PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

M A Winker

Publications and source records attributed to M A Winker.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed1998

Does masking author identity improve peer review quality? A randomized controlled trial. PEER Investigators.

CONTEXT: All authors may not be equal in the eyes of reviewers. Specifically, well-known authors may receive less objective (poorer quality) reviews. One study at a single journal found a small improvement in review quality when reviewers were masked to author identity. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether masking reviewers to author identity is generally associated with higher quality of review at biomedical journals, and to determine the success of routine masking techniques. DESIGN AND SETTING: A randomized controlled trial performed on external reviews of manuscripts submitted to Annals of Emergency Medicine, Annals of Internal Medicine, JAMA, Obstetrics & Gynecology, and Ophthalmology. INTERVENTIONS: Two peers reviewed each manuscript. In one study arm, both peer reviewers received the manuscript according to usual masking practice. In the other arm, one reviewer was randomized to receive a manuscript with author identity masked, and the other reviewer received an unmasked manuscript. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Review quality on a 5-point Likert scale as judged by manuscript author and editor. A difference of 0.5 or greater was considered important. RESULTS: A total of 118 manuscripts were randomized, 26 to usual practice and 92 to intervention. In the intervention arm, editor quality assessment was complete for 77 (84%) of 92 manuscripts. Author quality assessment was complete on 40 (54%) of 74 manuscripts. Authors and editors perceived no significant difference in quality between masked (mean difference, 0.1; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.2 to 0.4) and unmasked (mean difference, -0.1; 95% CI, -0.5 to 0.4) reviews. We also found no difference in the degree to which the review influenced the editorial decision (mean difference, -0.1; 95% CI,-0.3 to 0.3). Masking was often unsuccessful (overall, 68% successfully masked; 95% CI, 58%-77%), although 1 journal had significantly better masking success than others (90% successfully masked; 95% CI, 73%-98%). Manuscripts by generally known authors were less likely to be successfully masked (odds ratio, 0.3; 95% CI, 0.1-0.8). When analysis was restricted to manuscripts that were successfully masked, review quality as assessed by editors and authors still did not differ. CONCLUSIONS: Masking reviewers to author identity as commonly practiced does not improve quality of reviews. Since manuscripts of well-known authors are more difficult to mask, and those manuscripts may be more likely to benefit from masking, the inability to mask reviewers to the identity of well-known authors may have contributed to the lack of effect.

Authorship↗
PubMed1998

Masking author identity in peer review: what factors influence masking success? PEER Investigators.

CONTEXT: In a previous study, we found that masking success was higher at a journal that masked reviewers to author identity. We hypothesized that masking policy or other factors could be associated with masking success. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate differences in success of masking reviewers to author identity at 7 biomedical journals and to identify factors associated with these differences. DESIGN: Written questionnaire. PARTICIPANTS: Reviewers at 3 journals with a long-standing policy of masking author identity (Annals of Emergency Medicine, Epidemiology, and Journal of the American Geriatrics Society) and 4 journals without a policy of masking author identity (Annals of Internal Medicine, JAMA, Obstetrics & Gynecology, and Ophthalmology). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Masking success (percentage of reviewers successfully masked) and reviewer characteristics associated with masking. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in masking success between journals with a policy of masking (60%) and those without (58%) (P= .92). We found no association between masking success and a policy of masking when adjusted for the reviewer characteristics of age, sex, years of reviewing experience, number of articles published, number of articles reviewed, percentage of time spent in research, editorial experience, or academic rank (odds ratio [OR], 1.3; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.64-2.8; P=.43). In multivariable analysis of reviewer characteristics, reviewers spending a greater percentage of time in research, the only significant predictor of masking success, were less likely to be successfully masked (OR, 1.01; 95% CI, 1.00-1.02) (P=.04). CONCLUSIONS: Masking success appears unrelated to a journal policy of masking, but is associated with reviewers' research experience and could be affected by other characteristics. Using reviewers with less research and reviewing experience might increase masking success, but the effect on review quality is unknown.

Authorship↗
PubMed1993

Contempo '93.

Explore the source record for details and available documents.

