PubMed Health⌕ Search

SEARCH · PubMed Health

Results for “Duplicate Publications as Topic”

Explore indexed PubMed citations for clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health research. Read source abstracts and follow each citation to its original PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 469 records · Page 26Linked to original sources
PubMed1998

Duplicate publication?

Explore the source record for details and available documents.

Arthroplasty, Replacement, Hip↗
PubMed1998

Dual publication.

Explore the source record for details and available documents.

Duplicate Publications as Topic↗
PubMed2002

Ethical behaviour of authors in biomedical journalism.

BACKGROUND: Biomedical journals communicate new information that changes health-care decisions. If authors ignore the fundamental values of honesty and trust, that information becomes flawed, and society or patients may be harmed. OBJECTIVE: By describing two cases of unethical behaviour by authors, and using them as a focus to review acceptable ethics in publication, this article aims to educate readers who have not considered the ethical implications in writing manuscripts for biomedical journals. METHODS: Two cases of unethical behaviour by authors occurred when the results of new drug trials were reported. They were discovered after publication in a biomedical journal, and in the review process after the submission of a manuscript for publication respectively. In the first case, duplicate publication was identified because the same control data were used, but not acknowledged, in three publications by the same investigators. In the second, ghost writing by a pharmaceutical company writer was suspected because of the atypical presentation of a senior author's work. RESULTS: The editor consulted with the authors of both reports. In the first case, the authors concurred about the duplication, and the editors of the three journals wrote editorials to record the duplicate publications. The second case of ghost writing was unconfirmed by the authors, but the submission was withdrawn, and the article was later published in another journal. CONCLUSION: These cases draw attention to recently recognized types of scientific misconduct that influence the perception of scientific work. Duplicate publication and ghost writing not only deceive the reader, but may also conceal flawed study design and conflict of interest.

Animals↗
PubMed2006

Prevention of atrial fibrillation in patients with symptomatic chronic heart failure by candesartan in the Candesartan in Heart failure: assessment of Reduction in Mortality and morbidity (CHARM) program.

BACKGROUND: Atrial fibrillation (AF) is frequent in patients with chronic heart failure (CHF). Experimental and small patient studies have demonstrated that blocking the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system may prevent AF. In the CHARM program, the effects of the angiotensin receptor blocker candesartan on cardiovascular mortality and morbidity were evaluated in a broad spectrum of patients with symptomatic CHF. CHARM provided the opportunity to prospectively determine the effect of candesartan on the incidence of new AF in this CHF population. METHODS: 7601 patients with symptomatic CHF and reduced or preserved left ventricular systolic function were randomized to candesartan (target dose 32 mg once daily, mean dose 24 mg) or placebo in the 3 component trials of CHARM. The major outcomes were cardiovascular death or CHF hospitalization and all-cause mortality. The incidence of new AF was a prespecified secondary outcome. Median follow-up was 37.7 months. A conditional logistic regression model for stratified data was used. RESULTS: 6446 patients (84.8%) did not have AF on their baseline electrocardiogram. Of these, 392 (6.08%) developed AF during follow-up, 177 (5.55%) in the candesartan group and 215 (6.74%) in the placebo group (odds ratio 0.812, 95% CI 0.662-0.998, P = .048). After adjustment for baseline covariates, the odds ratio was 0.802 (95% CI 0.650-0.990, P = .039). There was no heterogeneity of the effects of candesartan in preventing AF between the 3 component trials (P = .57). CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with the angiotensin receptor blocker candesartan reduced the incidence of AF in a large, broadly-based, population of patients with symptomatic CHF.

Aged↗