as very low to low for all 17 donor characteristics. Potential associations were observed for donor sex with reduced survival at 90 days and 6 months in male recipients that receive donated blood from females (hazard ratio 2.60 [1.09, 6.20] and hazard ratio 2.40 [1.10, 5.24], respectively; n = 1), Human Leukocyte Antigen - antigen D Related (HLA-DR) selected transfusions (odds ratio [OR] 0.39 [0.15, 0.99] for the risk of transplant alloimmunization, n = 9), presence of antileukocyte antibodies (OR 5.84 [1.66, 20.59] for risk of transfusion-related acute lung injury, n = 4), and donor RBC antigens selection (OR 0.20 [0.08, 0.52] for risk of alloimmunization, n = 4). Based on poor quality evidence, positive antileukocyte antibodies, female donor to male recipients, HLA-DR selected RBC transfusion, or donor RBC antigen selection may affect RBC transfusion outcome. Our findings that donor characteristics may be associated with transfusion outcomes warrant establishing vein-to-vein data infrastructure to allow for large robust evaluations. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42013006726.

Reporting guidance considerations from a statistical perspective: overview of tools to enhance the rigour of reporting of randomised trials and systematic reviews

Objective Research waste has received considerable attention from the biomedical community. One noteworthy contributor is incomplete reporting in research publications. When detailing statistical methods and results, ensuring analytic methods and findings are completely documented improves transparency. For publications describing randomised trials and systematic reviews, guidelines have been developed to facilitate complete reporting. This overview summarises aspects of statistical reporting in trials and systematic reviews of health interventions. Methods A narrative approach to summarise features regarding statistical methods and findings from reporting guidelines for trials and reviews was taken. We aim to enhance familiarity of statistical details that should be reported in biomedical research among statisticians and their collaborators. Results We summarise statistical reporting considerations for trials and systematic reviews from guidance documents including the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) Statement for reporting of trials, the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) Statement for trial protocols, the Statistical Analyses and Methods in the Published Literature (SAMPL) Guidelines for statistical reporting principles, the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) Statement for systematic reviews and PRISMA for Protocols (PRISMA-P). Considerations regarding sharing of study data and statistical code are also addressed. Conclusions Reporting guidelines provide researchers with minimum criteria for reporting. If followed, they can enhance research transparency and contribute improve quality of biomedical publications. Authors should employ these tools for planning and reporting of their research.

A systematic review of adverse events of rifapentine and isoniazid compared to other treatments for latent tuberculosis infection

Tuberculosis (TB) remains a common cause of death globally. A regimen of 12 doses of isoniazid (INH) and rifapentine given once weekly (INH/RPT‐3) has recently been recommended by the World Health Organization for the treatment of latent TB infection (LTBI). We aimed to determine whether the INH/RPT‐3 regimen had similar or lesser rates of adverse events compared to other LTBI regimens, namely INH for 9 months, INH for 6 months, rifampin for 3 to 4 months, and rifampin plus INH for 3 to 4 months.

Flaws in the application and interpretation of statistical analyses in systematic reviews of therapeutic interventions were common: a cross-sectional analysis

OBJECTIVES The objective of the study was to investigate the application and interpretation of statistical analyses in a cross-section of systematic reviews (SRs) of therapeutic interventions, without restriction by journal, clinical condition, or specialty. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING We evaluated a random sample of SRs assembled previously, which were indexed in MEDLINE® during February 2014, focused on a treatment or prevention question, and reported at least one meta-analysis. The reported statistical methods used in each SR were extracted from articles and online appendices by one author, with a 20% random sample extracted in duplicate. RESULTS We evaluated 110 SRs; 78/110 (71%) were non-Cochrane SRs and 55/110 (50%) investigated a pharmacological intervention. The SRs presented a median of 13 (interquartile range: 5-27) meta-analytic effects. When considering the index (primary or first reported) meta-analysis of each SR, just over half (62/110 [56%]) used the random-effects model, but few (5/62 [8%]) interpreted the meta-analytic effect correctly (as the average of the intervention effects across all studies). A statistical test for funnel plot asymmetry was reported in 17/110 (15%) SRs; however, in only 4/17 (24%) did the test include the recommended number of at least 10 studies of varying size. Subgroup analyses accompanied 42/110 (38%) index meta-analyses, but findings were not interpreted with respect to a test for interaction in 29/42 (69%) cases, and the issue of potential confounding in the subgroup analyses was not raised in any SR. CONCLUSIONS There is scope for improvement in the application and interpretation of statistical analyses in SRs of therapeutic interventions. The involvement of statisticians on the SR team and establishment of partnerships between researchers with specialist expertise in SR methods and journal editors may help overcome these shortcomings.

