PubMed Health⌕ Search

SEARCH · PubMed Health

Results for “Periodicals 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 109 records · Page 6Linked to original sources
PubMed1993

An index of scientific quality for health reports in the lay press.

Although the quality of health reporting has been criticized for being unscientific, evaluations of health care reporting have been limited by the lack of a reliable and credible measure of scientific quality. We developed an index of scientific quality (ISQ) for health-related news reports and tested its reliability and sensibility. Items were generated from a survey of the literature and experts in research methodology. Items that were unclear, confusing or discriminated poorly between articles of high and low scientific quality were revised or deleted in an iterative process wherein potential criteria were independently applied to samples of 5 to 15 articles by 6 raters. To test the reliability of the final criteria 60 articles were drawn from three sampling frames: newspapers, magazines, and professional journals. Articles were intentionally selected to obtain a wide range of quality and topics. Two categories of raters were used: research assistants and physicians with research training. All 6 raters assessed all 60 articles. The sensibility of the index was tested by a questionnaire with 13 items related to face validity and content validity as well as other aspects of sensibility. The questionnaire was completed by 20 researchers and 13 health and science writers. The final ISQ includes 7 items that address the extent to which a report allows readers to draw conclusions about the applicability, validity and practical importance of the information that is reported. Chance corrected agreement (kappa) among all 6 raters for overall scientific quality was 0.62 (SE 0.02). The index was found to be sensible with only one major problem, the need for judgment in making ratings. While some degree of subjectivity appears to be inevitable in rating the scientific quality of health reports, the ISQ is acceptable reliable and credible and should be useful for evaluating and improving the scientific quality of health reporting.

Evaluation Studies as Topic↗
PubMed1995

Selecting the language of the publications included in a meta-analysis: is there a Tower of Babel bias?

Although they usually claim a very thorough search to retrieve every pertinent work, most meta-analyses published in English restrict their search to papers which were also published in English. We reviewed all the meta-analyses printed from 1 January 1991 to 1 April 1993 in 8 medical journals published in English and selected those who stated linguistic restrictions for inclusion in the analysis. The computerized search methods used in these meta-analyses were then duplicated looking specifically for publications written in the excluded languages. Each meta-analysis was then redone with identical statistical tests to determine if its conclusions would have been different if the paper(s) absent only for linguistic reasons had been included. A total of 36 meta-analyses of which 28 had language restrictions were identified. The computer searches yielded 19 papers scientifically acceptable but excluded for linguistic reasons. Eleven of these articles were retained as having the potential to modify their corresponding 7 meta-analyses. One meta-analysis which concluded that selective decontamination of the digestive tract in intensive care units did not produce a significant change in mortality between treatment and control patients (OR 0.70; 95% CI 0.45-1.09) would have arrived at a different conclusion (OR 0.67; 95% CI 0.47-0.95) if a paper written in German in a Swiss journal had been included in the analysis. Our study demonstrates that, in at least one out of 36 consecutive meta-analyses the exclusion of papers for linguistic reasons produced results different from those which would have been obtained if this exclusion criteria had not been used.

Clinical Trials as Topic↗
PubMed2006

The content of medical journal Instructions for authors.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: We describe the general and statistical content of the Instructions for Authors of major medical journals. METHODS: This article reports on 2 observational studies. In study 1, we investigated the online versions of Instructions for Authors of 166 journals from 33 specialties for the presence of content about 15 methodologic and statistical topics. In study 2, we categorized the general content of the online versions of the Instructions for Authors of 35 medical journals. Two abstractors independently assigned the content into 18 categories and counted the total number of words devoted to each category. Interrater reliability of the classification was assessed. RESULTS: Less than half of the 166 Instructions for Authors in study 1 provided any guidance on statistical methods, and the majority failed to cite accepted publication standards such as the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors Uniform Guidelines or CONSORT. Only 13% of journals commented on the content and style of data tables and figures. The 35 Instructions for Authors in study 2 varied greatly in length (mean 3,308; median 2,283; range 885 to 18,927) and, with few exceptions, focused on formatting issues. Forty-three percent of Instructions offered no advice on scientific content, and only 5 journals devoted more than 10% of their words to scientific content. CONCLUSION: There is great heterogeneity among medical journal Instructions for Authors. Instructions provide little guidance about methodologic and statistical issues, and the advice provided is often contradictory among journals.

Guidelines as Topic↗
PubMed2004

An assessment system for rating scientific journals in the field of ergonomics and human factors.

