A systematic review and meta-analysis of survey research was conducted to estimate honorary authorship prevalence in health sciences. We searched PubMed, Lens.org, and Dimensions.ai. until January 5 2023. Methodological quality was assessed and quantitative syntheses were conducted. Nineteen surveys were included and rated as having low methodological quality. We found a pooled prevalence of 26% [95% CI 21–31] (6 surveys, 2758 respondents) of researchers that perceived co-author(s) as honorary on the publication at issue (when they were not referred to any authorship criteria). That prevalence was 18% [95% CI 15–21] (11 surveys, 4272 respondents) when researchers were referred to Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) authorship criteria, and 51% [95% CI 47–56] (15 surveys, 5111 respondents) when researchers were asked to declare their co-author(s) contributions on the publication at issue (and these were then compared to ICMJE criteria). 10% of researchers [95% CI 9–12] (11 surveys, 3,663 respondents) reported being approached by others to include honorary author(s) on the publication at issue and 16% [95% CI 13–18] (2 surveys, 823 respondents) admitted adding (an) honorary author(s). Survey research consistently indicates that honorary authorship in the health sciences is highly prevalent, however the quality of the surveys’ methods and reporting needs improvement.
MULTIFILE
Furosemide is included in the World Anti-Doping Agency’s (WADA) list of prohibited substances because it can be used by athletes to mask the presence of performance-enhancing drugs in urine and/or excrete water for rapid weight loss. But how effective is furosemide in masking prohibited substances in urine? Based on the pharmacology and the available literature, we conclude that the masking effect of furosemide is limited. Furosemide is a doping agent that is mainly relevant for sports with weight categories. Conflict of interest and financial support: none declared.
LINK
Artikel gepubliceerd in NTvG: Richtlijnen geven soms aan dat je iemands huidskleur of afkomst mee moet laten spelen bij de afwegingen over een behandeling. Een bekend voorbeeld hiervan zijn de specifieke behandeladviezen voor ‘zwarte personen’ met hypertensie. Wij gingen na hoe bruikbaar dit onderscheid is in de Nederlandse situatie. Elders in het NTvG leest u dat onderscheid maken soms nodig is om goede zorg te verlenen.1 De NHG-standaard ‘Cardiovasculair risicomanagement’ adviseert, net als belangrijke internationale richtlijnen, om ‘zwarte personen’ met hypertensie bij wie geen duidelijke voorkeur is voor een specifiek antihypertensivum op basis van bijvoorbeeld zwangerschap, hartfalen of albuminurie, anders te behandelen dan niet-zwarte personen.2,3 Wij zochten uit hoe bruikbaar dit advies is in de Nederlandse spreekkamer. De term ‘zwart’ Om deze vraag te beantwoorden is het noodzakelijk om eerst terminologie te verhelderen. In de NHG-standaard wordt de term ‘zwarte personen’ gebruikt, maar wie zijn dat eigenlijk? Zijn dat alle mensen ‘van kleur’ (met een niet-witte huidskleur of identiteit), of gaat het dan om iedereen met huidtype 5 of 6 volgens de Fitzpatrick-indeling (5: diepbruin, verbrandt bijna nooit; 6: zeer donkerbruin tot zwart, verbrandt nooit)?
LINK
