Assessing the utility of an institutional publications officer: a pilot assessment

Background  The scholarly publication landscape is changing rapidly. We investigated whether the introduction of an institutional publications officer might help facilitate better knowledge of publication topics and related resources, and effectively support researchers to publish.  Methods  In September 2015, a purpose-built survey about researchers’ knowledge and perceptions of publication practices was administered at five Ottawa area research institutions. Subsequently, we publicly announced a newly hired publications officer (KDC) who then began conducting outreach at two of the institutions. Specifically, the publications officer gave presentations, held one-to-one consultations, developed electronic newsletter content, and generated and maintained a webpage of resources. In March 2016, we re-surveyed our participants regarding their knowledge and perceptions of publishing. Mean scores to the perception questions, and the percent of correct responses to the knowledge questions, pre and post survey, were computed for each item. The difference between these means or calculated percentages was then examined across the survey measures.  Results  82 participants completed both surveys. Of this group, 29 indicated that they had exposure to the publications officer, while the remaining 53 indicated they did not. Interaction with the publications officer led to improvements in half of the knowledge items (7/14 variables). While improvements in knowledge of publishing were also found among those who reported not to have interacted with the publications officer (9/14), these effects were often smaller in magnitude. Scores for some publication knowledge variables actually decreased between the pre and post survey (3/14). Effects for researchers’ perceptions of publishing increased for 5/6 variables in the group that interacted with the publications officer.  Discussion  This pilot provides initial indication that, in a short timeframe, introducing an institutional publications officer may improve knowledge and perceptions surrounding publishing. This study is limited by its modest sample size and temporal relationship between the introduction of the publications officer and changes in knowledge and perceptions. A randomized trial examining the publications officer as an effective intervention is needed

Report on a pilot project to introduce a publications officer

First paragraph: Concerns about deficiencies in the reporting quality of biomedical research have been expressed for more than three decades. In spite of this, articles continue to pass through editorial and peer review processes and are published with critical aspects of their methods and results missing or inadequately described. Reporting biases also remain problematic. Together, these practices limit the integrity of biomedical literature and hinder reproducibility efforts. In an attempt to alleviate these problems, Moher and Altman recently proposed four potential contributory actions for journals and educational institutions to consider. Here, we present a description of our efforts to implement their first proposed action: the introduction of a publications officer

Update on the endorsement of CONSORT by high impact factor journals: a survey of journal

The CONsolidated Standards Of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) Statement provides a minimum standard set of items to be reported in published clinical trials; it has received widespread recognition within the biomedical publishing community. This research aims to provide an update on the endorsement of CONSORT by high impact medical journals.We performed a cross-sectional examination of the onlin

Reprint of “The Single-Case Reporting Guideline In BEhavioural interventions (SCRIBE) 2016: explanation and elaboration”

There is substantial evidence that research studies reported in the scientific literature do not provide adequate information so that readers know exactly what was done and what was found. This problem has been addressed by the development of reporting guidelines which tell authors what should be reported and how it should be described. Many reporting guidelines are now available for different types of research designs. There is no such guideline for one type of research design commonly used in the behavioral sciences, the single-case experimental design (SCED). The present study addressed this gap. This report describes the Single-Case Reporting guideline In BEhavioural interventions (SCRIBE) 2016, which is a set of 26 items that authors need to address when writing about SCED research for publication in a scientific journal. Each item is described, a rationale for its inclusion is provided, and examples of adequate reporting taken from the literature are quoted. It is recommended that the SCRIBE 2016 is used by authors preparing manuscripts describing SCED research for publication, as well as journal reviewers and editors who are evaluating such manuscripts.Published versio

What are the most effective behaviour change techniques to promote physical activity and/or reduce sedentary behaviour in inactive adults? : A systematic review protocol

