The document discusses the roles and responsibilities of journal editors in ensuring the integrity and quality of published research. It outlines how editors must [1] strive to meet reader and author needs while improving the journal, [2] ensure the quality of published material, and [3] preclude business interests from compromising standards. The document also provides examples of reporting biases and conflicts of interest that editors must guard against, such as selective publication of results and ghost writing. Finally, it discusses steps editors can take like using reporting guidelines and checklists to improve transparency and research quality.
Science is ever evolving, and replication studies and negative findings play a major role in helping science grow. But journals are not always open to publishing these. What role do replication studies play in scientific discovery? And how does publishing negative results help further the cause of science? View this presentation to learn more.
3.2 Definition and Concepts
3.2.1 Hypothesis Testing
3.2.2 The Core Logic of Hypothesis Testing
3.2.3 The Hypothesis – Testing Process
3.2.4 Implications of Rejecting or Failing to Reject the Null Hypothesis
3.2.5 One-Tailed and Two-Tailed Hypothesis Tests
3.2.6 Decision Errors
3.3 Type I Error
3.4 Type II Error
3.5 Relationship between Type I and Type II Errors
Published Research, Flawed, Misleading, Nefarious - Use of Reporting Guidelin...John Hoey
Much published health sciences literature is misleading and biased
Efforts to correct this include use of reporting guidelines- criteria for doing science and reporting the results properly
Also discussion of conflicts of interest - how to report them.
Science is ever evolving, and replication studies and negative findings play a major role in helping science grow. But journals are not always open to publishing these. What role do replication studies play in scientific discovery? And how does publishing negative results help further the cause of science? View this presentation to learn more.
3.2 Definition and Concepts
3.2.1 Hypothesis Testing
3.2.2 The Core Logic of Hypothesis Testing
3.2.3 The Hypothesis – Testing Process
3.2.4 Implications of Rejecting or Failing to Reject the Null Hypothesis
3.2.5 One-Tailed and Two-Tailed Hypothesis Tests
3.2.6 Decision Errors
3.3 Type I Error
3.4 Type II Error
3.5 Relationship between Type I and Type II Errors
Published Research, Flawed, Misleading, Nefarious - Use of Reporting Guidelin...John Hoey
Much published health sciences literature is misleading and biased
Efforts to correct this include use of reporting guidelines- criteria for doing science and reporting the results properly
Also discussion of conflicts of interest - how to report them.
Electronic cigarettes for smoking cessation: What's the evidence?Health Evidence™
Health Evidence hosted a 90 minute webinar examining the effectiveness of electronic cigarettes for smoking cessation.
Muhannad Malas and Robert Schwartz led the session and presented findings from their recent review:
Malas M, van der Tempel J, Schwartz R, Minichiello A, Lightfoot C, Noormohamed A, et al. (2016). Electronic cigarettes for smoking cessation: A systematic review. Nicotine & Tobacco Research, 18(10), 1926-1936.
http://healthevidence.org/view-article.aspx?a=electronic-cigarettes-smoking-cessation-systematic-review-29830
Cigarette smoking is among the top causes of preventable death and disease. Electronic cigarettes have been increasing in popularity among smokers who report using them for quitting or reducing smoking. This review examines the effectiveness of electronic cigarettes as cessation aids. Sixty two articles, including RCTs, experimental, longitudinal and cross sectional studies are included in this review. Findings suggest there is inconclusive evidence due to low quality of research. This webinar provides a comprehensive overview of current literature examining the effectiveness of electronic cigarettes for smoking cessation.
Outdoor therapy: Maverick or mainstream? A survey of clinical psychologistsUniversity of Leicester
A presentation by Sam Cooley at the 2022 annual conference for the British Psychological Society, Division of Clinical Psychology (DCP).
Abstract:
Objective: Existing evidence suggests talking therapy can be highly effective when located outdoors. However, much of the previous research is centred around counselling and psychotherapy professions. The aim of the present study was to explore the attitudes and experiences of clinical psychologists.
Design: A cross-sectional survey was used to gain a broad perspective within the profession.
