BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine最新文献

{"title":"Identifying and counteracting fraudulent responses in online recruitment for health research: a scoping review.","authors":"Josielli Comachio, Adam Poulsen, Adeola Bamgboje-Ayodele, Aidan Tan, Julie Ayre, Rebecca Raeside, Rajshri Roy, Edel O'Hagan","doi":"10.1136/bmjebm-2024-113170","DOIUrl":"10.1136/bmjebm-2024-113170","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>This study aimed to describe how health researchers identify and counteract fraudulent responses when recruiting participants online.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Scoping review.</p><p><strong>Eligibility criteria: </strong>Peer-reviewed studies published in English; studies that report on the online recruitment of participants for health research; and studies that specifically describe methodologies or strategies to detect and address fraudulent responses during the online recruitment of research participants.</p><p><strong>Sources of evidence: </strong>Nine databases, including Medline, Informit, AMED, CINAHL, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, IEEE Xplore, Scopus and Web of Science, were searched from inception to April 2024.</p><p><strong>Charting methods: </strong>Two authors independently screened and selected each study and performed data extraction, following the Joanna Briggs Institute's methodological guidance for scoping reviews and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews guidelines. A predefined framework guided the evaluation of fraud identification and mitigation strategies within the studies included. This framework, adapted from a participatory mapping study that identified indicators of fraudulent survey responses, allowed for systematic assessment and comparison of the effectiveness of various antifraud strategies across studies.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>23 studies were included. 18 studies (78%) reported encountering fraudulent responses. Among the studies reviewed, the proportion of participants excluded for fraudulent or suspicious responses ranged from as low as 3% to as high as 94%. Survey completion time was used in six studies (26%) to identify fraud, with completion times under 5 min flagged as suspicious. 12 studies (52%) focused on non-confirming responses, identifying implausible text patterns through specific questions, consistency checks and open-ended questions. Four studies examined temporal events, such as unusual survey completion times. Seven studies (30%) reported on geographical incongruity, using IP address verification and location screening. Incentives were reported in 17 studies (73%), with higher incentives often increasing fraudulent responses. Mitigation strategies included using in-built survey features like Completely Automated Public Turing test to tell Computers and Humans Apart (34%), manual verification (21%) and video checks (8%). Most studies recommended multiple detection methods to maintain data integrity.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>There is insufficient evaluation of strategies to mitigate fraud in online health research, which hinders the ability to offer evidence-based guidance to researchers on their effectiveness. Researchers should employ a combination of strategies to counteract fraudulent responses when recruiting online to optimise data integrity.</p>","PeriodicalId":9059,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine","volume":" ","pages":"173-182"},"PeriodicalIF":9.0,"publicationDate":"2025-05-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12171401/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142881266","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Perspectives of clinicians and screening candidates on shared decision-making in prostate cancer screening with the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test: a qualitative study (PROSHADE study).","authors":"María José Sanchis, Mercedes Guilabert, Lucy A Parker, Juan Pablo Caballero-Romeu, Elisa Chilet-Rosell, Luis Gómez-Pérez, Pablo Alonso-Coello, Ana Cebrián, Maite López-Garrigós, Irene Moral, Elena Ronda-Pérez, Carlos Canelo-Aybar, Ildefonso Hernández-Aguado, Ignacio Párraga, María Del Campo-Giménez, Blanca Lumbreras","doi":"10.1136/bmjebm-2024-113113","DOIUrl":"10.1136/bmjebm-2024-113113","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The objective of this study is to analyse the perspectives of screening candidates and healthcare professionals on shared decision-making (SDM) in prostate cancer (PCa) screening using the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Descriptive qualitative study (May-December 2022): six face-to-face focus groups and four semistructured interviews were conducted, transcribed verbatim and thematically analysed using ATLAS.ti software.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>Data were obtained as part of the project PROSHADE (Decision Aid for Promoting Shared Decision Making in Opportunistic Screening for Prostate Cancer) to develop a tool for SDM in PCa screening with PSA testing in Spain.