Do corresponding authors take responsibility for their work? A covert survey

Steroid versus placebo injections and wrist splints in patients with carpal tunnel syndrome: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

A network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials compared the effectiveness of corticosteroid injections with placebo injections and wrist splints for carpal tunnel syndrome, focusing on symptom relief and median nerve conduction velocity. Within 3 months of the corticosteroid injection, there was a modest statistically significant difference in symptom relief compared to placebo injections and wrist splints, as measured by the Symptom Severity Subscore of the Boston Carpal Tunnel Questionnaire; however, this did not meet the minimum clinically important difference. Pain reduction with corticosteroids was slightly better than with wrist splints, but it also failed to reach clinical significance. Electrodiagnostic assessments showed transient changes in distal motor and sensory latencies in favour of corticosteroids at 3 months, but these changes were not evident at 6 months. The best current evidence suggests that corticosteroid injections provide minimal transient improvement in nerve conduction and symptomatology compared with placebo or wrist splints.

A Bibliometric Analysis of 100 Most-Cited Articles on Corneal Cross-Linking

Background

Highly cited papers are expected to have high-quality data that significantly contribute to the body of knowledge. The study aimed to evaluate the characters of the 100 most-cited articles on corneal cross-linking (CXL) through a bibliometric analysis.

Materials and Methods

The Web of Science database was searched to identify papers published from 1950 to 2020. A bibliometric analysis of the top 100-cited articles was conducted in the current study. The citation differences between basic research, clinical research, and reviews were compared by Kruskal-Wallis test. The association between citations and publication year was evaluated by Spearman correlation analysis. The VOSviewer software was used to create networks of co-authorship and keywords map.

Results

The median values of the number of citations, citations/year since publication, and citations since 2013 were 101, 9.5, and 11.92, respectively. A total of 61% of articles were clinical research. The citations since 2013 of clinical research were lower than basic research and the reviews (all p < 0.001). The publication year was positively correlated with the number of publications (r = 0.665, p = 0.013), and the total number of citations decreased for basic research (r = -0.447, p = 0.017), and clinical research (r = -0.433, p < 0.001). The J REFRACT SURG publishes the highest number of articles. The corresponding authors were predominantly from the Italy (N = 17), Germany (N = 16), and United States (N = 15). Spoerl Eberhard has the highest number of citations and total link strength with 15 articles. Extensive collaboration existed among the main core nodes containing "cross-linking (N = 45)," "riboflavin (N = 44)," and "ultraviolet A (UVA) (N = 42)."

Conclusion

The present study focused on the comprehensive analysis of the top 100-cited articles on the CXL research, providing insight into research developments over the past decades.

Towards ARTEM-IS: Design guidelines for evidence-based EEG methodology reporting tools

As the number of EEG papers increases, so too do the number of guidelines for how to report what has been done. However, current guidelines and checklists appear to have limited adoption, as systematic reviews have shown the journal article format is highly prone to errors, ambiguities and omissions of methodological details. This is a problem for transparency in the scientific record, along with reproducibility and metascience. Following lessons learned in the high complexity fields of aviation and surgery, we conclude that new tools are needed to overcome the limitations of written methodology descriptions, and that these tools should be developed through community consultation to ensure that they have the most utility for EEG stakeholders. As a first step in tool development, we present the ARTEM-IS Statement describing what action will be needed to create an Agreed Reporting Template for Electroencephalography Methodology - International Standard (ARTEM-IS), along with ARTEM-IS Design Guidelines for developing tools that use an evidence-based approach to error reduction. We first launched the statement at the LiveMEEG conference in 2020 along with a draft of an ARTEM-IS template for public consultation. Members of the EEG community are invited to join this collective effort to create evidence-based tools that will help make the process of reporting methodology intuitive to complete and foolproof by design.

Authors of trials from high-ranking anesthesiology journals were not willing to share raw data

OBJECTIVES

To analyze data sharing practices among authors of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in seven high-ranking anesthesiology journals from 2014 to 2016.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We analyzed data sharing statements in 619 included RCTs and contacted their corresponding authors, asking them to share de-identified raw data from trial.

RESULTS

Of the 86 (14%) authors who responded to our query for data sharing, only 24 (4%) provided the requested data. Only one of those 24 had a data sharing statement in the published manuscript. Only 24 (4%) of manuscripts contained statements suggesting a willingness to share trial data; only one of those authors actually shared data. There was no difference in proportion of data sharing between studies with commercial and nonprofit funding. Among the 62 authors who refused to provide data, reasons were seldom provided. When reasons were provided, common themes included issues regarding data ownership and participant privacy. Only one of the seven analyzed journals encouraged authors toward data sharing.

CONCLUSION

Willingness to share data among anesthesiology RCTs is very low. To achieve widespread availability of de-identified trial data, journals should request their publication, as opposed to only encouraging authors to do so.

Short email with attachment versus long email without attachment when contacting authors to request unpublished data for a systematic review: a nested randomised trial

OBJECTIVE

Systematic reviews often rely on the acquisition of unpublished analyses or data. We carried out a nested randomised trial comparing two different approaches for contacting authors to request additional data for a systematic review.

PARTICIPANTS

Participants were authors of published reports of prevention or treatment trials in stroke in which there was central adjudication of events. A primary and secondary research active author were selected as contacts for each trial.

INTERVENTIONS

Authors were randomised to be sent either a short email with a protocol of the systematic review attached ('Short') or a longer email that contained detailed information and without the protocol attached ('Long'). A maximum of two emails were sent to each author to obtain a response. The unit of analysis was trial, accounting for clustering by author.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was whether a response was received from authors. Secondary outcomes included time to response, number of reminders needed before a response was received and whether authors agreed to collaborate.

