Bibliometrics of systematic reviews : analysis of citation rates and journal impact factors

Background: Systematic reviews are important for informing clinical practice and health policy. The aim of this study was to examine the bibliometrics of systematic reviews and to determine the amount of variance in citations predicted by the journal impact factor (JIF) alone and combined with several other characteristics. Methods: We conducted a bibliometric analysis of 1,261 systematic reviews published in 2008 and the citations to them in the Scopus database from 2008 to June 2012. Potential predictors of the citation impact of the reviews were examined using descriptive, univariate and multiple regression analysis. Results: The mean number of citations per review over four years was 26.5 (SD +/-29.9) or 6.6 citations per review per year. The mean JIF of the journals in which the reviews were published was 4.3 (SD +/-4.2). We found that 17% of the reviews accounted for 50% of the total citations and 1.6% of the reviews were not cited. The number of authors was correlated with the number of citations (r = 0.215, P =5.16) received citations in the bottom quartile (eight or fewer), whereas 9% of reviews published in the lowest JIF quartile (<=2.06) received citations in the top quartile (34 or more). Six percent of reviews in journals with no JIF were also in the first quartile of citations. Conclusions: The JIF predicted over half of the variation in citations to the systematic reviews. However, the distribution of citations was markedly skewed. Some reviews in journals with low JIFs were well-cited and others in higher JIF journals received relatively few citations; hence the JIF did not accurately represent the number of citations to individual systematic reviews

AIMD - A validated, simplified framework of interventions to promote and integrate evidence into health practices, systems, and policies

Background: Proliferation of terms describing the science of effectively promoting and supporting the use of research evidence in healthcare policy and practice has hampered understanding and development of the field. To address this, an international Terminology Working Group developed and published a simplified framework of interventions to promote and integrate evidence into health practices, systems, and policies. This paper presents results of validation work and a second international workgroup meeting, culminating in the updated AIMD framework [Aims, Ingredients, Mechanism, Delivery]. Methods: Framework validity was evaluated against terminology schemas (n = 51); primary studies (n = 37); and reporting guidelines (n = 10). Framework components were independently categorized as fully represented, partly represented, or absent by two researchers. Opportunities to refine the framework were systematically recorded. A meeting of the expanded international Terminology Working Group updated the framework by reviewing and deliberating upon validation findings and refinement proposals. Results: There was variation in representativeness of the components across the three types of literature, in particular for the component 'causal mechanisms'. Analysis of primary studies revealed that representativeness of this concept lowered from 92 to 68% if only explicit, rather than explicit and non-explicit references to causal mechanisms were included. All components were very well represented in reporting guidelines, however the level of description of these was lower than in other types of literature. Twelve opportunities were identified to improve the framework, 9 of which were operationalized at the meeting. The updated AIMD framework comprises four components: (1) Aims: what do you want your intervention to achieve and for whom? (2) Ingredients: what comprises the intervention? (3) Mechanisms: how do you propose the intervention will work? and (4) Delivery: how will you deliver the intervention? Conclusions: The draft simplified framework was validated with reference to a wide range of relevant literature and improvements have enhanced useability. The AIMD framework could aid in the promotion of evidence into practice, remove barriers to understanding how interventions work, enhance communication of interventions and support knowledge synthesis. Future work needs to focus on developing and testing resources and educational initiatives to optimize use of the AIMD framework in collaboration with relevant end-user groups

Expression, mutation and copy number analysis of platelet-derived growth factor receptor A (PDGFRA) and its ligand PDGFA in gliomas

BACKGROUND: Malignant gliomas are the most prevalent type of primary brain tumours but the therapeutic armamentarium for these tumours is limited. Platelet-derived growth factor (PDGF) signalling has been shown to be a key regulator of glioma development. Clinical trials evaluating the efficacy of anti-PDGFRA therapies on gliomas are ongoing. In this study, we intended to analyse the expression of PDGFA and its receptor PDGFRA, as well as the underlying genetic (mutations and amplification) mechanisms driving their expression in a large series of human gliomas. METHODS: PDGFA and PDGFRA expression was evaluated by immunohistochemistry in a series of 160 gliomas of distinct World Health Organization (WHO) malignancy grade. PDGFRA-activating gene mutations (exons 12, 18 and 23) were assessed in a subset of 86 cases by PCR-single-strand conformational polymorphism (PCR-SSCP), followed by direct sequencing. PDGFRA gene amplification analysis was performed in 57 cases by quantitative real-time PCR (QPCR) and further validated in a subset of cases by chromogenic in situ hybridisation (CISH) and microarray-based comparative genomic hybridisation (aCGH). RESULTS: PDGFA and PDGFRA expression was found in 81.2% (130 out of 160) and 29.6% (48 out of 160) of gliomas, respectively. Its expression was significantly correlated with histological type of the tumours; however, no significant association between the expression of the ligand and its receptor was observed. The absence of PDGFA expression was significantly associated with the age of patients and with poor prognosis. Although PDGFRA gene-activating mutations were not found, PDGFRA gene amplification was observed in 21.1% (12 out of 57) of gliomas. No association was found between the presence of PDGFRA gene amplification and expression, excepting for grade II diffuse astrocytomas. CONCLUSION: The concurrent expression of PDGFA and PDGFRA in different subtypes of gliomas, reinforce the recognised significance of this signalling pathway in gliomas. PDGFRA gene amplification rather than gene mutation may be the underlying genetic mechanism driving PDGFRA overexpression in a portion of gliomas. Taken together, our results could provide in the future a molecular basis for PDGFRA-targeted therapies in gliomas

Improving care for people with heart failure in Uganda: serial in-depth interviews with patients' and their health care professionals

Abstract Background The short prognosis of patients with advanced heart failure (HF) and the associated multidimensional distress as illustrated in literature from high income countries necessitates the integration of palliative care into the care of advanced HF patients to address these needs and improve their quality of life. These needs, which are subjective, have not been described from the patients’ and health care professionals’(HPs) view point in the Ugandan setting, a low income country with a different socio-cultural context. This study aimed at bridging this gap in knowledge by eliciting patients’ and HPs’ views of HF patients’ needs over the course of their illness to enable generalists, cardiologists and palliative care clinicians to develop guidelines to provide patient-centred realistic care in Uganda. Methods Serial qualitative in-depth interviews were conducted with HF patients who were purposively sampled and recruited in Mulago National Referral Hospital (MNRH) until thematic saturation. In-depth interviews were conducted at three time points with intervals of 3 month between interviews over the course of their illness in the hospital and their home context. One-off interviews were conducted with HPs that manage HF in MNRH. We used a grounded theory approach in data analysis. The Uganda National Council of science and technology approved the research. Results Forty-eight interviews were conducted with 21 patients and their carers and eight interviews with their HPs. Multidimensional needs including physical, psychological, social, spiritual and information needs were identified. These highlighted the underpinning need to have normal functioning, control, to cope and adapt to a changed life and to find meaning. Spiritual needs were less recognised by HPs than the other multidimensional needs. Information needs were commonly unmet. Patients and HPs suggested improvements in care that were congruent with the recommendations in chronic disease care and the six pillars of the WHO health systems strengthening approach. Conclusion Management of HF in Uganda requires an approach that targets multidimensional needs, embraces multidisciplinary care and strengthens health systems which are all important tenets of palliative care

Palliative care: End-of-life symptoms

Gregory B. Crawford, Katherine A. Hauser, and Wendy I. Janse