The role of correspondence sections in post-publication peer review: A bibliometric study of general and internal medicine journals

Scientific journals claim that correspondence sections are for post-publication peer review. We compared the conditions for submission and the bibliometrics of letters-to-editors published in leading medical journals in 2002 and 2007 using journal-derived information and data from PubMed and Journal Citation Reports. The median time limit for letter submissions decreased from 6 to 3.5 weeks, the median word limit from 400 to 350. The median number of letters per published article was near one in both years. Only about half of the letters were followed by an author reply in either year. Electronic response systems were available for four journals in 200

Delays in childhood immunization in a conflict area: a study from Sierra Leone during civil war

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Sierra Leone has undergone a decade of civil war from 1991 to 2001. From this period few data on immunization coverage are available, and conflict-related delays in immunization according to the Expanded Programme on Immunization (EPI) schedule have not been investigated. We aimed to study delays in childhood immunization in the context of civil war in a Sierra Leonean community.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We conducted an immunization survey in Kissy Mess-Mess in the Greater Freetown area in 1998/99 using a two-stage sampling method. Based on immunization cards and verbal history we collected data on immunization for tuberculosis, diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, polio, and measles by age group (0–8/9–11/12–23/24–35 months). We studied differences between age groups and explored temporal associations with war-related hostilities taking place in the community.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>We included 286 children who received 1690 vaccine doses; card retention was 87%. In 243 children (85%, 95% confidence interval (CI): 80–89%) immunization was up-to-date. In 161 of these children (56%, 95%CI: 50–62%) full age-appropriate immunization was achieved; in 82 (29%, 95%CI: 24–34%) immunization was not appropriate for age. In the remaining 43 children immunization was partial in 37 (13%, 95%CI: 9–17) and absent in 6 (2%, 95%CI: 1–5). Immunization status varied across age groups. In children aged 9–11 months the proportion with age-inappropriate (delayed) immunization was higher than in other age groups suggesting an association with war-related hostilities in the community.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Only about half of children under three years received full age-appropriate immunization. In children born during a period of increased hostilities, immunization was mostly inappropriate for age, but recommended immunizations were not completely abandoned. Missing or delayed immunization represents an additional threat to the health of children living in conflict areas.</p

Early Assessment of Anxiety and Behavioral Response to Novel Swine-Origin Influenza A(H1N1)

Since late April, 2009, a novel influenza virus A (H1N1), generally referred to as the "swine flu," has spread around the globe and infected hundreds of thousands of people. During the first few days after the initial outbreak in Mexico, extensive media coverage together with a high degree of uncertainty about the transmissibility and mortality rate associated with the virus caused widespread concern in the population. The spread of an infectious disease can be strongly influenced by behavioral changes (e.g., social distancing) during the early phase of an epidemic, but data on risk perception and behavioral response to a novel virus is usually collected with a substantial delay or after an epidemic has run its course

Race, Ethnicity, Language, Social Class, and Health Communication Inequalities: A Nationally-Representative Cross-Sectional Study

BACKGROUND: While mass media communications can be an important source of health information, there are substantial social disparities in health knowledge that may be related to media use. The purpose of this study is to investigate how the use of cancer-related health communications is patterned by race, ethnicity, language, and social class. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: In a nationally-representative cross-sectional telephone survey, 5,187 U.S. adults provided information about demographic characteristics, cancer information seeking, and attention to and trust in health information from television, radio, newspaper, magazines, and the Internet. Cancer information seeking was lowest among Spanish-speaking Hispanics (odds ratio: 0.42; 95% confidence interval: 0.28-0.63) compared to non-Hispanic whites. Spanish-speaking Hispanics were more likely than non-Hispanic whites to pay attention to (odds ratio: 3.10; 95% confidence interval: 2.07-4.66) and trust (odds ratio: 2.61; 95% confidence interval: 1.53-4.47) health messages from the radio. Non-Hispanic blacks were more likely than non-Hispanic whites to pay attention to (odds ratio: 2.39; 95% confidence interval: 1.88-3.04) and trust (odds ratio: 2.16; 95% confidence interval: 1.61-2.90) health messages on television. Those who were college graduates tended to pay more attention to health information from newspapers (odds ratio: 1.98; 95% confidence interval: 1.42-2.75), magazines (odds ratio: 1.86; 95% confidence interval: 1.32-2.60), and the Internet (odds ratio: 4.74; 95% confidence interval: 2.70-8.31) and had less trust in cancer-related health information from television (odds ratio: 0.44; 95% confidence interval: 0.32-0.62) and radio (odds ratio: 0.54; 95% confidence interval: 0.34-0.86) compared to those who were not high school graduates. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: Health media use is patterned by race, ethnicity, language and social class. Providing greater access to and enhancing the quality of health media by taking into account factors associated with social determinants may contribute to addressing social disparities in health