</p><p><strong>Participants: </strong>A total of 27 screening candidates (three groups of men: 40-50 years old; 51-60 years old and 61-80 years old), 25 primary care professionals (one group of eight nurses and two groups of physicians: one with more and one with less than 10 years of experience), and four urologists. Focus groups for patients and healthcare professionals were conducted separately.</p><p><strong>Main outcome measures: </strong>Participants' perceptions of shared decision-making related to PSA opportunistic screening, including their understanding, preferences, and attitudes.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Three themes were generated: (1) perceptions of SDM, (2) perceptions of PSA testing and (3) perceptions of SDM regarding PCa screening. Theme 1: screening candidates valued SDM when it included clear information and empowered them. There was consensus with primary care health professionals on this point, although their knowledge and implementation of SDM varied. Theme 2: candidates were divided on PSA testing; some trusted it for early detection, while others expressed scepticism due to concerns about false positives and invasive procedures, reflecting gaps in accessible information. Theme 3: professionals across primary and specialised care stressed the need for standardised SDM protocols. Primary care physicians were particularly concerned that PSA decisions align with scientific evidence and urologists recognised SDM as valuable in PSA testing only if it was adequately explained to each patient. Barriers to implementing SDM included insufficient coordination across care levels, lack of consensus-driven protocols and limited clinical time.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>While patients expect comprehensive information, primarily based on practice to achieve empowerment, healthcare professionals face obstacles such as limited time and insufficient coordination between primary care and urology. All stakeholders agree on the importance of evidence-based tools to reinforce effective SDM and enhance collaboration across urologists and primary care in the context of PSA testing.</p>","PeriodicalId":9059,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine","volume":" ","pages":"163-172"},"PeriodicalIF":9.0,"publicationDate":"2025-05-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12171405/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142963750","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Informatics hygiene to support reuse of routinely collected health care data for evidence-based practice.","authors":"Elmer V Bernstam, Alejandro Araya, Matthew Decaro, Todd R Johnson","doi":"10.1136/bmjebm-2024-112948","DOIUrl":"10.1136/bmjebm-2024-112948","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":9059,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine","volume":" ","pages":"145-148"},"PeriodicalIF":9.0,"publicationDate":"2025-05-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11698945/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141533562","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Rating certainty when the target threshold is the null and the point estimate is close to the null.","authors":"Linan Zeng, Monica Hultcrantz, David Tovey, Nancy Santesso, Philipp Dahm, Romina Brignardello-Petersen, Reem A Mustafa, M Hassan Murad, Ariel Izcovich, Hans de Beer, Martin Alberto Ragusa, Bradley Johnston, Lingli Zhang, Alfonso Iorio, Gordon Guyatt","doi":"10.1136/bmjebm-2024-113077","DOIUrl":"10.1136/bmjebm-2024-113077","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>When one initially targets the null effect and the point estimate falls close to the null, two challenges exist in rating certainty of evidence. First, when the point estimate is near the null and the data, therefore, suggests little or no effect, rating certainty in a benefit or harm is misleading. Second, since in general the narrower the confidence interval (CI) the more precise the estimate, if the CI is narrow, rating down for imprecision due simply to crossing the null is inappropriate. This paper addresses these issues and provides a solution: to revise the target of certainty rating from a non-zero effect to a little or no effect. This solution requires estimating a range in which the minimal important difference (MID) for benefit and an MID for harm might lie, and thus establishing a range that represents little or no effect. If GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations) users are confident that the point estimate represents an effect less than the smallest plausible MID, they will revise their target and rate certainty to a little or no effect. If the entire CI falls within the range of little or no effect, they will not rate down for imprecision. Otherwise (if the CI includes an important effect), they will rate down. Using the solution provided in this paper GRADE users can make an optimal choice of the target of certainty rating.