How many manuscripts should I peer review per year?

Peer review provides the foundation for the scholarly publishing system. The conventional peer review system consists of using authors of articles as reviewers for other colleagues' manuscripts in a collaborative-basis system. However, authors complain about a theoretical overwhelming number of invitations to peer review. It seems that authors feel that they are invited to review many more manuscripts than they should when taking into account their participation in the scholarly publishing system. The high number of scientific journals and the existence of predatory journals were reported as potential causes of this excessive number of reviews required. In this editorial, we demonstrate that the number of reviewers required to publish a given number of articles depends exclusively on the journals' rejection rate and the number of reviewers intended per manuscript. Several initiatives to overcome the peer review crises are suggested

Limitations and perceived delays for diagnosis and staging of lung cancer in Portugal: A nationwide survey analysis

Background: We aimed to identify the perception of physicians on the limitations and delays for diagnosing, staging and treatment of lung cancer in Portugal. Methods: Portuguese physicians were invited to participate an electronic survey (Feb-Apr-2020). Descriptive statistical analyses were performed, with categorical variables reported as absolute and relative frequencies, and continuous variables with non-normal distribution as median and interquartile range (IQR). The association between categorical variables was assessed through Pearson's chi-square test. Mann-Whitney test was used to compare categorical and continuous variables (Stata v.15.0). Results: Sixty-one physicians participated in the study (45 pulmonologists, 16 oncologists), with n = 26 exclusively assisting lung cancer patients. Most experts work in public hospitals (90.16%) in Lisbon (36.07%). During the last semester of 2019, responders performed a median of 85 (IQR 55-140) diagnoses of lung cancer. Factors preventing faster referral to the specialty included poor articulation between services (60.0%) and patients low economic/cultural level (44.26%). Obtaining National Drugs Authority authorization was one of the main reasons (75.41%) for delaying the begin of treatment. The cumulative lag-time from patients' admission until treatment ranged from 42-61 days. Experts believe that the time to diagnosis could be optimized in around 11.05 days [IQR 9.61-12.50]. Most physicians (88.52%) started treatment before biomarkers results motivated by performance status deterioration (65.57%) or high tumor burden (52.46%). Clinicians exclusively assisting lung cancer cases reported fewer delays for obtaining authorization for biomarkers analysis (p = 0.023). Higher waiting times for surgery (p = 0.001), radiotherapy (p = 0.004), immunotherapy (p = 0.003) were reported by professionals from public hospitals. Conclusions: Physicians believe that is possible to reduce delays in all stages of lung cancer diagnosis with further efforts from multidisciplinary teams and hospital administration.his work was supported by AstraZeneca. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscripinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

Safety of biologics approved for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis and other autoimmune diseases: a disproportionality analysis from the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS)

Introduction: The molecular and pharmacological complexity of biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs used for the management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) favors the occurrence of adverse drug reactions (ADRs), which should be constantly monitored in post-marketing safety studies. Objective: The aim of this study was to identify signals of disproportionate reporting (SDR) of clinical relevance related to the use of biologic drugs approved for RA and other autoimmune diseases. Methods: All suspected ADRs registered in the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System between January 2003 and June 2016 were collected. The reporting odds ratio was used as a measure of disproportionality to identify possible SDRs related to biologics. Those involving important medical events and designated medical events (DME) were prioritized. Results: In total, 2602 SDRs were prioritized. The most commonly reported were ‘Infections and infestations’ (32.2%) and ‘Neoplasms benign, malignant, and unspecified’ (20.4%), and were mainly related to use of infliximab (25.3%, p < 0.001, and 28.8%, p = 0.002, respectively). Sixty-three signals involving DMEs were identified, most of which were related to rituximab (n = 27), and were mainly due to ‘blood disorders’. Amongst the DMEs detected for more than one biologic, ‘intestinal perforation’ and ‘pulmonary fibrosis’ were related to most of them. Conclusions: The results of this study highlight possible safety issues associated with biologics, whose relationship should be more thoroughly investigated. Our results contribute to future research on the identification of clinically relevant risks associated with these drugs, and may help contribute to their rational and safe use

Systematic review and evidence gap mapping of biomarkers associated with neurological manifestations in patients with COVID-19

