Environmental Health: the first five years

Environmental Health is now firmly established as a major venue for publishing in the field of environmental health. While remaining selective in our acceptances – of the 217 manuscripts that we have processed by June 2007, 115 (53%) were accepted – the number of manuscripts continues to grow from year to year. Last year we published 33 articles (of 64 submitted) and the number of submissions by June this year has already reached 40. The journal has now been in existence for five years, so the time seems ripe for us to assess the health of our journal and the opportunities offered by open access publication on the Internet

Milestones and Impact Factors

Environmental Health has just received its first Impact Factor by Thomson ISI. At a level of 2.48, this achievement is quite satisfactory and places Environmental Health in the top 25% of environmental science journals. When the journal was launched in 2002, it was still unclear whether the Open Access publishing model could be made into a viable commercial enterprise within the biomedical field. During the past eight years, Open Access journals have become widely available, although still covering only about 15% of journal titles. Major funding agencies and institutions, including prominent US universities, now require that researchers publish in Open Access journals. Because of the profound role of scientific journals for the sharing of results and communication between researchers, the advent of Open Access may be of as much significance as the transition from handwriting to printing via moveable type. As Environmental Health is an electronic Open Access journal, the numbers of downloads at the journal website can be retrieved. The top-20 list of articles most frequently accessed shows that all of them have been downloaded over 10,000 times. Back in 2002, the first article published was accessed only 49 times during the following month. A year later, the server had over 1,000 downloads per month, and now the total number of monthly downloads approaches 50,000. These statistics complement the Impact Factor and confirm the viability of Open Access in our field of research. The advent of digital media and its decentralized mode of distribution - the internet - have dramatically changed the control and financing of scientific information dissemination, while facilitating peer review, accelerating editorial handling, and supporting much needed transparency. Both the meaning and means of "having an impact" are therefore changing, as will the degree and way in which scientific journals remain "factors" in that impact

Publication rates of editorial board members in oral health journals

The aim of this study was to measure the publication rate of editorial board members in their board journals and to evaluate associated variables. We evaluated the ten highest-ranked journals according to the 5-year impact factor under ‘Dentistry, Oral Surgery & Medicine’ subject category for 2010, 2011, and 2012. All original research papers with at least one member of the editorial board as author were counted. Final analyses assessed associated variables such as size of the editorial board, number of papers published each year, and each journal’s impact factor. Overall, there was an increase in the average number of articles published from 2010 (115.2 ± 52.2) to 2012 (134.7 ± 47.4). The number and percentage of articles published with editorial board members as authors over the three years did not follow the same pattern, with a slight decrease from 2010 to 2011 and an increase in 2012. The number of articles with editorial board members as authors was significantly higher for journals with impact factors ≥4.0. Journals with a higher impact factor and larger editorial board were associated with higher chances of editorial board members publishing in their respective journals. Participation of editorial board members as authors in publishing varies significantly among journals

Impact of funding on biomedical research: a retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND: Public funding is aimed at facilitating the initiation, completion and publication of research study protocols. However, no evaluation is made to investigate the impact of grant success on the conduct of biomedical research. It is therefore of great interest to compare the fate of funded protocols versus not funded: Are they initiated? Are they completed? Did the results confirm the hypothesis? Were they published? The objective was to investigate the fate of protocols submitted for funding, whether they were funded or not. METHODS: Retrospective cohort study of protocols submitted for funding to the Greater Lyon regional scientific committee in 1997. Initial characteristics of protocols (design, study size, investigator status) were abstracted from archives, and follow-up characteristics (initiation, completion and publication) from a mailed questionnaire to the principal investigators. RESULTS: Among the 142 submitted protocols, follow-up information was available for 114 (80%). As a whole, 38% of studies were funded by the Greater Lyon research committee. The rate of initiation varied from 62% for studies with no acknowledged funding to 100% for studies with both committee and other simultaneous funding. When initiated, the rate of completion was 62% for studies with at least one funding and 40% for studies without acknowledged funding. When completed, publication was reached for 77% of studies with either committee or external funding, for 58% of studies without acknowledged funding and for 37% of studies with both committee and external funding. CONCLUSION: Some protocols submitted for funding were initiated and completed without any funding declared. To our understanding this mean that not all protocols submitted really needed funding and also that health care facilities are unaware that they implicitly financially support and pay for biomedical research

“Members of the Same Club”: Challenges and Decisions Faced by US IRBs in Identifying and Managing Conflicts of Interest

Conflicts of interest (COIs) in research have received increasing attention, but many questions arise about how Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) view and approach these. Methods: I conducted in-depth interviews of 2 hours each with 46 US IRB chairs, administrators, and members, exploring COI and other issues related to research integrity. I contacted leaders of 60 IRBs (every fourth one among the top 240 institutions by NIH funding), and interviewed IRB leaders from 34 of these institutions (response rate = 55%). Data were analyzed using standard qualitative methods, informed by Grounded Theory. Results: IRBs confront financial and non-financial COIs of PIs, institutions, and IRBs themselves. IRB members may seek to help, or compete with, principal investigators (PIs). Non-financial COI also often appear to be “indirect financial” conflicts based on gain (or loss) not to oneself, but to one's colleagues or larger institution. IRBs faced challenges identifying and managing these COI, and often felt that they could be more effective. IRBs' management of their own potential COI vary, and conflicted members may observe, participate, and/or vote in discussions. Individual IRB members frequently judge for themselves whether to recuse themselves. Challenges arise in addressing these issues, since institutions and PIs need funding, financial information is considered confidential, and COI can be unconscious. Conclusions: This study, the first to explore qualitatively how IRBs confront COIs and probe how IRBs confront non-financial COIs, suggests that IRBs face several types of financial and non-financial COIs, involving themselves, PIs, and institutions, and respond varyingly. These data have critical implications for practice and policy. Disclosure of indirect and non-financial COIs to subjects may not be feasible, partly since IRBs, not PIs, are conflicted. Needs exist to consider guidelines and clarifications concerning when and how, in protocol reviews, IRB members should recuse themselves from participating, observing, and/or voting