</p>","PeriodicalId":9059,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine","volume":" ","pages":"202-207"},"PeriodicalIF":9.0,"publicationDate":"2025-05-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12171472/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143565930","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Gender and geographical bias in the editorial decision-making process of biomedical journals: a case-control study.","authors":"Angèle Gayet-Ageron, Khaoula Ben Messaoud, Mark Richards, Cyril Jaksic, Julien Gobeill, Jeevanthi Liyanapathirana, Luc Mottin, Nona Naderi, Patrick Ruch, Zoé Mariot, Alexandra Calmy, Julia Friedman, Leonard Leibovici, Sara Schroter","doi":"10.1136/bmjebm-2024-113083","DOIUrl":"10.1136/bmjebm-2024-113083","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To assess whether the gender (primary) and geographical affiliation (post-hoc) of the first and/or last authors are associated with publication decisions after peer review.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Case-control study.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>Biomedical journals.</p><p><strong>Participants: </strong>Original peer-reviewed manuscripts submitted between 1 January 2012 and 31 December 2019.</p><p><strong>Main outcome measure: </strong>Manuscripts accepted (cases) and rejected for publication (controls).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 6213 included manuscripts, 5294 (85.2%) first and 5479 (88.1%) last authors' gender were identified; 2511 (47.4%) and 1793 (32.7%) were women, respectively. The proportion of women first and last authors was 48.4% (n=1314) and 32.2% (n=885) among cases and 46.4% (n=1197) and 33.2% (n=908) among controls. After adjustment, the association between the first author's gender and acceptance for publication remained non-significant 1.04 (0.92 to 1.17). Acceptance for publication was lower for first authors affiliated to Asia 0.58 (0.46 to 0.73), Africa 0.75 (0.41 to 1.36) and South America 0.68 (0.40 to 1.16) compared with Europe, and for first author affiliated to upper-middle country-income 0.66 (0.47 to 0.95) and lower-middle/low 0.69 (0.46 to 1.03) compared with high country-income group. It was significantly higher when both first and last authors were affiliated to different countries from same geographical and income groups 1.35 (1.03 to 1.77), different countries and geographical but same income groups 1.50 (1.14 to 1.96) or different countries, geographical and income groups 1.78 (1.27 to 2.50) compared with authors from similar countries. The study funding was independently associated with the acceptance for publication (when compared with no funding, 1.40; 1.04 to 1.89 for funding by association & foundations, 2.76; 1.87 to 4.10 for international organisations, 1.30; 1.04 to 1.62 for non-profit & associations & foundations). The reviewers' recommendations of the original submitted version were significantly associated with the outcome (unadjusted 5.36; 4.98 to 5.78 for acceptance compared with rejection). Gender of the first author was not associated with reviewers' recommendations (adjusted 0.96, 0.87 to 1.06).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>We did not identify evidence of gender bias during the editorial decision-making process for papers sent out to peer review. However, the under-representation in manuscripts accepted for publication of first authors affiliated to Asia, Africa or South America and those affiliated to upper/lower-middle and low country-income group, indicates poor representation of global scientists' opinion and supports growing demands for improving equity, diversity and inclusion in biomedical research. The more diverse the countries and incomes of the first and last authors, the greater the chances of the publication being accepted.</p>","PeriodicalId":9059,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine","volume":" ","pages":"149-162"},"PeriodicalIF":9.0,"publicationDate":"2025-05-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12171469/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142891984","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"How to promote the application of reporting guidelines in acupuncture research.","authors":"Xiaoyu Liu, Shiyan Yan","doi":"10.1136/bmjebm-2024-113386","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjebm-2024-113386","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":9059,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.0,"publicationDate":"2025-05-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144085741","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Are we ready for AI-augmented generalists?","authors":"Jiajie Zhang","doi":"10.1136/bmjebm-2024-113597","DOIUrl":"10.1136/bmjebm-2024-113597","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":9059,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":7.6,"publicationDate":"2025-05-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12354154/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144085739","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Reporting guideline for the use of Generative Artificial intelligence tools in MEdical Research: the GAMER Statement.","authors":"Xufei Luo, Yih Chung Tham, Mauro Giuffrè, Robert Ranisch, Mohammad Daher, Kyle Lam, Alexander Viktor Eriksen, Che-Wei Hsu, Akihiko Ozaki, Fabio Ynoe de Moraes, Sahil Khanna, Kuan-Pin Su, Emir Begagić, Zhaoxiang Bian, Yaolong Chen, Janne Estill","doi":"10.1136/bmjebm-2025-113825","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjebm-2025-113825","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Generative artificial intelligence (GAI) tools can enhance the quality and efficiency of medical research, but their improper use may result in plagiarism, academic fraud and unreliable findings. Transparent reporting of GAI use is essential, yet existing guidelines from journals and institutions are inconsistent, with no standardised principles.