Scholarly publishing depends on peer reviewers

The peer-review crisis is posing a risk to the scholarly peer-reviewed journal system. Journals have to ask many potential peer reviewers to obtain a minimum acceptable number of peers accepting reviewing a manuscript. Several solutions have been suggested to overcome this shortage. From reimbursing for the job, to eliminating pre- publication reviews, one cannot predict which is more dangerous for the future of scholarly publishing. And, why not acknowledging their contribution to the final version of the article published? PubMed created two categories of contributors: authors [AU] and collaborators [IR]. Why not a third category for the peer-reviewer

A method for assessing robustness of the results of a star-shaped network meta-analysis under the unidentifiable consistency assumption

Background In a star-shaped network, pairwise comparisons link treatments with a reference treatment (often placebo or standard care), but not with each other. Thus, comparisons between non-reference treatments rely on indirect evidence, and are based on the unidentifiable consistency assumption, limiting the reliability of the results. We suggest a method of performing a sensitivity analysis through data imputation to assess the robustness of results with an unknown degree of inconsistency. Methods The method involves imputation of data for randomized controlled trials comparing non-reference treatments, to produce a complete network. The imputed data simulate a situation that would allow mixed treatment comparison, with a statistically acceptable extent of inconsistency. By comparing the agreement between the results obtained from the original star-shaped network meta-analysis and the results after incorporating the imputed data, the robustness of the results of the original star-shaped network meta-analysis can be quantified and assessed. To illustrate this method, we applied it to two real datasets and some simulated datasets. Results Applying the method to the star-shaped network formed by discarding all comparisons between non-reference treatments from a real complete network, 33% of the results from the analysis incorporating imputed data under acceptable inconsistency indicated that the treatment ranking would be different from the ranking obtained from the star-shaped network. Through a simulation study, we demonstrated the sensitivity of the results after data imputation for a star-shaped network with different levels of within- and between-study variability. An extended usability of the method was also demonstrated by another example where some head-to-head comparisons were incorporated. Conclusions Our method will serve as a practical technique to assess the reliability of results from a star-shaped network meta-analysis under the unverifiable consistency assumption.This research was supported by a grant of the Korea Health Technology R&D Project through the Korea Health Industry Development Institute, funded by the Ministry of Health & Welfare, Republic of Korea (grant number: HI19C1178). The funder had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript

Scholarly publishing depends on peer reviewers

The peer-review crisis is posing a risk to the scholarly peer-reviewed journal system. Journals have to ask many potential peer reviewers to obtain a minimum acceptable number of peers accepting reviewing a manuscript. Several solutions have been suggested to overcome this shortage. From reimbursing for the job, to eliminating pre-publication reviews, one cannot predict which is more dangerous for the future of scholarly publishing. And, why not acknowledging their contribution to the final version of the article published? PubMed created two categories of contributors: authors [AU] and collaborators [IR]. Why not a third category for the peer-reviewer?Scopu

Cost-effectiveness of tumor-treating fields added to maintenance temozolomide in patients with glioblastoma: an updated evaluation using a partitioned survival model

cited By 0Purpose: A first cost-effectiveness analysis has raised a strong concern regarding the cost of tumor treatment fields (TTF) added to maintenance temozolomide for patients with glioblastoma. This evaluation was based on effectiveness outcomes from an interim analysis of the pivotal trial, moreover it used a “standard” Markov model. Our objective was to update the cost-effectiveness evaluation using the more flexible potential of the “partitioned survival” model design and using the latest effectiveness data. Methods: We developed the model with three mutually exclusive health states: stable disease, progressive disease, and dead. Good fit parametric models were developed for overall survival and progression free survival and these generated clinically plausible extrapolations beyond the observed data. We adopted the perspective of the French national health insurance and used a 20-year time horizon. Results were expressed as cost/life-years (LY) gained (LYG). Results: The base case model generated incremental benefit of 0.604 LY at a cost of €453,848 which, after 4% annual discounting of benefits and costs, yielded an incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER) of €510,273/LYG. Using sensitivity analyses and bootstrapping methods results were found to be relatively robust and were only sensitive to TTF device costs and the modelling of overall survival. To achieve an ICER below €100,000/LYG would require a reduction in TTF device cost of approximately 85%. Conclusions: Using a different type of model and updated survival outcomes, our results show TTF remains an intervention that is not cost-effective, which greatly restrains its diffusion to potentially eligible patients. © 2019, Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature

5-ALA-induced PpIX fluorescence emission spectrum in low grade gliomas and in the infiltrative component of glioblastomas

International audienc

Can levosimendan reduce ECMO weaning failure in cardiogenic shock?: a cohort study with propensity score analysis

International audienceBACKGROUND: Veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) has been increasingly used over the last decade in patients with refractory cardiogenic shock. ECMO weaning can, however, be challenging and lead to circulatory failure and death. Recent data suggest a potential benefit of levosimendan for ECMO weaning. We sought to further investigate whether the use of levosimendan could decrease the rate of ECMO weaning failure in adult patients with refractory cardiogenic shock. METHODS: We performed an observational single-center cohort study. All patients undergoing VA-ECMO from January 2012 to December 2018 were eligible and divided into two groups: group levosimendan and group control (without levosimendan). The primary endpoint was VA-ECMO weaning failure defined as death during VA-ECMO treatment or within 24 h after VA-ECMO removal. Secondary outcomes were mortality at day 28 and at 6 months. The two groups were compared after propensity score matching. P \textless 0.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: Two hundred patients were analyzed (levosimendan group: n = 53 and control group: n = 147). No significant difference was found between groups on baseline characteristics except for ECMO duration, which was longer in the levosimendan group (10.6 ± 4.8 vs. 6.5 ± 4.7 days, p \textless 0.001). Levosimendan administration started 6.6 ± 5.4 days on average following ECMO implantation. After matching of 48 levosimendan patients to 78 control patients, the duration of ECMO was similar in both groups. The rate of weaning failure was 29.1% and 35.4% in levosimendan and control groups, respectively (OR: 0.69, 95%CI: 0.25-1.88). No significant difference was found between groups for all secondary outcomes. CONCLUSION: Levosimendan did not improve the rate of successful VA-ECMO weaning in patients with refractory cardiogenic shock. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04323709