Objective: This study aimed to synthesize the existing evidence on biomarkers related to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients who presented neurological events. Methods: A systematic review of observational studies (any design) following PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines and the Cochrane Collaboration recommendations was performed (PROSPERO: CRD42021266995). Searches were conducted in PubMed and Scopus (updated April 2023). The methodological quality of nonrandomized studies was assessed using the Newcastle‒Ottawa Scale (NOS). An evidence gap map was built considering the reported biomarkers and NOS results. Results: Nine specific markers of glial activation and neuronal injury were mapped from 35 studies published between 2020 and 2023. A total of 2,237 adult patients were evaluated in the included studies, especially during the acute phase of COVID-19. Neurofilament light chain (NfL) and glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP) biomarkers were the most frequently assessed (n = 27 studies, 77%, and n = 14 studies, 40%, respectively). Although these biomarkers were found to be correlated with disease severity and worse outcomes in the acute phase in several studies (p < 0.05), they were not necessarily associated with neurological events. Overall, 12 studies (34%) were judged as having low methodological quality, 9 (26%) had moderate quality, and 9 (26%) had high quality. Conclusions: Different neurological biomarkers in neurosymptomatic COVID-19 patients were identified in observational studies. Although the evidence is still scarce and conflicting for some biomarkers, well-designed longitudinal studies should further explore the pathophysiological role of NfL, GFAP, and tau protein and their potential use for COVID-19 diagnosis and management.info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

a nationwide Portuguese consensus

Introduction and objectives: We aimed to build a national consensus to optimize the use of oral corticosteroids (OCS) in severe asthma in Portugal. Material and methods: A modified 3-round Delphi including 65 statements (topics on chronic systemic corticotherapy, therapeutic schemes, asthma safety and monitoring) was performed via online platform (October-November 2019). A five-point Likert-type scale was used (1-‘strongly disagree’; 5-‘strongly agree’). Consensus threshold was established as a percentage of agreement among participants ≥90% in the 1st round and ≥85% in the 2nd and 3rd rounds. The level of consensus achieved by the panel was discussed with the participants (face-to-face meeting). Results: Forty-eight expert physicians in severe asthma (specialists in allergology and pulmonology) participated in the study. Almost half of the statements (28/65; 43.1%) obtained positive consensus by the end of round one. By the end of the exercise, 12 (18.5%) statements did not achieve consensus. Overall, 87% of physicians agree that further actions for OCS cumulative risk assessment in acute asthma exacerbations are needed. The vast majority (91.7%) demonstrated a favorable perception for using biological agents whenever patients are eligible. Most participants (95.8%) are more willing to accept some degree of lung function deterioration compared to other outcomes (worsening of symptoms, quality of life) when reducing OCS dose. Monitoring patients’ comorbidities was rated as imperative by all experts. Conclusions: : These results can guide an update on asthma management in Portugal and should be supplemented by studies on therapy access, patients’ adherence, and costs.publishersversionpublishe

Biochemical detection of E-ADA on Neospora caninum tachyzoites and the effects of a specific enzymatic inhibitor

Objective. This study aimed to investigate the presence and activity of the ecto adenosine deaminase (E-ADA) enzyme in tachyzoites of Neospora caninum (Nc-1 strain), as well as to assess the activity of a well-known E-ADA inhibitor, the deoxycoformycin. Materials and methods. The parasites were grown in cell culture, being subsequently separated in a pellet of tachyzoites, on which the E-ADA activity was tested using the concentrations 0 (control), 0.2, 0.4 and 0.8 mg mL-1. Results. The E-ADA showed high activity, progressively increasing its activity according to the enhancement of the protein concentration. The test was carried out with different concentrations of deoxycoformycin, showing that it was able to inhibit the E-ADA present on the free form of the parasite. Conclusions. Based on these results we conclude that the E-ADA is present on tachyzoites of N. caninum, and deoxycoformycin is able to inhibit this enzyme. In this sense, knowing the negative impact of N. caninum on reproductive issue in cattle (mainly abortion), might it is an alternative in order to deal with this parasitic infection. Key words: adenosine deaminase, deoxycoformycin, neosporosis (Source: CAB, MeSH)

Mejora de la Calidad de las Publicaciones y Avance en los Paradigmas de la Investigación en Farmacia Práctica Clínica y Social: La Declaración de Granada

La farmacia y las ciencias farmacéuticas abarcan una serie de disciplinas diferentes. La farmacia práctica se ha definido como "la disciplina científica que estudia los diferentes aspectos de la práctica de la farmacia y su impacto en los sistemas sanitarios, el uso de los medicamentos y la atención al paciente". Así pues, los estudios sobre la farmacia práctica abarcan tanto elementos de farmacia clínica como de farmacia social. Como cualquier otra disciplina científica, la farmacia práctica clínica y social difunde los resultados de la investigación mediante revistas científicas. Los editores de revistas de farmacia clínica y farmacia social tienen un papel en la promoción de la disciplina mediante la mejora de la calidad de los artículos publicados. Al igual que ha ocurrido en otras áreas sanitarias (medicina y enfermería), un grupo de editores de revistas de farmacia práctica clínica y social se reunió en Granada, España, para debatir cómo las revistas podrían contribuir a fortalecer la farmacia práctica como disciplina. El resultado de esa reunión se recogió en esta Declaración de Granada, que comprende 18 recomendaciones agrupadas en seis temas: el uso adecuado de la terminología, los resúmenes con impacto, las revisiones por pares requeridas, la dispersión de revistas, un uso más eficaz y prudente de los indicadores bibliométricos de revistas y artículos, y la selección por parte de los autores de la revista de farmacia práctica más adecuada para presentar sus trabajos