</p><p><strong>Design and setting: </strong>International online Delphi study.</p><p><strong>Participants: </strong>International experts in medicine and artificial intelligence.</p><p><strong>Main outcome measures: </strong>The primary outcome measure is the consensus level of the Delphi expert panel on the items of inclusion criteria for GAMER (Rreporting guideline for the use of Generative Artificial intelligence tools in MEdical Research).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The development process included a scoping review, two Delphi rounds and virtual meetings. 51 experts from 26 countries participated in the process (44 in the Delphi survey). The final checklist comprises nine reporting items: general declaration, GAI tool specifications, prompting techniques, tool's role in the study, declaration of new GAI model(s) developed, artificial intelligence-assisted sections in the manuscript, content verification, data privacy and impact on conclusions.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>GAMER provides universal and standardised guideline for GAI use in medical research, ensuring transparency, integrity and quality.</p>","PeriodicalId":9059,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.0,"publicationDate":"2025-05-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143972178","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Prioritisation of candidates for HTA: insights from the Indian healthcare landscape.","authors":"Malkeet Singh, Abha Mehndiratta, Manuel Antonio Espinoza, Shankar Prinja, Ursula Giedion","doi":"10.1136/bmjebm-2023-112566","DOIUrl":"10.1136/bmjebm-2023-112566","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":9059,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":7.6,"publicationDate":"2025-05-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12355834/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143969812","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Developing a core outcome set for dysphagia interventions in Parkinson's disease: an international Delphi consensus study.","authors":"Julia Hirschwald, Paul Conroy, Gary Boyle, Tobias Warnecke, Margaret Walshe","doi":"10.1136/bmjebm-2024-113543","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjebm-2024-113543","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To develop a core outcome set (COS) for oropharyngeal dysphagia (swallowing disorder) interventions in Parkinson's disease by agreeing core outcomes and definitions, outcome measurement instruments (OMIs) and time points of measurement for these core outcomes.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>International online Delphi survey and consensus meetings.</p><p><strong>Participants: </strong>Individuals living with oropharyngeal dysphagia and Parkinson's disease, family members and caregivers, healthcare professionals and researchers in the field of oropharyngeal dysphagia and Parkinson's disease.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A long list of outcomes was generated previously through scoping reviews, online surveys and focus groups with key stakeholders. Building on this, an international three-round online Delphi survey was conducted where participants rated the importance of outcomes. In subsequent online consensus meetings, core outcomes, their definitions, OMIs and time points of measurement were agreed on.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>90 participants from 21 countries completed all three rounds of the Delphi survey. Of these, 35 participated in a consensus meeting. Six outcomes were agreed as the core outcomes: 'penetration/aspiration', 'aspiration pneumonia', 'choking', 'oropharyngeal dysphagia severity', 'swallowing related quality of life' and 'post swallow pharyngeal residue'.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The use of a COS in future oropharyngeal dysphagia intervention studies in Parkinson's disease will facilitate comparative effectiveness research and ensure that outcomes are relevant to all key stakeholders. This should help improve the evidence base for oropharyngeal dysphagia interventions in Parkinson's disease.</p><p><strong>Registration: </strong>The study was registered prospectively with the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials Database on 24 September 2021 (www.comet-initiative.org, registration number: 1942).</p>","PeriodicalId":9059,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.0,"publicationDate":"2025-04-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143975690","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}