Background: Peer review is at the heart of the scientific process. With the advent of digitisation, journals started to offer electronic articles or publishing online only. A new philosophy regarding the peer review process found its way into academia: the open peer review. Open peer review as practiced by BioMed Central (BMC) is a type of peer review where the names of authors and reviewers are disclosed and reviewer comments are published alongside the article. A number of articles have been published to assess peer reviews using quantitative research. However, no studies exist that used qualitative methods to analyse the content of reviewers’ comments. Methods: A focused mapping review and synthesis (FMRS) was undertaken of manuscripts reporting qualitative research submitted to BMC open access journals from 1 January – 31 March 2018. Free-text reviewer comments were extracted from peer review reports using a 77-item classification system organised according to three key dimensions that represented common themes and sub-themes. A two stage analysis process was employed. First, frequency counts were undertaken that allowed revealing patterns across themes/sub-themes. Second, thematic analysis was conducted on selected themes of the narrative portion of reviewer reports. Results: A total of 107 manuscripts submitted to nine open-access journals were included in the FMRS. The frequency analysis revealed that among the 30 most frequently employed themes “writing criteria” (dimension II) is the top ranking theme, followed by comments in relation to the “methods” (dimension I). Besides that, some results suggest an underlying quantitative mindset of reviewers. Results are compared and contrasted in relation to established reporting guidelines for qualitative research to inform reviewers and authors of frequent feedback offered to enhance the quality of manuscripts. Conclusions: This FMRS has highlighted some important issues that hold lessons for authors, reviewers and editors. We suggest modifying the current reporting guidelines by including a further item called “Degree of data transformation” to prompt authors and reviewers to make a judgment about the appropriateness of the degree of data transformation in relation to the chosen analysis method. Besides, we suggest that completion of a reporting checklist on submission becomes a requirement.
MULTIFILE
Abstract: Teledentistry offers possibilities for improving efficiency and quality of care and supporting cost-effective healthcare systems. This umbrella review aims to synthesize existing systematic reviews on teledentistry and provide a summary of evidence of its clinical- and cost-effectiveness. A comprehensive search strategy involving various teledentistry-related terms, across seven databases, was conducted. Articles published until 24 April 2023 were considered. Two researchers independently reviewed titles, abstracts and full-text articles. The quality of the included reviews was critically appraised with the AMSTAR-2 checklist. Out of 749 studies identified, 10 were included in this umbrella review. Two reviews focusing on oral-health outcomes revealed that, despite positive findings, there is not yet enough evidence for the long-term clinical effectiveness of teledentistry. Ten reviews reported on economic evaluations or costs, indicating that teledentistry is cost-saving. However, these conclusions were based on assumptions due to insufficient evidence on cost-effectiveness. The main limitation of our umbrella review was the critically low quality of the included reviews according to AMSTAR-2 criteria, with many of these reviews basing their conclusions on low-quality studies. This highlights the need for high-quality experimental studies (e.g., RCTs, factorial designs, stepped-wedge designs, SMARTs and MRTs) to assess teledentistry’s clinical- and cost-effectiveness.
DOCUMENT
The rising rate of preprints and publications, combined with persistent inadequate reporting practices and problems with study design and execution, have strained the traditional peer review system. Automated screening tools could potentially enhance peer review by helping authors, journal editors, and reviewers to identify beneficial practices and common problems in preprints or submitted manuscripts. Tools can screen many papers quickly, and may be particularly helpful in assessing compliance with journal policies and with straightforward items in reporting guidelines. However, existing tools cannot understand or interpret the paper in the context of the scientific literature. Tools cannot yet determine whether the methods used are suitable to answer the research question, or whether the data support the authors’ conclusions. Editors and peer reviewers are essential for assessing journal fit and the overall quality of a paper, including the experimental design, the soundness of the study’s conclusions, potential impact and innovation. Automated screening tools cannot replace peer review, but may aid authors, reviewers, and editors in improving scientific papers. Strategies for responsible use of automated tools in peer review may include setting performance criteria for tools, transparently reporting tool performance and use, and training users to interpret reports.