Method: A total of 215 participants completed the survey between August and October 2021. Efforts were made to ensure a broad and representative sample located across the UK and comprising mixed interests and experiences. The survey contained detailed demographic questions and previously developed scales to measure nature connection, experiences and attitudes towards outdoor practice, as well as variables underpinning the theory of planned behaviour. Analysis included descriptive, correlational and regression analysis.
Results: The findings outlined a marked increase in outdoor practice since before the Covid-19 pandemic, with 32% of participants reporting either occasionally or regularly offering therapy outdoors (“never” = 36%; “rarely” = 32%). The majority held outdoor appointments in public parks (64%) and engaged in sitting (81%) or light walking (86.1%). Findings identified common reasons for offering therapy outdoors and barriers to this way of working. Significant, positive predictors of outdoor practice included years qualified, professional confidence, nature connectedness, outdoor leisure time, instrumental attitudes, perceived norms and self-efficacy.
Conclusions: The findings reveal favourable attitudes and a growing community of clinical psychologists who practice outdoors. The presentation also highlights approaches needed to further address barriers still faced by many practitioners, to support safe and effective outdoor practice.
Kathy Kastner: Health Literacy and End of Life PlanningKathy Kastner
90 minute workshop to explore concepts and language that seem obvious and intuitive to professionals in the field of health care, but are often are interpreted, understood or perceived differently than intended by patients and caregivers.
Unprecedented medical advances in cancer treatments are accompanied with huge financial challenges. Outcome-based payments have been proposed as a potential way to foster earlier access, tackle uncertainty, and address the financial challenge. But payments based on what outcomes? We conducted a literature review exploring what outcomes “matter most” in cancer.
Author(s) and affiliation(s): Amanda Cole, OHE Patricia Cubi-Molla, OHE Paula Lorgelly, OHE Jon Sussex, RAND Europe Jack Pollard, RAND Europe Miaoqing Yang, RAND Europe Richard Sullivan, King's College London
Conference/meeting: PROMS Research Conference 2018
Location: University of Birmingham
Date: 20/06/2018
TRACK 5(2) | DAY 2 - 3 OCT 2017
Elizabeth Edwards, In-Practice Fellow of Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry (UK)
Games for Health Europe 2017
Social Media in Medical Education Presentation April 2016Azeem Majeed
Writing in medicine - How to Capture an audience: Editorials, letters, blogs and social media
Professor Azeem Majeed, Department of Primary Care and Public Health, Imperial College London
Social media differentiates itself from more traditional forms of media by its immediacy and its focus on social interaction. Websites and online forums allow users to share information through interactive electronic exchanges. Many businesses now incorporate social media into their marketing strategies to deliver key messages, advertise services or improve communication with clients. The NHS, doctors and health professionals have been slower to take up the use of social media but we are now also now seeing increased use of social media in the health sector. In this interactive workshop, I will discuss how health professionals can use social media to get their messages across to patients, and also the use of social media in education and campaigning. I will also discuss writing for traditional medical journals with a focus on publications such as editorials, commentaries, letters and clinical discussions.
Caring for all in the last year of life: making a difference.Bruce Mason
Inaugural presentation by Prof. Scott A. Murray, St Columba's Hospice Chair of Primary Palliative Care, Primary Palliative Care Research Group, Centre for Population Health Sciences: General Practice Section, University of Edinburgh. April 21, 2009
Electronic cigarettes for smoking cessation: What's the evidence?Health Evidence™
Health Evidence hosted a 90 minute webinar examining the effectiveness of electronic cigarettes for smoking cessation.
Muhannad Malas and Robert Schwartz led the session and presented findings from their recent review:
Malas M, van der Tempel J, Schwartz R, Minichiello A, Lightfoot C, Noormohamed A, et al. (2016). Electronic cigarettes for smoking cessation: A systematic review. Nicotine & Tobacco Research, 18(10), 1926-1936.
http://healthevidence.org/view-article.aspx?a=electronic-cigarettes-smoking-cessation-systematic-review-29830
Cigarette smoking is among the top causes of preventable death and disease. Electronic cigarettes have been increasing in popularity among smokers who report using them for quitting or reducing smoking. This review examines the effectiveness of electronic cigarettes as cessation aids. Sixty two articles, including RCTs, experimental, longitudinal and cross sectional studies are included in this review. Findings suggest there is inconclusive evidence due to low quality of research. This webinar provides a comprehensive overview of current literature examining the effectiveness of electronic cigarettes for smoking cessation.
