Can publication standards be lowered during a pandemic?

The peer-review system is the guarantee of the quality of publications. It has its flaws and is sometimes contested, but we have no better alternative. The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has led to an increased demand from researchers, journalists and citizens for rapid information. How have scientific journals evolved to rapidly disseminate research data that is as valid as possible? The number of manuscript submissions has doubled or tripled compared to similar periods in 2019 for most journals. Editorial boards were faced with unexpected volumes of articles to review, with a shortage of reviewers, in an environment of competition between researchers and journals to publish quickly. New sections have been created, peer-review has been accelerated and even simplified, with open access publications. Questionable research practices were observed; prestigious journals published articles whose quality standards were no longer those of normal times. Journals were manipulated with the complicity of the scientific community. These practices show that open science principles and declarations such as the Singapore Declaration on Research Integrity have little impact on the behaviour of some researchers

L’expertise scientifique en médecine

The goal of quality in the health-care system is common to professionals, policy-makers and users. Assessments of medical technologies and formalised expressions of the state of the art of medical knowledge both aim to improve decision-making for the public authorities and for health care professionals and users. Innovation should not be brought into question by the assessment procedure itself or by the various interested connections of working group members, including experts : the quality of expert scientific assessments in medicine must rely on the education of all those involved, including teachers and decision-makers.La recherche de qualité dans le système de santé est un objectif commun des professionnels, des décideurs et des usagers. L’évaluation des technologies médicales et la formalisation de l’état des connaissances scientifiques en médecine sont deux démarches ayant pour objectif l’amélioration de la prise de décision pour les autorités publiques et pour les professionnels de santé et usagers. L’innovation ne devrait pas être mise en cause par les procédures d’évaluation, ni par les divers liens d’intérêts des membres des groupes de travail, y compris des experts. L’éducation des acteurs, dont les enseignants et décideurs, doit améliorer la qualité de l’expertise scientifique en médecine

CSF neopterin level as a diagnostic marker in primary central nervous system lymphoma

Background The diagnosis of primary central nervous system lymphoma (PCNSL) can be challenging. PCNSL lesions are frequently located deep within the brain, and performing a cerebral biopsy is not always feasible. The aim of this study was to investigate the diagnostic value of CSF neopterin, a marker of neuroinflammation, in immunocompetent patients with suspected PCNSL. Methods We retrospectively reviewed the characteristics of 124 patients with brain tumor (n = 82) or an inflammatory CNS disorder (n = 42) in whom CSF neopterin levels were assessed. Twenty-eight patients had PCNSL, 54 patients had another type of brain tumor (glioma n = 36, metastasis n = 13, other n = 5), and 13 patients had a pseudotumoral inflammatory brain lesion. Results CSF neopterin levels were significantly higher in the patients with PCNSL than in those with other brain tumors (41.8 vs 5.1 nmol/L, P < .001), those with pseudotumoral inflammatory brain lesions (41.8 vs 4.3 nmol/L, P < .001), and those with nontumefactive inflammatory CNS disorders (41.8 vs 3.8 nmol/L, P < .001). In the 95 patients with space-occupying brain lesions, at a cutoff of 10 nmol/L, the sensitivity of this approach was 96% and the specificity was 93% for the diagnosis of PCNSL. The positive and negative predictive values were 84% and 98%, respectively. Conclusion Assessing CSF neopterin levels in patients with a suspected brain tumor might be helpful for the positive and differential diagnosis of PCNSL. A prospective study is warranted to confirm these result

Correcting the literature: Improvement trends seen in contents of retraction notices

Abstract Objective To analyse retraction notices from 2016 and compare their quality to the 2008 notices. Results From 146 retractions retrieved, only 123 were included, of which, a clear reason for retraction was available for 122 (99.2%) and no reason was given for one (0.8%). The main reasons for retraction were mistakes 26.0% (n = 32), fraud 26.0% (n = 32), plagiarism 20.3% (n = 25), and overlap 8.1% (n = 10). In 100 (81.3%) cases, a mention of retraction was available on the original paper, in 15 (12.2%) there was no mention of retraction, and 8 (6.5%) papers were deleted. Compared to the previous cohorts, management of retraction has improved because 99.2% provided a clear reason, and 81.3% of original articles were available with a mention of the retraction

Impact du réseau Internet sur la Formation Médicale Continue (Effet de mode ou évolution incontournable ? Exemple du site Internet WebSurg.)

STRASBOURG-Medecine (674822101) / SudocPARIS-BIUM (751062103) / SudocSTRASBOURG-Sc. et Techniques (674822102) / SudocSTRASBOURG-Histoire (674822119) / SudocSudocFranceF

Utilisation des résistances au BWYV et au LMV découvertes chez L. virosa

annexes techniques 41