Research integrity and peer review最新文献

{"title":"Impact of US industry payment disclosure laws on payments to surgeons: a natural experiment.","authors":"Taeho Greg Rhee, Tijana Stanic, Joseph S Ross","doi":"10.1186/s41073-019-0087-1","DOIUrl":"10.1186/s41073-019-0087-1","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To compare changes in the number and amount of payments received by orthopedic and non-orthopedic surgeons from industry between 2014 and 2017.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Using the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Open Payment database from 2014 to 2017, we conducted a retrospective cohort study of industry payments to surgeons, including general payments and research payments.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among orthopedic surgeons, the total number of general payments decreased from 248,698 in 2014 to 241,966 in 2017, but their total value increased from $97.1 million in 2014 to $110.2 million in 2017. Among non-orthopedic surgeons, the total number decreased from 604,884 in 2014 to 582,490 in 2017, while the total value remained stable at approximately $159 million. Between 2014 and 2017, there was a differential increase in the median number of general payments received by non-orthopedic when compared to orthopedic surgeons (incidence rate ratio, 1.09; 95% CI, 1.08-1.09; <i>p</i> < 0.001), but a differential decline in the median value of general payments (- 8.9%; 95% CI, - 9.5%, - 8.4%; <i>p</i> < 0.001). Findings were consistent when stratified by nature of payment. In contrast, between 2014 and 2017, there was neither a differential change in the median number nor median value of research payments received by non-orthopedics.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Examination of a natural experiment of prior public disclosure of payments to orthopedic surgeons suggests that the Physician Payment Sunshine Act was associated with an increase in the number, but a decline in the value, of general payments received by non-orthopedic surgeons, but not on research payments received.</p>","PeriodicalId":74682,"journal":{"name":"Research integrity and peer review","volume":"5 ","pages":"1"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-01-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6942346/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"37521219","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Spin in the reporting, interpretation, and extrapolation of adverse effects of orthodontic interventions: protocol for a cross-sectional study of systematic reviews.","authors":"Pauline A J Steegmans,&nbsp;Nicola Di Girolamo,&nbsp;Reint A Meursinge Reynders","doi":"10.1186/s41073-019-0084-4","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-019-0084-4","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Titles and abstracts are the most read sections of biomedical papers. It is therefore important that abstracts transparently report both the beneficial and adverse effects of health care interventions and do not mislead the reader. Misleading reporting, interpretation, or extrapolation of study results is called \"spin\". In this study, we will assess whether adverse effects of orthodontic interventions were reported or considered in the abstracts of both Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews and whether spin was identified and what type of spin.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Eligibility criteria were defined for the type of study designs, participants, interventions, outcomes, and settings. We will include systematic reviews of clinical orthodontic interventions published in the five leading orthodontic journals and in the Cochrane Database. Empty reviews will be excluded. We will manually search eligible reviews published between 1 August 2009 and 31 July 2019. Data collection forms were developed a priori. All study selection and data extraction procedures will be conducted by two reviewers independently. Our main outcomes will be the prevalence of reported or considered adverse effects of orthodontic interventions in the abstract of systematic reviews and the prevalence of \"spin\" related to these adverse effects. We will also record the prevalence of three subtypes of spin, i.e., misleading reporting, misleading interpretation, and misleading extrapolation-related spin. All statistics will be calculated for the following groups: (1) all journals individually, (2) all journals together, and (3) the five leading orthodontic journals and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews separately. Generalized linear models will be developed to compare the various groups.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>We expect that our results will raise the awareness of the importance of reporting and considering of adverse effects and the presence of the phenomenon of spin related to these effects in abstracts of systematic reviews of orthodontic interventions. This is important, because an incomplete and inadequate reporting, interpretation, or extrapolation of findings on adverse effects in abstracts of systematic reviews can mislead readers and could lead to inadequate clinical practice. Our findings could result in policy implications for making judgments about the acceptance for publication of systematic reviews of orthodontic interventions.</p>","PeriodicalId":74682,"journal":{"name":"Research integrity and peer review","volume":"4 ","pages":"27"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-12-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1186/s41073-019-0084-4","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"37502287","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Systematic overview of Freedom of Information Act requests to the Department of Health and Human Services from 2008 to 2017.","authors":"Alexander C Egilman,&nbsp;Joshua D Wallach,&nbsp;Christopher J Morten,&nbsp;Peter Lurie,&nbsp;Joseph S Ross","doi":"10.1186/s41073-019-0086-2","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-019-0086-2","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) provides access to unreleased government records that can be used to enhance the transparency and integrity of biomedical research. We characterized FOIA requests to Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) agencies, including request outcomes, processing times, backlogs, and costs.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Using HHS FOIA annual reports, we extracted data on the number of FOIA requests received and processed by HHS agencies between 2008 and 2017, as well as request outcomes. Processing times were reported in three time increments, < 1-20, 21-60, or 61+ days, and trends in backlog status were also described. Information about costs and fees collected were aggregated.