Outdoor therapy: Maverick or mainstream? A survey of clinical psychologistsUniversity of Leicester
A presentation by Sam Cooley at the 2022 annual conference for the British Psychological Society, Division of Clinical Psychology (DCP).
Abstract:
Objective: Existing evidence suggests talking therapy can be highly effective when located outdoors. However, much of the previous research is centred around counselling and psychotherapy professions. The aim of the present study was to explore the attitudes and experiences of clinical psychologists.
Design: A cross-sectional survey was used to gain a broad perspective within the profession.
Method: A total of 215 participants completed the survey between August and October 2021. Efforts were made to ensure a broad and representative sample located across the UK and comprising mixed interests and experiences. The survey contained detailed demographic questions and previously developed scales to measure nature connection, experiences and attitudes towards outdoor practice, as well as variables underpinning the theory of planned behaviour. Analysis included descriptive, correlational and regression analysis.
Results: The findings outlined a marked increase in outdoor practice since before the Covid-19 pandemic, with 32% of participants reporting either occasionally or regularly offering therapy outdoors (“never” = 36%; “rarely” = 32%). The majority held outdoor appointments in public parks (64%) and engaged in sitting (81%) or light walking (86.1%). Findings identified common reasons for offering therapy outdoors and barriers to this way of working. Significant, positive predictors of outdoor practice included years qualified, professional confidence, nature connectedness, outdoor leisure time, instrumental attitudes, perceived norms and self-efficacy.
Conclusions: The findings reveal favourable attitudes and a growing community of clinical psychologists who practice outdoors. The presentation also highlights approaches needed to further address barriers still faced by many practitioners, to support safe and effective outdoor practice.
Kathy Kastner: Health Literacy and End of Life PlanningKathy Kastner
90 minute workshop to explore concepts and language that seem obvious and intuitive to professionals in the field of health care, but are often are interpreted, understood or perceived differently than intended by patients and caregivers.
Unprecedented medical advances in cancer treatments are accompanied with huge financial challenges. Outcome-based payments have been proposed as a potential way to foster earlier access, tackle uncertainty, and address the financial challenge. But payments based on what outcomes? We conducted a literature review exploring what outcomes “matter most” in cancer.
Author(s) and affiliation(s): Amanda Cole, OHE Patricia Cubi-Molla, OHE Paula Lorgelly, OHE Jon Sussex, RAND Europe Jack Pollard, RAND Europe Miaoqing Yang, RAND Europe Richard Sullivan, King's College London
Conference/meeting: PROMS Research Conference 2018
Location: University of Birmingham
Date: 20/06/2018
TRACK 5(2) | DAY 2 - 3 OCT 2017
Elizabeth Edwards, In-Practice Fellow of Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry (UK)
Games for Health Europe 2017
Social Media in Medical Education Presentation April 2016Azeem Majeed
Writing in medicine - How to Capture an audience: Editorials, letters, blogs and social media
Professor Azeem Majeed, Department of Primary Care and Public Health, Imperial College London
Social media differentiates itself from more traditional forms of media by its immediacy and its focus on social interaction. Websites and online forums allow users to share information through interactive electronic exchanges. Many businesses now incorporate social media into their marketing strategies to deliver key messages, advertise services or improve communication with clients. The NHS, doctors and health professionals have been slower to take up the use of social media but we are now also now seeing increased use of social media in the health sector. In this interactive workshop, I will discuss how health professionals can use social media to get their messages across to patients, and also the use of social media in education and campaigning. I will also discuss writing for traditional medical journals with a focus on publications such as editorials, commentaries, letters and clinical discussions.