Incidence, causes, and consequences of preventable adverse drug events: protocol for an overview of reviews

BackgroundMedication errors represent a noteworthy source of harm to patients. In recent years, several systematic reviews have assessed the frequency and causes of these events, as well as other factors such as commonly associated drugs, their incidence in different specialties, and their consequences to patients. Despite this past literature, there remains a need to study discrepancies between these reviews and establish the current state of the evidence. The planned review will bring together, compare, and contract existing evidence related to the occurrence of medication errors in acute and continuing/long-term care settings.MethodsA systematic review of reviews will be performed. A literature search designed by an experienced information specialist will be carried out in Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Library. We will seek systematic reviews and meta-analyses of primary research studies that evaluate one or more of the following aspects of the occurrence of preventable adverse drug events in hospitals and long-term care centers: the incidence of preventable adverse drug events, either overall or within subgroups of interest related to setting; drug or patient characteristics; cited consequences of these events to patients, including death, emergency room visits, or other outcomes; and established causes of the preventable adverse drug events. Two researchers will independently screen all abstracts and full texts for study selection and subsequently perform data extraction from all included studies. Quality of the reviews will be assessed using the assessing the methodological quality of systematic reviews (AMSTAR) tool. Where objectives from two or more reviews overlap, we will employ the Jadad framework to assess the causes of any noted discrepancies between reviews. An overall summary of results will be performed using tabular and graphical approaches and will be supplemented by narrative description.DiscussionThis overview will help synthesize the broad degree of information available on this important topic. This review is being performed by members of the Drug Safety and Effectiveness Network along with collaboration from Health Canada, and its findings will be published in a peer-reviewed journal. The results may also inform future research in this area.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42016043220

Incidence, causes, and consequences of preventable adverse drug reactions occurring in inpatients: A systematic review of systematic reviews

Background Preventable adverse drug reactions (PADRs) in inpatients are associated with harm, including increased length of stay and potential loss of life, and result in elevated costs of care. We conducted an overview of reviews (i.e., a systematic review of systematic reviews) to determine the incidence of PADRs experienced by inpatients. Secondary review objectives were related to assessment of the effects of patient age, setting, and clinical specialty on PADR incidence. Methods The protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42016043220). We performed a search of Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Library, limiting languages of publication to English and French. We included published systematic reviews that reported quantitative data on the incidence of PADRs in patients receiving acute or ambulatory care in a hospital setting. The full texts of all primary studies for which PADR data were reported in the included reviews were obtained and data relevant to review objectives were extracted. Quality of the included reviews was assessed using the AMSTAR-2 tool. Both narrative summaries of findings and meta-analyses of primary study data were undertaken. Results Thirteen systematic reviews encompassing 37 unique primary studies were included. Across primary studies, the PADR incidence was highly varied, ranging from 0.006 to 13.3 PADRs per 100 patients, with a pooled incidence estimate of 0.59 PADRs per 100 patients. Substantial heterogeneity was present across both reviews and primary studies with respect to review/study objectives, patient age, hospital setting, medical discipline, definitions and assessment tools used, event detection methods, endpoints of interest, and units of measure. Thirteen primary studies used prospective event detection methods and had a pooled PADR incidence of 3.13 (2.87–3.38) PADRs per 100 patients; however, extreme statistical heterogeneity (I2 = 97%) indicated this finding should be considered with caution. Subgroup meta-analyses demonstrated that PADR incidence varied significantly with event detection method (prospective > retrospective > voluntary reporting methods), hospital setting (ICU > wards), and medical discipline (medical > surgical). High statistical heterogeneity (I2 > 80%) was present across all analyses, indicating results should be interpreted with caution. Effects of patient age could not be assessed due to poor reporting of age groups used in primary studies. Discussion The method of event detection appeared to significantly influence PADR incidence, with prospective methods having the highest reported PADR rate. This finding is in agreement with the background literature. High methodological and statistical heterogeneity across primary studies evaluating adverse drug events reduces the validity of the overall PADR incidence derived from the meta-analyses of the pooled data. Data pooled from studies using only prospective methods of event detection should provide an overall estimate closest to the true PADR incidence; however, our estimate should be considered with caution due to the statistical heterogeneity found in this group of studies. Future studies should employ prospective methods of detection. This review demonstrates that the true overall incidence of PADRs is likely much greater than the overall pooled incidence estimate of 0.59 PADRs per 100 patients obtained when event detection method was not taken into consideration.