RESULTS

88 trials with 76 primary authors were identified in the systematic review, and of these, 36 authors were randomised to Short (trials=45) and 40 to Long (trials=43). Responses were received for 69 trials. There was no evidence of a difference in response rate between trial arms (Short vs Long, OR 1.10, 95% CI 0.36 to 3.33). There was no evidence of a difference in time to response between trial arms (Short vs Long, HR 0.91, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.51). In total, 27% of authors responded within a day and 22% of authors never responded.

CONCLUSIONS

There was no evidence to suggest that email format had an impact on the number of responses received when acquiring data for a systematic review involving stroke trials or the time taken to receive these responses.

Non-corresponding authors in the era of meta-analyses

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

The exponential growth of the global scientific output requires review articles that summarize such escalating knowledge. The rate of growth in the number of published meta-analyses in the last decade is impressive, with meta-analyses being the most cited form of scientific article. The validity of the pooled estimates of effect heavily rely on the availability of data in the included articles. Unfortunately, inadequate reporting of the findings is common and often makes data extraction cumbersome. However, the response rate of corresponding authors to data requests is dangerously low, which threatens the validity of meta-analytic estimates. The aim of the present communication is to ignite a thoughtful debate to stimulate a higher level of responsibility and correspondence commitment from published authors.

METHODS

Commentary on our personal experience as meta-analysts.

RESULTS

In line with previous surveys, we observed a low response rate from corresponding authors, typically less than 50%.

CONCLUSIONS

Lack of publication follow-up is a serious threat not only to meta-analysts and systematic reviewers, whose incomplete data pooling may lead to biased and misleading estimates of effect, but also to clinical practitioners, who heavily rely on the findings generated by meta-analyses for informing and driving their clinical practice.

Statement on Publication Ethics for Editors and Publishers

The digitization and related developments in journal editing and publishing necessitate increasing the awareness of all stakeholders of science communication in the emerging global problems and possible solutions. Journal editors and publishers are frequently encountered with the fast-growing problems of authorship, conflicts of interest, peer review, research misconduct, unethical citations, and inappropriate journal impact metrics. While the number of erroneous and unethical research papers and wasteful, or 'predatory', journals is increasing exponentially, responsible editors are urged to 'clean' the literature by correcting or retracting related articles. Indexers are advised to implement measures for accepting truly influential and ethical journals and delisting sources with predatory publishing practices. Updating knowledge and skills of authors, editors and publishers, developing and endorsing recommendations of global editorial associations, and (re)drafting journal instructions can be viewed as potential tools for improving ethics of academic journals. The aim of this Statement is to increase awareness of all stakeholders of science communication of the emerging ethical issues in journal editing and publishing and initiate a campaign of upgrading and enforcing related journal instructions.

Extracting data from figures with software was faster, with higher interrater reliability than manual extraction

OBJECTIVES

To compare speed and accuracy of graphical data extraction using manual estimation and open source software.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

Data points from eligible graphs/figures published in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) from 2009 to 2014 were extracted by two authors independently, both by manual estimation and with the Plot Digitizer, open source software. Corresponding authors of each RCT were contacted up to four times via e-mail to obtain exact numbers that were used to create graphs. Accuracy of each method was compared against the source data from which the original graphs were produced.

RESULTS

Software data extraction was significantly faster, reducing time for extraction for 47%. Percent agreement between the two raters was 51% for manual and 53.5% for software data extraction. Percent agreement between the raters and original data was 66% vs. 75% for the first rater and 69% vs. 73% for the second rater, for manual and software extraction, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Data extraction from figures should be conducted using software, whereas manual estimation should be avoided. Using software for data extraction of data presented only in figures is faster and enables higher interrater reliability.

Public Data Archiving in Ecology and Evolution: How Well Are We Doing?

Policies that mandate public data archiving (PDA) successfully increase accessibility to data underlying scientific publications. However, is the data quality sufficient to allow reuse and reanalysis? We surveyed 100 datasets associated with nonmolecular studies in journals that commonly publish ecological and evolutionary research and have a strong PDA policy. Out of these datasets, 56% were incomplete, and 64% were archived in a way that partially or entirely prevented reuse. We suggest that cultural shifts facilitating clearer benefits to authors are necessary to achieve high-quality PDA and highlight key guidelines to help authors increase their data's reuse potential and compliance with journal data policies.

Quality of research and quality of reporting in elbow surgery trials

BACKGROUND

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are high in the hierarchy of scientific evidence, but possible sources of bias should be identified or even excluded. This systematic review assessed the methodologic quality and the quality of reporting of the RCTs on the treatment of elbow pathology.

METHODS

A systematic review of RCTs was performed on the treatment of elbow pathology. PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched for relevant trials. Thirty-five of the initial 540 articles being an (pseudo) RCT on invasive treatment of elbow pathology in humans were included. These were scored with the use of an adapted Checklists to Evaluate A Report of a Nonpharmacologic Trial (CLEAR-NPT). To assess quality of reporting, points were administered to the articles based on the results from CLEAR-NPT list. The highest possible score for quality is 26 points.

RESULTS

The average quality score was 18.1 points (range, 10-25 points). The mean scores were 19.5 for trials published in the American Journal of Sports Medicine, 19.8 for those published in the Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, and 20.3 for those published in the Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

The most important finding was that the overall quality and the quality of reporting has not improved over the years and that the overall quality of the selected studies and the quality of reporting in these trials is not related to the journal they are published in.