Caring for all in the last year of life: making a difference.Bruce Mason
Inaugural presentation by Prof. Scott A. Murray, St Columba's Hospice Chair of Primary Palliative Care, Primary Palliative Care Research Group, Centre for Population Health Sciences: General Practice Section, University of Edinburgh. April 21, 2009
Editorial Integrity Conflict of Interest COPE London March 09John Hoey
Editor's perspective on maintaining the integrity and scientific validity of publication. Threats to integrity, financial conflicts of interest, relationships between editor and journal owners (companies, professional societies)
Presented March 09, COPE, London, UK
MATHEMATICS BRIDGE COURSE (TEN DAYS PLANNER) (FOR CLASS XI STUDENTS GOING TO ...PinkySharma900491
Class khatm kaam kaam karne kk kabhi uske kk innings evening karni nnod ennu Tak add djdhejs a Nissan s isme sniff kaam GCC bagg GB g ghan HD smart karmathtaa Niven ken many bhej kaam karne Nissan kaam kaam Karo kaam lal mam cell pal xoxo
Building a Raspberry Pi Robot with Dot NET 8, Blazor and SignalR - Slides Onl...Peter Gallagher
In this session delivered at Leeds IoT, I talk about how you can control a 3D printed Robot Arm with a Raspberry Pi, .NET 8, Blazor and SignalR.
I also show how you can use a Unity app on an Meta Quest 3 to control the arm VR too.
You can find the GitHub repo and workshop instructions here;
https://bit.ly/dotnetrobotgithub
1. Published Research Flawed, misleading, deceitful ? John Hoey COPE U.S Seminar 2009 Washington, DC [email_address] www.slideshare.com/hoey
2.
3. COPE Code of Conduct General duties and responsibilities of Editors Be responsible for everything published in their journals. • Strive to meet the needs of readers and authors • constantly improve the journal • Ensure the quality of the material they publish • champion freedom of expression • Maintain the integrity of the academic record • Preclude business needs from compromising intellectual standards • always be willing to publish corrections, clarifications, retractions and apologies when needed.
4.
5.
6. $$ Conflict of Interest Carelessness Incompetence John Bailar’s Pyramid of Manuscript Problems
8. Reporting Bias Kay Dickinson, Reporting and other biases in studies of Neurontin for migraine, psychiatric/bipolar disorders, nociceptive pain, and neuropathic pain . August, 2008 http://dida.library.ucsf.edu/pdf/oxx18r10
9.
10.
11. Hypothesis testing or Hypothesis generating? Hypothesis testing Hypothesis generating Prior specification before study begins eg. RCT, observational studies, etc. Finding an interesting result among man possible results eg. Survey, cohort study etc..
12. Selective publication - Outcome bias publishing the more interesting (usually positive) result Was there an hypothesis? A plan for analysis and reporting of data? In an RCT, this is the primary outcome
14. Study design - RCT R Rx A Placebo Outcome Primary Outcome -Specified in Protocol? or fishing expedition?
15.
16. Selective publication - Outcome bias (publishing the more interesting result) 1402 outcomes 31% - 59% incompletely reported (40% not reported at all) Chan, A.-W. et al. CMAJ 2004;171:735-740 48 RCTs funded by national granting agency
17. Selective publication - Outcome bias (publishing the more interesting result) Primary Outcome Diabetic control 6 months after the end of intensive multithearpy
18. Selective publication - Outcome bias (publishing the more interesting result) Interpretation: Intensive multitherapy for patients with poorly controlled type 2 diabetes is successful in helping patients meet most of the goals set by a national diabetes association. However, 6 months after intensive therapy stopped and patients returned to usual care the benefits had vanished, However, 6 months after intensive therapy stopped and patients returned to usual care the benefits had vanished.