Evaluating comparative effectiveness of psychosocial interventions for persons receiving opioid agonist therapy for opioid use disorder: protocol for a systematic review

Introduction The opioid crisis has resulted in increasing rates of death caused by problematic opioid use. Current clinical guidelines recommend that individuals with persons with opioid use disorder (OUD) receive pharmacological (eg, opioid agonist therapy) and psychosocial (eg, cognitive behavioural therapy) therapy; however, the best combination of pharmacologic and psychosocial components is not known. Our objective of the planned study is to conduct a comprehensive systematic review to assess the relative benefits of psychosocial interventions as an adjunct to opioid agonist therapy among persons with OUD. Methods and analysis A comprehensive search for randomised controlled trials published in English or French will be conducted from database inception to March 2018. The search will be conducted in MEDLINE and translated for Embase, PsycINFO and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Two independent reviewers will screen, extract and assess risk of bias of eligible articles. Primary outcomes of interest will be treatment retention and opioid use (based on urinalysis results). Secondary outcomes will include self-reported opioid use, abstinence from illicit drugs, adherence to psychosocial therapy and opioid agonist therapy, risk for sexually transmitted disease, risk for blood borne pathogens, changes in mental health symptoms (eg, depression), measures of craving and changes in patients’ quality of life and relevant adverse events. If sufficient data and adequate homogeneity exists, network meta-analyses (NMA) will be performed. Ethics and dissemination This will be the first systematic review to incorporate NMA to compare psychosocial treatments used as an adjunct to opioid agonist therapy for OUD. Results of this review will inform clinical management of persons with OUD. Trial registration number CRD42018090761.

Comparative safety of bowel cleansers: protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis

Introduction The US Food and Drug Administration has withdrawn the bowel cleansing kit HalfLytely (PEG 3500) with 10 mg bisacodyl tablets due to an increased risk of ischaemic colitis compared with the same kit with only 5 mg bisacodyl. This is of interest in Canada given that the bowel cleansing kit Bi-Peglyte (PEG 3500) with 15 mg bisacodyl is currently approved for use. The objective is to assess the comparative safety of various bowel cleansers with or without bisacodyl, with a primary interest inpolyethylene glycol (PEG)-based and sodium-picosulfate-based products. Methods and analysis Given the existing volume of the literature, the review will be conducted in two stages. Stage 1 will consist of a scoping exercise by searching MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane Library (up to 21 November 2017) to identify randomised controlled trials, quasirandomised studies and non-randomised studies in which any bowel cleanser regimens were compared among persons undergoing colonoscopy. The outcomes will be mapped to establish a listing of the studies and their comparisons and outcomes currently available in the literature. From this, a data synthesis plan will be determined. In stage 2, a systematic review with meta-analyses will be pursued, focused on the bowel cleanser comparisons and outcomes of interest identified in stage 1. Two reviewers will screen, extract and quality assess the articles. Outcomes of interest include ischaemic colitis, electrolyte imbalances and their consequences, seizures, bowel perforation and patient tolerability. If sufficient data exist and studies are of sufficient homogeneity, network meta-analyses (NMAs) will be performed. Ethics and dissemination Ethics approval was not necessary due to study design. Updating the safety profile of bowel cleansers among the generally healthy population undergoing colonoscopy is pertinent given recent approval changes. This will be the first NMA within this population. Policy considerations may be reconsidered to minimise risk during bowel cleanser use. PROSPERO registration number CRD42018084720.