This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ The version of record, Howlett N, Trivedi D, Troop NA, et al, 'What are the most effective behaviour change techniques to promote physical activity and/or reduce sedentary behaviour in inactive adults? A systematic review protocol', BMJ Open, Vol 5(8), 2015; 5:e008573, is available online via doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2015-008573 Published by MBJ Publishing Group Limited.Large proportions of the population are not meeting recommended levels of physical activity and have increasingly sedentary lifestyles. Low levels of physical activity are predictive of poor health outcomes and time spent sedentary is related to a host of risk factors independently of physical activity levels. Building an evidence base of the best approaches to intervene in the lifestyles of inactive individuals is crucial in preventing long-term disease, disability and higher mortality ratesPeer reviewedFinal Published versio

Economic evidence for the prevention and treatment of atopic eczema: a protocol for a systematic review

Background: Eczema, synonymous with atopic eczema or atopic dermatitis, is a chronic skin disease that has a similar impact on health-related quality of life as other chronic diseases. The proposed research aims to provide a comprehensive systematic assessment of the economic evidence base available to inform economic modelling and decision making on interventions to prevent and treat eczema at any stage of the life course. Whilst the Global Resource of Eczema Trials (GREAT) database collects together the effectiveness evidence for eczema there is currently no such systematic resource on the economics of eczema. It is important to gain an overview of the current state of the art of economic methods in the field of eczema in order to strengthen the economic evidence base further. Methods/design: The proposed study is a systematic review of the economic evidence surrounding interventions for the prevention and treatment of eczema. Relevant search terms will be used to search MEDLINE, EMBASE, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, NHS Economic Evaluation Database, Health Technology Assessment, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Econ Lit, Scopus, Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry and Web of Science in order to identify relevant evidence. To be eligible for inclusion studies will be primary empirical studies evaluating the cost, utility or full economic evaluation of interventions for preventing or treating eczema. Two reviewers will independently assess studies for eligibility and perform data abstraction. Evidence tables will be produced presenting details of study characteristics, costing methods, outcome methods and quality assessment. The methodological quality of studies will be assessed using accepted checklists. Discussion: The systematic review is being undertaken to identify the type of economic evidence available, summarise the results of the available economic evidence and critically appraise the quality of economic evidence currently available to inform future economic modelling and resource allocation decisions about interventions to prevent or treat eczema. We aim to use the review to offer guidance about how to gather economic evidence in studies of eczema and/or what further research is necessary in order to inform this

A systematic review and meta-analyses of pregnancy and fetal outcomes in women with multiple sclerosis: a contribution from the IMI2 ConcePTION project.

Neurologists managing women with Multiple Sclerosis (MS) need information about the safety of disease modifying drugs (DMDs) during pregnancy. However, this knowledge is limited. The present study aims to summarize previous studies by performing a systematic review and meta-analyses. The terms "multiple sclerosis" combined with DMDs of interest and a broad profile for pregnancy terms were used to search Embase and Medline databases to identify relevant studies published from January 2000 to July 2019.1260 studies were identified and ten studies met our inclusion criteria. Pooled risk ratios (RR) of pregnancy and birth outcomes in pregnancies exposed to DMDs compared to those not exposed were calculated using a random effects model. For spontaneous abortion RR = 1.14, 95% CI 0.99-1.32, for preterm births RR = 0.93, 95% CI 0.72-1.21 and for major congenital malformations RR = 0.86, 95% CI 0.47-1.56. The most common major congenital malformations reported in MS patients exposed to MS drugs were atrial septal defect (ASD) (N = 4), polydactyly (N = 4) and club foot (N = 3), which are among the most prevalent birth defects observed in the general population. In conclusion, interferons, glatiramer acetate or natalizumab, do not appear to increase the risk for spontaneous abortions, pre-term birth or major congenital malformations. There were very few patients included that were exposed to fingolimod, azathioprine and rituximab; therefore, these results cannot be generalized across drugs. Future studies including internal comparators are needed to enable treating physicians and their patients to decide on the best treatment options