DOCUMENT
Inleiding: Het totale pijn concept en het management van pijn heeft een interdisciplinaire invalshoek nodig. Naast medicamenteuze behandeling hebben patiënten de wens om meer symptoom management interventies die complementair zijn. Verpleegkundigen zijn een stabiele dagelijkse factor bij pijnmanagement en vaak de eerste professional in het signaleren van pijn. Het inzetten van nonfarmacologische verpleegkundige interventies zou kunnen bijdragen aan het verlichten van pijn.Onderzoeksvraag: Welke non-farmacologische verpleegkundige interventies zijn er voor het verlichten van pijn bij de palliatieve patiënten?Methoden: Een opgestelde zoekstrategie werd gebruikt en aangepast naar de databases: PubMed, CINAHL, PsycINFO en Embase. De zoekresultaten werden dubbelblind gescreend en de methodologische kwaliteit dubbelblind beoordeeld met de Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Tools. Data-extractie vond plaats en de resultaten samengevat. Er werd een best-evidence synthese gebruikt waarin de methodologische kwaliteit, aantal studies met dezelfde interventies en consistentie in resultaten werden vertaald naar sterk, gematigd, gemixt of onvoldoende evidentie.Resultaten: Er werden 2385 artikelen gevonden. 22 studies zijn geselecteerd waarin verschillende nonfarmacologische verpleegkundige interventies werden gebruikt. Een aantal interventies zijn in meerder studies onderzocht: massage en virtual reality hadden de meeste evidentie voor het ondersteunen bij pijn verlichting en kunst therapie had onvoldoende bewijs. Mindful breathing gafgeen significante pijnverlichting. Alle andere interventies zijn onvoldoende onderzocht. Hypnose, progressieve relaxatie met interactieve geleide visualisaties, cognitive behavioural audiotapes, voetenbad, reflexology en muziek therapie gaven veelbelovende resultaten voor pijnverlichting en mindfulness-based stress reductie programma, aromatherapie en aromatherapie massage gaven deze resultaten niet.Conclusies: Ondanks dat niet alle studies significante veranderingen in pijnscores lieten zien kunnen non-farmacologische verpleegkundige interventies nog wel klinisch relevant zijn voor de palliatieve patiënt. De interventies kennen geen risico’s, hebben allemaal een korte-termijn effect op pijn, zijn in alle settingen van zorg in te zetten, kunnen waar gewenst ook aangeleerd worden door de patiënt of mantelzorg en door de verpleegkundige 24/7 in te zetten. Vanwege de waarde die de interventies voor de patiënt kunnen hebben zou de inzet ervan overwogen moeten worden voor het pijn management plan. Onderzoek met sterke methodologische kwaliteit naar non-farmacologische verpleegkundige interventies blijft nodig.Aanbevelingen: De interventies massage, virtual reality en kunst therapie zouden vanwege de beste evidentie een eerste optie kunnen zijn die verpleegkundigen aanbieden aan patiënten. Vanwege de klinische relevantie is het van belang naar de wens van de patiënt, het ziektebeeld en progressie van de ziekte te kijken welke non-farmacologische verpleegkundige interventies het best passend is.
LINK
Background: In their research reports, scientists are expected to discuss limitations that their studies have. Previous research showed that often, such discussion is absent. Also, many journals emphasize the importance of avoiding overstatement of claims. We wanted to see to what extent editorial handling and peer review affects self-acknowledgment of limitations and hedging of claims.Methods: Using software that automatically detects limitation-acknowledging sentences and calculates the level of hedging in sentences, we compared the submitted manuscripts and their ultimate publications of all randomized trials published in 2015 in 27 BioMed Central (BMC) journals and BMJ Open. We used mixed linear and logistic regression models, accounting for clustering of manuscript-publication pairs within journals, to quantify before-after changes in the mean numbers of limitation-acknowledging sentences, in the probability that a manuscript with zero self-acknowledged limitations ended up as a publication with at least one and in hedging scores.Results: Four hundred forty-six manuscript-publication pairs were analyzed. The median number of manuscripts per journal was 10.5 (interquartile range 6-18). The average number of distinct limitation sentences increased by 1.39 (95% CI 1.09-1.76), from 2.48 in manuscripts to 3.87 in publications. Two hundred two manuscripts (45.3%) did not mention any limitations. Sixty-three (31%, 95% CI 25-38) of these mentioned at least one after peer review. Changes in mean hedging scores were negligible.Conclusions: Our findings support the idea that editorial handling and peer review lead to more self-acknowledgment of study limitations, but not to changes in linguistic nuance.
DOCUMENT
Background: The number of people suffering from one or more chronic conditions is rising, resulting in an increase in patients with complex health care demands. Interprofessional collaboration and the use of shared care plans support the management of complex health care demands of patients with chronic illnesses. This study aims to get an overview of the scientific literature on developing interprofessional shared care plans. Methods: We conducted a scoping review of the scientific literature regarding the development of interprofessional shared care plans. A systematic database search resulted in 45 articles being included, 5 of which were empirical studies concentrating purely on the care plan. Findings were synthesised using directed content analysis. Results: This review revealed three themes. The first theme was the format of the shared care plan, with the following elements: patient’s current state; goals and concerns; actions and interventions; and evaluation. The second theme concerned the development of shared care plans, and can be categorised as interpersonal, organisational and patient-related factors. The third theme covered tools, whose main function is to support professionals in sharing patient information without personal contact. Such tools relate to documentation of and communication about patient information. Conclusion: Care plan development is not a free-standing concept, but should be seen as the result of an underlying process of interprofessional collaboration between team members, including the patient. To integrate the patients’ perspectives into the care plans, their needs and values need careful consideration. This review indicates a need for new empirical studies examining the development and use of shared care plans and evaluating their effects.