JAMA Published Fewer Industry-Funded Studies after Introducing a Requirement for Independent Statistical Analysis

BACKGROUND: JAMA introduced a requirement for independent statistical analysis for industry-funded trials in July 2005. We wanted to see whether this policy affected the number of industry-funded trials published by JAMA. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We undertook a retrospective, before-and-after study of published papers. Two investigators independently extracted data from all issues of JAMA published between 1 July 2002 and 30 June 2008 (i.e., three years before and after the policy). They were not blinded to publication date. The randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were classified as industry funded (IF), joint industry/non-commercial funding (J), industry supported (IS) (when manufacturers provided materials only), non-commercial (N) or funding not stated (NS). Findings were compared and discrepancies resolved by discussion or further analysis of the reports. RCTs published in The Lancet and NEJM over the same period were used as a control group. Between July 2002 and July 2008, JAMA published 1,314 papers, of which 311 were RCTs. The number of industry studies (IF, J or IS) fell significantly after the policy (p = 0.02) especially for categories J and IS. However, over the same period, the number of industry studies rose in both The Lancet and NEJM. CONCLUSIONS: After the requirement for independent statistical analysis for industry-funded studies, JAMA published significantly fewer RCTs and significantly fewer industry-funded RCTs. This pattern was not seen in the control journals. This suggests the JAMA policy affected the number of submissions, the acceptance rate, or both. Without analysing the submissions, we cannot check these hypotheses but, assuming the number of published papers is related to the number submitted, our findings suggest that JAMA's policy may have resulted in a significant reduction in the number of industry-sponsored trials it received and published

Scientific value of systematic reviews: survey of editors of core clinical journals.

BACKGROUND: Synthesizing research evidence using systematic and rigorous methods has become a key feature of evidence-based medicine and knowledge translation. Systematic reviews (SRs) may or may not include a meta-analysis depending on the suitability of available data. They are often being criticised as 'secondary research' and denied the status of original research. Scientific journals play an important role in the publication process. How they appraise a given type of research influences the status of that research in the scientific community. We investigated the attitudes of editors of core clinical journals towards SRs and their value for publication.¦METHODS: We identified the 118 journals labelled as "core clinical journals" by the National Library of Medicine, USA in April 2009. The journals' editors were surveyed by email in 2009 and asked whether they considered SRs as original research projects; whether they published SRs; and for which section of the journal they would consider a SR manuscript.¦RESULTS: The editors of 65 journals (55%) responded. Most respondents considered SRs to be original research (71%) and almost all journals (93%) published SRs. Several editors regarded the use of Cochrane methodology or a meta-analysis as quality criteria; for some respondents these criteria were premises for the consideration of SRs as original research. Journals placed SRs in various sections such as "Review" or "Feature article". Characterization of non-responding journals showed that about two thirds do publish systematic reviews.¦DISCUSSION: Currently, the editors of most core clinical journals consider SRs original research. Our findings are limited by a non-responder rate of 45%. Individual comments suggest that this is a grey area and attitudes differ widely. A debate about the definition of 'original research' in the context of SRs is warranted