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 127 records · Page 7Linked to original sources
PubMed1999

Authorship: can you claim a byline?

Decisions about bylines, although seemingly straightforward, can "breed ill-will," "wreck friendships," and "even damage careers" if decisions are not in accord with professional guidelines and common sense. Editors have attempted to promote responsible authorship by creating Uniform Requirements. According to the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, each author must have made a substantial contribution to all 3 of the following conditions to qualify for authorship: conceiving and designing the work represented by the article or analyzing and interpreting data; drafting the article or revising it critically for important intellectual content; and giving final approval of the version to be published. Despite these guidelines, bylines continue to include grafters and guests. Researchers believe guidelines for authorship are necessary but suggest the existing Uniform Requirements may be overly restrictive and easily misinterpreted. Editors will need to work with researchers to reach consensus on realistic and appropriate guidelines for authorship.

Authorship↗
PubMed2003

Research misconduct.

Good research practice is important to the scientific community. An awareness of what constitutes poor practice is important. Various types of research misconduct are defined in this article. The extent of research misconduct in the field of radiology has been assessed by contacting five English language radiology journals. Redundant or duplicate publication has been reported infrequently, Radiology (1), American Journal of Roentgenology (3), Clinical Radiology (3), British Journal of Radiology (2) and European Radiology (1). The issue of how the radiology community might tackle research misconduct is discussed with reference to guidance from the Medical Research Council, the Wellcome Trust and the Committee of Publication Ethics.

Authorship↗
PubMed2003

Married men's opinions and involvement regarding family planning in rural areas.

As men play a prominent role in reproduction, it is therefore extremely useful to assess and encourage them to be involved in contraception, particularly in developing countries, where contraceptive goals have not been reached. This study was carried out in Kayseri, Turkey, in order to determine the attitudes and behavior of married men concerning family planning. A questionnaire was presented to 123 married men. In our study, 91.9% of men approved of family planning, but only 54.4% actually used any contraceptive methods; 66.7% of the men said that the decision should be a joint one, 66.4% wanted to limit their family size. Approximately one fourth of the men had never heard of voluntary sterilization. No one in the study group was aware of the mini-pill, diaphragm or Norplant. In the study group, 26.8% of the men did not want their wives to use intrauterine devices and 31.7% of them did not agree with women using the contraceptive pills. Among those unwilling to use a condom (46.3%), 70.1% stated that it might interrupt intercourse. If a contraceptive pill for males could be used, 25.2% of members of the group would be prepared to use it. Only 17.5% men in the study group had contacted a doctor or a health foundation to obtain information. The main sources of family planning information were TV/radio, followed by friends and newspapers/magazines. In order to encourage men's involvement in family planning, the use of mass media and continual training programs, to try to reach both men and women, could be very useful.

Adolescent↗
PubMed2005

[Meta-analyses (QUOROM)].

The increase in the number of published systematic reviews and meta-analyses over the last few years has highlighted the need to establish guidelines for their publication, in order to facilitate their interpretation and use. The Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses Conference, which took place in 1996, resulted in the QUOROM statement, consisting of a checklist and flow diagram. The checklist is composed of 18 items to encourage authors to provide essential information to readers about the methods and results of the meta-analysis. The flow diagram of randomized clinical trials (RCT) helps to provide information about the number of RCTs identified, included and excluded in the meta-analysis and the reasons for excluding them. Both tools provide standards for improving the quality of reporting of meta-analyses to make them rigorous, useful and reliable.

Authorship↗
PubMed2005

[Non-randomized evaluation studies (TREND)].

Nonrandomized intervention trials are needed when randomized clinical trials cannot be performed. To report the results from nonrandomized intervention studies transparently, the TREND (Transparent Reporting of Evaluations with Nonrandomized Designs) checklist should be used. This implies that nonrandomized studies should follow the remaining methodological tools usually employed in randomized trials and that the uncertainty introduced by the allocation mechanism should be explicitly reported and, if possible, quantified.

Authorship↗
PubMed2000

Does the inclusion of grey literature influence estimates of intervention effectiveness reported in meta-analyses?

BACKGROUND: The inclusion of only a subset of all available evidence in a meta-analysis may introduce biases and threaten its validity; this is particularly likely if the subset of included studies differ from those not included, which may be the case for published and grey literature (unpublished studies, with limited distribution). We set out to examine whether exclusion of grey literature, compared with its inclusion in meta-analysis, provides different estimates of the effectiveness of interventions assessed in randomised trials. METHODS: From a random sample of 135 meta-analyses, we identified and retrieved 33 publications that included both grey and published primary studies. The 33 publications contributed 41 separate meta-analyses from several disease areas. General characteristics of the meta-analyses and associated studies and outcome data at the trial level were collected. We explored the effects of the inclusion of grey literature on the quantitative results using logistic-regression analyses. FINDINGS: 33% of the meta-analyses were found to include some form of grey literature. The grey literature, when included, accounts for between 4.5% and 75% of the studies in a meta-analysis. On average, published work, compared with grey literature, yielded significantly larger estimates of the intervention effect by 15% (ratio of odds ratios=1.15 [95% CI 1.04-1.28]). Excluding abstracts from the analysis further compounded the exaggeration (1.33 [1.10-1.60]). INTERPRETATION: The exclusion of grey literature from meta-analyses can lead to exaggerated estimates of intervention effectiveness. In general, meta-analysts should attempt to identify, retrieve, and include all reports, grey and published, that meet predefined inclusion criteria.

Clinical Trials as Topic↗