Cost-Benefit Analysis↗
PubMed1986

Adriamycin accumulation and metabolism in adriamycin-sensitive and -resistant human ovarian cancer cell lines.

Adriamycin accumulation and metabolism were studied in three distinct groups of human ovarian cancer cell lines: those derived from previously untreated patients, those from clinically refractory (relapsed) patients, and those with induced resistance to adriamycin in vitro. The 2-hr [14C] adriamycin accumulation in cell lines from previously untreated patients (A2780 and A1847 [Eva et al., Nature, Lond. 295, 116 (1982)] and OVCAR-5 [National Institutes of Health human OVarian CAR-cinoma cell line no. 5]) was 11-14 ng/10(6) cells. 2780AD and 1847AD (variants with in vitro induced resistance to adriamycin) accumulated one-third as much adriamycin after 2 hr (4 ng/10(6) cells). However, three cell lines derived from clinically refractory patients accumulated the same amount of adriamycin as cell lines from untreated patients (8-13 ng/10(6) cells). A high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) assay for adriamycin and its analogs confirmed these results and demonstrated only parent drug (no metabolites) in any of the cell lines tested. These results demonstrate that the primary mechanism of adriamycin resistance in some ovarian cancer cells from clinically refractory patients is not enhanced metabolism of drug or a transport defect leading to a decreased net accumulation such as has been described for cells with in vitro induced resistance to adriamycin.

Cell Line↗
PubMed1985

Radiation survival parameters of antineoplastic drug-sensitive and -resistant human ovarian cancer cell lines and their modification by buthionine sulfoximine.

The optimum integration of chemotherapy and irradiation is of potential clinical significance in the treatment of ovarian cancer. A series of human ovarian cancer cell lines have been developed in which dose-response relationships to standard anticancer drugs have been determined, and the patterns of cross-resistance between these drugs and irradiation have been established. By stepwise incubation with drugs, sublines of A2780, a drug-sensitive cell line, have been made 100-fold, 10-fold, and 10-fold more resistant to Adriamycin (2780AD), melphalan (2780ME), and cisplatin (2780CP). Two additional cell lines, NIH:OVCAR-3nu(Ag+) and NIH:OVCAR-4(Ag+), were established from drug-refractory patients. 2780ME, 2780CP, OVCAR-3nu(Ag+), and OVCAR-4(Ag+) are all cross-resistant to irradiation, with DOS of 146, 187, 143, and 203, respectively. However, 2780AD remains sensitive to radiation, with a DO of 111, which is similar to that of A2780 (101). Glutathione (GSH) levels are elevated in 2780ME, 2780CP, OVCAR-3nu(Ag+), and OVCAR-4(Ag+) to 4.58, 6.13, 12.10, and 15.14 nmol/10(6) cells as compared to A2780, with 1.89 nmol/10(6) cells. However, the GSH level in 2780AD is only minimally higher than that in A2780 (2.94 nmol/10(6) cells). Buthionine sulfoximine, a specific inhibitor of GSH synthesis, significantly increases the radiation sensitivity of 2780ME (changing the DO from 143 to 95) and 2780CP to a lesser extent, suggesting that intracellular GSH levels may play an important role in the radiation response of certain neoplastic cells. These results suggest that the sequential use of irradiation following chemotherapy with melphalan and cisplatin may be less effective than a combined modality approach, which integrates radiation and chemotherapy prior to the development of drug resistance and cross-resistance to irradiation.

Antineoplastic Agents↗
PubMed1983

Hypoalgesia induced by the local injection of phentolamine in the nucleus raphe magnus: blockade by depletion of spinal cord monoamines.

Blockade of the noradrenergic input to the nucleus raphe magnus (NRM) by the injection of alpha-adrenergic antagonists produces hypoalgesia. Previous studies show that this hypoalgesia is blocked by the intrathecal injection of either phentolamine or methysergide. The present study demonstrates that depletion of spinal cord serotonin, norepinephrine, or both also blocks this hypoalgesia. Together these studies suggest that the hypoalgesia produced by microinjection of noradrenergic antagonists in the NRM is mediated by the activation of both raphe-spinal serotonergic neurons and bulbospinal noradrenergic neurons.

Animals↗