Mejora de la Calidad de las Publicaciones y Avance en los Paradigmas de la Investigación en Farmacia Práctica Clínica y Social: La Declaración de Granada

La farmacia y las ciencias farmacéuticas abarcan una serie de disciplinas diferentes. La farmacia práctica se ha definido como "la disciplina científica que estudia los diferentes aspectos de la práctica de la farmacia y su impacto en los sistemas sanitarios, el uso de los medicamentos y la atención al paciente". Así pues, los estudios sobre la farmacia práctica abarcan tanto elementos de farmacia clínica como de farmacia social. Como cualquier otra disciplina científica, la farmacia práctica clínica y social difunde los resultados de la investigación mediante revistas científicas. Los editores de revistas de farmacia clínica y farmacia social tienen un papel en la promoción de la disciplina mediante la mejora de la calidad de los artículos publicados. Al igual que ha ocurrido en otras áreas sanitarias (medicina y enfermería), un grupo de editores de revistas de farmacia práctica clínica y social se reunió en Granada, España, para debatir cómo las revistas podrían contribuir a fortalecer la farmacia práctica como disciplina. El resultado de esa reunión se recogió en esta Declaración de Granada, que comprende 18 recomendaciones agrupadas en seis temas: el uso adecuado de la terminología, los resúmenes con impacto, las revisiones por pares requeridas, la dispersión de revistas, un uso más eficaz y prudente de los indicadores bibliométricos de revistas y artículos, y la selección por parte de los autores de la revista de farmacia práctica más adecuada para presentar sus trabajos

Mejorando la calidad de las publicaciones y avanzando en todos los paradigmas de la investigación de la farmacia Asistencial, clínica y social: las declaraciones de Granada

Pharmacy and pharmaceutical sciences embrace a series of different disciplines. Pharmacy practice has been defined as “the scientific discipline that studies the different aspects of the practice of pharmacy and its impact on health care systems, medicine use, and patient care”. Thus, pharmacy practice studies embrace both clinical pharmacy and social pharmacy elements. Like any other scientific discipline, clinical and social pharmacy practice disseminates research findings using scientific journals. Clinical pharmacy and social pharmacy journal editors have a role in promoting the discipline by enhancing the quality of the articles published. As has occurred in other health care areas (i.e., medicine and nursing), a group of clinical and social pharmacy practice journal editors gathered in Granada, Spain to discuss how journals could contribute to strengthening pharmacy practice as a discipline. The result of that meeting was compiled in these Granada Statements, which comprise 18 recommendations gathered into six topics: the appropriate use of terminology, impactful abstracts, the required peer reviews, journal scattering, more effective and wiser use of journal and article performance metrics, and authors’ selection of the most appropriate pharmacy practice journal to submit their work.La farmacia y las ciencias farmacéuticas abarcan una serie de disciplinas diferentes. La Farmacia Asistencial se ha definido como “la disciplina científica que estudia los diferentes aspectos de la práctica de la farmacia y su impacto en los sistemas de atención de la salud, el uso de medicamentos y la atención al paciente”. Por lo tanto, los estudios de Farmacia Asistencial abarcan tantos elementos de farmacia clínica como de farmacia social. Como cualquier otra disciplina científica, la práctica de la farmacia clínica y social difunde los resultados de la investigación utilizando revistas científicas. Los editores de revistas de farmacia clínica y farmacia social tienen un papel en la promoción de la disciplina al mejorar la calidad de los artículos publicados. Como ha ocurrido en otras áreas del cuidado de la salud (es decir, medicina y enfermería), un grupo de editores de revistas de práctica farmacéutica clínica y social se reunió en Granada, España, para discutir cómo las revistas pueden contribuir a fortalecer la práctica farmacéutica como disciplina. El resultado de esa reunión se compiló en estas Declaraciones de Granada, que comprenden 18 recomendaciones reunidas en seis temas: el uso apropiado de la terminología, los resúmenes con impacto, la necesidad de la revisión por pares, la dispersión de revistas, el uso más eficaz y más inteligente de los indicadores bibliométricos y la selección por parte de los autores de la revista de práctica farmacéutica más adecuada para presentar su trabajo