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Between 2008 and 2017, 69.6% of 530,094 HHS FOIA requests were received by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), 18.9% by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and 11.6% by all other HHS agencies. During this period, CMS processed 374,728 requests, FDA 114,938, and other HHS agencies 61,890. CMS and FDA reduced backlogged requests by 9396 (89.7%) and 4289 (65.3%), respectively, leaving backlogs of 1081 and 2279 requests at the end of 2017. CMS fully or partially granted 60.3% of requests whereas FDA fully or partially granted 72.4%. Of all requests to CMS, 82.0% were considered simple and 18.0% complex; 82.2% of simple requests and 54.9% of complex requests were processed in 20 days, and 5.6% and 29.9% were processed in 61+ days. In contrast, 60.2% of requests to FDA were considered simple and 39.8% complex; 28.8% of simple requests and 9.0% of complex requests were processed in 20 days, and 58.3% and 81.5% were processed in 61+ days. The costs to HHS associated with FOIA requests totaled $446.4 million ($809 per processed request), increasing from $28.1 million ($423 per request) in 2008 to $53.3 million ($1544 per request) in 2017. In total, HHS collected $8.5 million in fees (1.9% of total costs).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>FOIA is frequently used to obtain information about HHS and its agencies. With growing costs, minimal fees collected, and lengthy processing times, HHS agencies' FOIA programs might be made more efficient through greater proactive record disclosure.</p>","PeriodicalId":74682,"journal":{"name":"Research integrity and peer review","volume":"4 ","pages":"26"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-12-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1186/s41073-019-0086-2","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"37483159","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Researchers’ perceptions of research misbehaviours: a mixed methods study among academic researchers in Amsterdam","authors":"T. Haven, J. Tijdink, H. Pasman, G. Widdershoven, G. Riet, G. Riet, L. Bouter","doi":"10.1186/s41073-019-0081-7","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-019-0081-7","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":74682,"journal":{"name":"Research integrity and peer review","volume":"4 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1186/s41073-019-0081-7","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42306955","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Testing an active intervention to deter researchers’ use of questionable research practices","authors":"Samuel V. Bruton, Mitch Brown, D. Sacco, R. Didlake","doi":"10.1186/s41073-019-0085-3","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-019-0085-3","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":74682,"journal":{"name":"Research integrity and peer review","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-11-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1186/s41073-019-0085-3","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46513456","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Evaluating ethics oversight during assessment of research integrity","authors":"A. Grey, M. Bolland, A. Avenell","doi":"10.1186/s41073-019-0082-6","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-019-0082-6","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":74682,"journal":{"name":"Research integrity and peer review","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-11-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1186/s41073-019-0082-6","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44742513","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Development of research integrity in France is on the rise: the introduction of research integrity officers was a progress","authors":"H. Maisonneuve","doi":"10.1186/s41073-019-0080-8","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-019-0080-8","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":74682,"journal":{"name":"Research integrity and peer review","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-10-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1186/s41073-019-0080-8","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44191987","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Impact of peer review on discussion of study limitations and strength of claims in randomized trial reports: a before and after study","authors":"Kerem Keserlioglu, H. Kilicoglu, G. ter Riet","doi":"10.1186/s41073-019-0078-2","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-019-0078-2","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":74682,"journal":{"name":"Research integrity and peer review","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-09-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1186/s41073-019-0078-2","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43442583","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"A 10-year follow up of publishing ethics in China: what is new and what is unchanged.","authors":"Katrina A Bramstedt,&nbsp;Jun Xu","doi":"10.1186/s41073-019-0077-3","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-019-0077-3","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Organ donation and transplantation in China are ethically complex due to questionable informed consent and the use of prisoners as donors. Publishing works from China can be problematic. The objective of this study was to perform a 10-year follow up on Chinese journals active in donation and transplant publishing regarding the evolution of their publishing guidelines.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Eleven Chinese journals were analyzed for 7 properties: (1) ethics committee approval; (2) procedure consent; (3) publishing consent; (4) authorship criteria; (5) conflict of interest; (6) duplicate publication; and (7) data integrity. Results were compared with our 2008 study data. Additionally, open access status, impact factor, and MEDLINE-indexing were explored.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Most journals heightened the ethical requirements for publishing, compared to the results of 2008. All 11 now require their published manuscripts to have data integrity. Ten of 11 require ethics committee approval and informed consent for the publication of research studies, whereas in the original study only 2 journals evidenced these requirements. Nine of 11 have criteria for authorship, require conflict of interest disclosure, and forbid duplicate publishing. None of the journals have a policy to exclude data that was obtained from unethical organ donation practices. Nine of 11 journals are MEDLINE-indexed but only 2 are open-access.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Most journals have improved their general ethical publishing requirements but none address unethical organ donation practices.</p>","PeriodicalId":74682,"journal":{"name":"Research integrity and peer review","volume":"4 ","pages":"17"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-09-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1186/s41073-019-0077-3","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41222961","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Value pluralism in research integrity","authors":"R. Peels, J. de Ridder, T. Haven, L. Bouter","doi":"10.1186/s41073-019-0076-4","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-019-0076-4","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":74682,"journal":{"name":"Research integrity and peer review","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-08-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1186/s41073-019-0076-4","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48031894","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}