A method for selecting and rating scientific and professional journals representing the discipline of ergonomics and human factors is proposed. The method is based upon the journal list, impact factors and citations provided by the Institute of Scientific Information (ISI), and the journal list published in the Ergonomics Abstracts. Three groups of journals were distinguished. The 'ergonomics journals' focus exclusively on ergonomics and human factors. The 'related journals' focus on other disciplines than ergonomics and human factors, but regularly publish ergonomics/human factors papers. The 'basic journals' focus on other technical, medical or social sciences than ergonomics, but are important for the development of ergonomics/human factors. Journal quality was rated using a maximum of four categories: top quality (A-level), high quality (B-level), good quality (C-level)) and professional (P-level). The above methods were applied to develop the Ergonomics Journal List 2004. A total of 25 'ergonomics journals', 58 'related journals' and 142 'basic journals' were classified.

Ergonomics↗
PubMed2005

Systematic reviews involving complementary and alternative medicine interventions had higher quality of reporting than conventional medicine reviews.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the quality of systematic reviews reported in English and in languages other than English, and to determine whether there are differences between conventional medicine (CM) and complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) reports. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We used the Oxman and Guyatt (OG) scale to assess the quality of reporting in 130 systematic reviews: 50 were language-restricted, 32 were language-inclusive but only English-language (EL) trials contained (inclusive-EL), and 48 were language-inclusive and included trials published in languages other than English (inclusive-LOE). Of the 130 reviews, 105 addressed CM interventions and 25 addressed CAM interventions. RESULTS: Comparison of the systematic reviews showed that the quality of reporting and reporting characteristics are not affected by inclusion or exclusion of LOE; however, the quality of reporting of systematic reviews involving CAM interventions is higher than that of reviews focusing on CM interventions. CONCLUSION: Informal comparison of the OG scale with the data collected on quality assessments showed that the OG scale performs well overall but may not identify important differences in comprehensiveness of the search strategy and avoidance of bias in study selection. Further research is required to determine the best methods for assessing quality of systematic reviews and whether the effect of language restrictions is dependent on the type of intervention (CM or CAM).

Bias↗
PubMed2006

More medical journals should inform their contributors about three key principles of graph construction.

OBJECTIVES: To identify key principles of graph construction and to review guidance on graph construction provided by medical journals. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Review of a prevailing model of graph comprehension and survey of authors' instructions for all 120 core medical journals as indexed by PubMed. RESULTS: Graph construction should meet three requirements for optimal graph comprehension: Data symbols should be clearly distinguishable to enable their visual detection. Second, the data should be arranged in such a way that estimation of values and important relationships in the data is facilitated, and third, there should be a full explanation of all graph elements and of how the data were obtained. Seven journals (5.8%) provided recommendations on graph construction. Six journals put emphasis primarily on the explanation of graph elements and, to a lesser extent, on the visual detection of data symbols. Recommendations of the seventh journal focused mostly on how to enhance estimation of important relationships. All journals presented single recommendations whose selection seemed unstructured and not based on key principles of graph construction. CONCLUSION: Medical journals should order their instructions according to the three key aspects of graph construction.

Computer Graphics↗
PubMed2004

Literacy demands of product information intended to supplement television direct-to-consumer prescription drug advertisements.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) allows television direct-to-consumer (DTC) prescription drug advertisements that do not fully disclose drug risks if the ads include "adequate provision" for dissemination of the drug's approved labeling. This requirement can be met in part by referring consumers to multiple text sources of product labeling. This study was designed to assess the materials to which consumers were referred in 23 DTC television advertisements. SMOG assessments showed that the average reading grade levels were in the high school range for the main body sections of the materials and college-level range for the brief summary sections. The Suitability Assessment of Materials (SAM) instrument identified specific difficulties with the materials, including content, graphics, layout, and typography features. Stronger plain language requirements are recommended. Health care providers should be aware that patients who ask about an advertised drug might not have the full information required to make an informed decision.

Advertising↗
PubMed1995

The new nutrition facts label in the print media: a content analysis.

A content analysis was conducted to evaluate the coverage of the new food labels in the print media from December 1, 1992, to August 30, 1993. We used newspaper, magazine, and health newsletter indexes to identify 59 newspaper articles, 16 magazine articles, and 7 health newsletter articles for examination. Articles were evaluated by four trained coders using a pretested coding form addressing 35 aspects of the nutrition label coverage. Twenty percent of articles were double-coded with at least 80% coder reliability. Analysis of the data indicated that health newsletters covered the topic in the most detail, followed by magazines and then newspapers. Ten of 59 (17%) newspaper articles named and defined the term percent daily value, whereas 6 of 7 (86%) health newsletter articles and 9 of 16 (56%) magazine articles provided this information. Analysis of quotes in the articles indicated that more than half of the quotes were from government and industry officials. In contrast, quotes from college and university faculty represented only 5% of total quotes and quotes from dietitians represented less than 8% of total quotes. Coders identified several errors resulting from oversimplification of complex concepts. These findings suggest that dietitians need to increase their exposure with the media and help the media translate complex nutrition labeling information to the public.

Food Labeling↗