Achieving Thoracic Oncology data collection in Europe: a precursor study in 35 Countries

Background: A minority of European countries have participated in international comparisons with high level data on lung cancer. However, the nature and extent of data collection across the continent is simply unknown, and without accurate data collection it is not possible to compare practice and set benchmarks to which lung cancer services can aspire.Methods: Using an established network of lung cancer specialists in 37 European countries, a survey was distributed in December 2014. The results relate to current practice in each country at the time, early 2015. The results were compiled and then verified with co-authors over the following months.Results: Thirty-five completed surveys were received which describe a range of current practice for lung cancer data collection. Thirty countries have data collection at the national level, but this is not so in Albania, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Italy, Spain and Switzerland. Data collection varied from paper records with no survival analysis, to well-established electronic databases with links to census data and survival analyses.Conclusion: Using a network of committed clinicians, we have gathered validated comparative data reporting an observed difference in data collection mechanisms across Europe. We have identified the need to develop a well-designed dataset, whilst acknowledging what is feasible within each country, and aspiring to collect high quality data for clinical research

What can you expect from the Bosn J Basic Med Sci (BJBMS) in 2011?

Scientific communication has become global and almost instantaneous, and as the Editor in Chief, I feel that it is my duty to present you with the BJBMS as one of the main platforms highlighting the increasing advancements in the basic medicine. The BJBMS aims to cover the broadness of basic medical science and also make the link between the basic research and clinical studies and vice versa. In this we fully depend on you, as potential authors submitting manuscripts to our Journal. But the mainstay of the Journal is top-quality original science. Which studies receive the highest priority? This obviously strongly depends on novelty, the relevance of the research question, and on the strength of the design and data. We also feature strong cell biology and animal studies, which provide the scientific basis of the clinical sciences. As many of you know, we love novel technology, so new molecular methods, imaging and proof-of-concept therapy receive relatively high priority in our Journal. The BJBMS reaches out to you through the web, at www.bjbms.org and of course in its printed form, which arrives on your doors every three months. We were pleasantly surprised to find that the electronic BJBMS has about 1500 visits per month! It’s twice more than in the same time last year. The largest number of visitors is from Bosnia & Herzegovina, USA, Serbia, Turkey, India, Croatia, etc. We will continue to make a positive selection of the best papers, which at the time being means we accept one in five/six submitted manuscripts. Based on the above, we will adjust our 2007 instructions to authors at our journal. This is based on the uniform requirements for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals1. Please read it, because it is meant to assist you in getting your manuscripts up to the currently advocated international quality standards. All this illustrates a delightful balance between dynamics and innovation on the one hand, and consistency and experience on the other. This is the way we like it; this is our BJBMS

Retraction: Evaluation of Carcinogenic Effects of Electromagnetic Fields (Emf)

This retracts the article "EVALUATION OF CARCINOGENIC EFFECTS OF ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS (EMF)" on page 245. The Editor-in-chief of the Bosnian Journal ofBasic Medical Sciences has decided to retract the article from Bayazit V et al. [1] entitled as: “Evaluation of carcinogenic effects of electromagnetic fields (EMF)” published in Bosn J Basic Med Sci. 2010 Aug;10(3):245-50.After the editorial office was alerted of possible plagiarism in the article, it conducted thorough investigation and concluded that the article apparently represents plagiarized material from two World Health Organization reports, one European Commission report and other sources. Since this is considered scientific plagiarism and scientific misconduct, Editor-in-chief has decided to withdraw the article. The authors have agreed with the editorial office decision

Achieving thoracic oncology data collection in Europe: a precursor study in 35 countries

Background: A minority of European countries have participated in international comparisons with high level data on lung cancer. However, the nature and extent of data collection across the continent is simply unknown, and without accurate data collection it is not possible to compare practice and set benchmarks to which lung cancer services can aspire. Methods: Using an established network of lung cancer specialists in 37 European countries, a survey was distributed in December 2014. The results relate to current practice in each country at the time, early 2015. The results were compiled and then verified with co-authors over the following months. Results: Thirty-five completed surveys were received which describe a range of current practice for lung cancer data collection. Thirty countries have data collection at the national level, but this is not so in Albania, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Italy, Spain and Switzerland. Data collection varied from paper records with no survival analysis, to well-established electronic databases with links to census data and survival analyses. Conclusion: Using a network of committed clinicians, we have gathered validated comparative data reporting an observed difference in data collection mechanisms across Europe. We have identified the need to develop a well-designed dataset, whilst acknowledging what is feasible within each country, and aspiring to collect high quality data for clinical research.</p