Industry-supported meta-analyses compared with meta-analyses with non-profit or no support: Differences in methodological quality and conclusions

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Studies have shown that industry-sponsored meta-analyses of drugs lack scientific rigour and have biased conclusions. However, these studies have been restricted to certain medical specialities. We compared all industry-supported meta-analyses of drug-drug comparisons with those without industry support.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We searched PubMed for all meta-analyses that compared different drugs or classes of drugs published in 2004. Two authors assessed the meta-analyses and independently extracted data. We used a validated scale for judging the methodological quality and a binary scale for judging conclusions. We divided the meta-analyses according to the type of support in 3 categories: industry-supported, non-profit support or no support, and undeclared support.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>We included 39 meta-analyses. Ten had industry support, 18 non-profit or no support, and 11 undeclared support. On a 0–7 scale, the median quality score was 6 for meta-analyses with non-profit or no support and 2.5 for the industry-supported meta-analyses (P < 0.01). Compared with industry-supported meta-analyses, more meta-analyses with non-profit or no support avoided bias in the selection of studies (P = 0.01), more often stated the search methods used to find studies (P = 0.02), searched comprehensively (P < 0.01), reported criteria for assessing the validity of the studies (P = 0.02), used appropriate criteria (P = 0.04), described methods of allocation concealment (P = 0.05), described methods of blinding (P = 0.05), and described excluded patients (P = 0.08) and studies (P = 0.15). Forty percent of the industry-supported meta-analyses recommended the experimental drug without reservations, compared with 22% of the meta-analyses with non-profit or no support (P = 0.57).</p> <p>In a sensitivity analysis, we contacted the authors of the meta-analyses with undeclared support. Eight who replied that they had not received industry funding were added to those with non-profit or no support, and 3 who did not reply were added to those with industry support. This analysis did not change the results much.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Transparency is essential for readers to make their own judgment about medical interventions guided by the results of meta-analyses. We found that industry-supported meta-analyses are less transparent than meta-analyses with non-profit support or no support.</p

Abstracts in high profile journals often fail to report harm

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>To describe how frequently harm is reported in the abstract of high impact factor medical journals.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p><it>Design and population</it>: We carried out a blinded structured review of a random sample of 363 Randomised Controlled Trials (RCTs) carried out on human beings, and published in high impact factor medical journals in 2003. <it>Main endpoint</it>: 1) Proportion of articles reporting harm in the abstract; and 2) Proportion of articles that reported harm in the abstract when harm was reported in the main body of the article. <it>Analysis</it>: Corrected Prevalence Ratio (cPR) and its exact confidence interval were calculated. Non-conditional logistic regression was used.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>363 articles and 407 possible comparisons were studied. Overall, harm was reported in 135 abstracts [37.2% (CI95%:32.2 to 42.4)]. Harm was reported in the main text of 243 articles [66.9% (CI95%: 61.8 to 71.8)] and was statistically significant in 54 articles [14.9% (CI95%: 11.4 to 19.0)]. Among the 243 articles that mentioned harm in the text, 130 articles [53.5% (CI95% 47.0 to 59.9)] reported harm in the abstract; a figure that rose to 75.9% (CI95%: 62.4 to 86.5) when the harm reported in the text was statistically significant. Harm in the abstract was more likely to be reported when statistically significant harm was reported in the main body of the article [cPR = 1.70 (CI95% 1.47 to 1.92)] and when drug companies (not public institutions) funded the RCTs [cPR = 1.29 (CI95% 1.03 to 1.67)].</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Abstracts published in high impact factor medical journals underreport harm, even when harm is reported in the main body of the article.</p

Characteristics Associated with Citation Rate of the Medical Literature

BACKGROUND: The citation rate for articles is viewed as a measure of their importance and impact; however, little is known about what features of articles are associated with higher citation rate. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: We conducted a cohort study of all original articles, regardless of study methodology, published in the Lancet, JAMA, and New England Journal of Medicine, from October 1, 1999 to March 31, 2000. We identified 328 articles. Two blinded, independent reviewers extracted, in duplicate, nine variables from each article, which were analyzed in both univariable and multivariable linear least-squares regression models for their association with the annual rate of citations received by the article since publication. A two-way interaction between industry funding and an industry-favoring result was tested and found to be significant (p = 0.02). In our adjusted analysis, the presence of industry funding and an industry-favoring result was associated with an increase in annual citation rate of 25.7 (95% confidence interval, 8.5 to 42.8) compared to the absence of both industry funding and industry-favoring results. Higher annual rates of citation were also associated with articles dealing with cardiovascular medicine (13.3 more; 95% confidence interval, 3.9 to 22.3) and oncology (12.6 more; 95% confidence interval, 1.2 to 24.0), articles with group authorship (11.1 more; 95% confidence interval, 2.7 to 19.5), larger sample size and journal of publication. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: Large trials, with group authorship, industry-funded, with industry-favoring results, in oncology or cardiology were associated with greater subsequent citations