Mostafa Alabousi

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

Recommendations for reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of diagnostic test accuracy: a systematic review

BackgroundThis study is to perform a systematic review of existing guidance on quality of reporting and methodology for systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) in order to compile a list of potential items that might be included in a reporting guideline for such reviews: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Diagnostic Test Accuracy (PRISMA-DTA).MethodsStudy protocol published on EQUATOR website. Articles in full text or abstract form that reported on any aspect of reporting systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy were eligible for inclusion. We used the Ovid platform to search Ovid MEDLINE®, Ovid MEDLINE® In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations and Embase Classic+Embase through May 5, 2016. The Cochrane Methodology Register in the Cochrane Library (Wiley version) was also searched. Title and abstract screening followed by full-text screening of all search results was performed independently by two investigators. Guideline organization websites, published guidance statements, and the Cochrane Handbook for Diagnostic Test Accuracy were also searched. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) and Standards for Reporting Diagnostic Accuracy (STARD) were assessed independently by two investigators for relevant items.ResultsThe literature searched yielded 6967 results; 386 were included after title and abstract screening and 203 after full-text screening. After reviewing the existing literature and guidance documents, a preliminary list of 64 items was compiled into the following categories: title (three items); introduction (two items); methods (35 items); results (13 items); discussion (nine items), and disclosure (two items).ConclusionItems on the methods and reporting of DTA systematic reviews in the present systematic review will provide a basis for generating a PRISMA extension for DTA systematic reviews.

Appropriate use criteria: a review of need, development and applications.

ABSTRACT The costs of healthcare in developed countries have seen a dramatic increase in tandem with the increasing utilization of diagnostic testing. As a result, Appropriate Use Criteria (AUC)-based practices have become more commonplace as a provider-driven solution to reducing unnecessary tests and procedures across various specialty societies. The AUC are meant to serve as a distinct entity from clinical guidelines to help inform clinicians of the ‘appropriateness’ of a diagnostic test or procedure. In this article, we discuss the development, implementation, impact, and practical applications of AUC to improve appropriate utilization by providers, healthcare institutions, payers, and policy makers. We also focus on the role of education and feedback as a potentially efficacious future method of implementation of global quality improvement and cost-mitigating strategies. AUC represent a growing quality improvement tool in cardiovascular medicine that can play an important role in reducing inappropriate testing while preserving physician autonomy.

Reporting of imaging diagnostic accuracy studies with focus on MRI subgroup: Adherence to STARD 2015

To evaluate adherence of diagnostic accuracy studies in imaging journals to the STAndards for Reporting of Diagnostic accuracy studies (STARD) 2015. The secondary objective was to identify differences in reporting for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) studies.

Consideration of chronic pain in trials to promote physical activity for diabetes: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials.

Background Chronic pain has been estimated to affect 60% of patients with diabetes and is strongly associated with reduced activity tolerance. We systematically reviewed randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that explored interventions to improve physical activity among patients with diabetes to establish whether co-morbid chronic pain was captured at baseline or explored as an effect modifier and if trials reported a component designed to target chronic pain. Methodology/principal Findings We searched CINAHL, Cochrane Central Registry of Controlled Trials, EMBASE, ERIC, MEDLINE, SPORTDiscus and PsycInfo from inception of each database to March 2012 for RCTs that enrolled patients with diabetes and randomly assigned them to an intervention designed to promote physical activity. Two reviewers independently selected trials and abstracted data. We identified 136 trials meeting our inclusion criteria, only one of which that reported capturing chronic pain measures at baseline. No trial reported on specific interventions to address chronic pain as a competing demand, or as an effect modifier. Conclusion/significance Only 1 trial identified that aimed to promote physical activity among patients with diabetes reported that co-morbid chronic pain was captured at baseline. No trials reported exploring chronic pain as an effect modifier or targeting it as part of its intervention.

Epidemiology of systematic reviews in imaging journals: evaluation of publication trends and sustainability?

PurposeTo evaluate the epidemiology of systematic reviews (SRs) published in imaging journals.MethodsA MEDLINE search identified SRs published in imaging journals from 1 January 2000–31 December 2016. Articles retrieved were screened against inclusion criteria. Demographic and methodological characteristics were extracted from studies. Temporal trends were evaluated using linear regression and Pearson’s correlation coefficients.Results921 SRs were included that reported on 27,435 primary studies, 85,276,484 patients and were cited 26,961 times. The SR publication rate increased 23-fold (r=0.92, p<0.001) while the proportion of SRs to non-SRs increased 13-fold (r = 0.94, p<0.001) from 2000 (0.10%) to 2016 (1.33%). Diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) SRs were most frequent (46.5%) followed by therapeutic SRs (16.6%). Most SRs did not report funding status (54.2%). The median author team size was five; this increased over time (r=0.20, p<0.001). Of the studies, 67.3% included an imaging specialist co-author; this decreased over time (r=-0.57, p=0.017). Most SRs included a meta-analysis (69.6%). Journal impact factor positively correlated with SR publication rates (r=0.54, p<0.001). Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and ‘vascular and interventional radiology’ were the most frequently studied imaging modality and subspecialty, respectively. The USA, UK, China, Netherlands and Canada were the top five publishing countries.ConclusionsThe SR publication rate is increasing rapidly compared with the rate of growth of non-SRs; however, they still make up just over 1% of all studies. Authors, reviewers and editors should be aware of methodological and reporting standards specific to imaging systematic reviews including those for DTA and individual patient data.Key Points• Systematic review publication rate has increased 23-fold from 2000–2016.• The proportion of systematic reviews to non-systematic reviews has increased 13-fold.• The USA, UK and China are the most frequent published countries; those from the USA and China are increasing the most rapidly.