DOCUMENT
Background: Honorary authorship refers to the practice of naming an individual who has made little or no contribution to a publication as an author. Honorary authorship inflates the output estimates of honorary authors and deflates the value of the work by authors who truly merit authorship. This manuscript presents the protocol for a systematic review that will assess the prevalence of five honorary authorship issues in health sciences. Methods: Surveys of authors of scientific publications in health sciences that assess prevalence estimates will be eligible. No selection criteria will be set for the time point for measuring outcomes, the setting, the language of the publication, and the publication status. Eligible manuscripts are searched from inception onwards in PubMed, Lens.org, and Dimensions.ai. Two calibrated authors will independently search, determine eligibility of manuscripts, and conduct data extraction. The quality of each review outcome for each eligible manuscript will be assessed with a 14-item checklist developed and piloted for this review. Data will be qualitatively synthesized and quantitative syntheses will be performed where feasible. Criteria for precluding quantitative syntheses were defined a priori. The pooled random effects double arcsine transformed summary event rates of five outcomes on honorary authorship issues with the pertinent 95% confidence intervals will be calculated if these criteria are met. Summary estimates will be displayed after back-transformation. Stata software (Stata Corporation, College Station, TX, USA) version 16 will be used for all statistical analyses. Statistical heterogeneity will be assessed using Tau2 and Chi2 tests and I2 to quantify inconsistency. Discussion: The outcomes of the planned systematic review will give insights in the magnitude of honorary authorship in health sciences and could direct new research studies to develop and implement strategies to address this problem. However, the validity of the outcomes could be influenced by low response rates, inadequate research design, weighting issues, and recall bias in the eligible surveys. Systematic review registration: This protocol was registered a priori in the Open Science Framework (OSF) link: https://osf.io/5nvar/.
DOCUMENT
During the past decades deinstitutionalisation policies have led to a transition from inpatient towards community mental health care. Many European countries implement Assertive Community Treatment (ACT) as an alternative for inpatient care for “difficult to reach” children and adolescents with severe mental illness. ACT is a well-organized low-threshold treatment modality; patients are actively approached in their own environment, and efforts are undertaken to strengthen the patient’s motivation for treatment. The assumption is that ACT may help to avoid psychiatric hospital admissions, enhance cost-effectiveness, stimulate social participation and support, and reduce stigma. ACT has been extensively investigated in adults with severe mental illness and various reviews support its effectiveness in this patient group. However, to date there is no review available regarding the effectiveness of youth-ACT. It is unknown whether youth-ACT is as effective as it is in adults. This review aims to assess the effects of youth-ACT on severity of psychiatric symptoms, general functioning, and psychiatric hospital admissions.
DOCUMENT
This systematic review describes and discusses three commercially available integrated systems for forensic DNA analysis, i.e., ParaDNA, RapidHIT, and ANDE. A variety of aspects, such as performance, time-to-result, ease-of-use, portability, and costs (per analysis run) of these three (modified) rapid DNA analysis systems, are considered. Despite their advantages and developmental progress, major steps still have to be made before rapid systems can be broadly applied at crime scenes for full DNA profiling. Aspects in particular that need (further) improvement are portability, performance, the possibility to analyze a (wider) variety of (complex) forensic samples, and (cartridge) costs. Moreover, steps forward regarding ease-of-use and time-to-result will benefit the broader use of commercial rapid DNA systems. In fact, it would be a profit if rapid DNA systems could be used for full DNA profile generation as well as indicative analyses that can give direction to forensic investigators which will speed up investigations.
MULTIFILE
In the era of social media, online reviews have become a crucial factor influencing the exposure of tourist destinations and the decision-making of potential tourists, exerting a profound impact on the sustainable development of these destinations. However, the influence of review valence on visit intention, especially the role of affective commitment and reputation (ability vs. responsibility), remains unclear. Drawing on emotion as a social information theory, this paper aims to elucidate the direct impact of different review valences on tourists’ visit intentions, as well as mediating mechanisms and boundary conditions. Three experiments indicate that positive (vs. negative) reviews can activate stronger affective commitment and visit intention, with affective commitment also playing a mediating role. Additionally, destination reputation significantly moderates the after-effects of review valences. More specifically, a responsibility reputation (compared with an ability reputation) weakens the effect of negative valence on affective commitment and visit intention. This study provides valuable theoretical insights into how emotional elements in online reviews influence the emotions and attitudes of potential tourists. Particularly for tourism managers, review valence and responsibility reputation hold practical significance in destination marketing.
MULTIFILE