20. Neurontin (gabapentin) images from Wikipedia which also has a nice summary of court proceedings and results For minor seizures FDA approved 1994 By 2003 one of Pfizer’s best selling drugs Off-label uses account for 90% of sales Multiple small RCTs Benefit for other disorders e.g. migraine
21. P Wessely, C Baumgartner, D Klinger, J Kreczi, N … - Cephalalgia, 1987 A seriously flawed RCT - Accepted for publication by someone Bias Example Publication Final negative primary results not published, only positive preliminary results Selective outcome reporting Outcome reported was not primary or secondary outcome Selective statistical analyses 2 nonrandomized patients assigned to neurotin were include with those randomized Spin Emphasis on “positive” outcomes
22. 16 Citations P Wessely , C Baumgartner, D Klinger, J Kreczi, N … - Cephalalgia, 1987 Does it matter? General Principles of Migraine Management: The Changing Role of Prevention E Loder, D Biondi - Headache: The Journal of Head and Face Pain, 2005 - Blackwell Synergy Preventive treatment of migraine - SD Silberstein - Trends in Pharmacological Sciences, 2006 - Elsevier Migraine prevention DW Dodick, SD Silberstein - British Medical Journal, 2007 - pn.bmj.com Neuromodulators for Migraine Prevention R Kaniecki - Headache: The Journal of Head and Face Pain, 2008 - Blackwell Synergy Practice parameter: Evidence-based guidelines for migraine headache (an evidence-based review) Stephen D. Silberstein , MD, FACP, for the US Headache Consortium * Neurology 2000;55:754-762
31. RCTs Consort guideline Checklists for KEY elements of a study that need to be reported in published papers. Minimal required content www.equator-network.org
These meanings reflect current popular usage and I’ll use them here. Dickison makes these distinctions.
The bias is almost always in favour of the positive outcome. There is a growing literature documenting the effect size of these biases. The effect sizes are substantial. Dickinson has a nice bibliography for those interested in a particular bias.
Chan et al looked at studies funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research during the late 1990’s and then tried to find published versions of these studies. They compared the funded protocol with the published papers. Despite careful literature searches and contacts with the funded researchers they were unable to find publications for 40% of the funded trials. (unreported). Of the reported trials between 31% (for efficacy outcomes) and 59% (for harm outcomes) were incompletely reported.
In a study with several outcome measures - key results, which ones get published? This is clearest for RCTs. An RCT must specify a primary hypothesis before the study begins. This is called the primary outcome and is the main outcome that must be reported. Sample size is usually calculated on the basis of this outcome. Observational studies may also have prespecified hypotheses. These are clearly described in study protocols. Published reports must report the results related to the primary hypthoses. To do otherwise - say to look at all the results and associations and only present those that are positive is misleading to readers: An observational study then becomes a data mining expedition - or fishing expedition. (That’s ok, but it ought to be reported as such - as an exploratory study. Let me give a personal expample. Tell me if it is malfeacance or incompetence? This is a published study in CMAJ. It was an RCT of an intensive intervention for patient with adult onset diabetes mellitus to determine if the intervention led a better outcome for the patients. This is an important question. Patients with diabetes are very difficult to manage, frequently do not follow advice and the disease carries a high risk of serious and fatal events if not properly managed. Thus there is great interest in seeing whether we can improve this situation. Would more intensive management - more frequent tests, diet counselling, nurse specialists encouraging and monitoring patients and so on improve outcomes? The protocol specified several outcomes that were of interest. Indeed a lot of outcomes - the differences between the patients in the control and experimental groups at the end of the study - were available to the authors. In the manuscript submitted, the Abstract (and the discussion of the paper) omitted the sentence that is unreadable on this slide. Thus there conclusion was that intensive therapy was “successful” blah blah blah. The result was positive. But this was not the key result of interest specified as the primary objective of the study. The primary objective was to compare a specific objective after 6 months of therapy had stopped. For that result there was no benefit and this was a negative trial according to our definitions. This was a publicly funded trial. So lets look at RCTs. Do published RCTs report the primary prespecified outcome(s)? One of the more interesting studies of this is work by AnWen Chen and Doug Altman.
In a study with several outcome measures - key results, which ones get published? This is clearest for RCTs. An RCT must specify a primary hypothesis before the study begins. This is called the primary outcome and is the main outcome that must be reported. Sample size is usually calculated on the basis of this outcome. Observational studies may also have prespecified hypotheses. These are clearly described in study protocols. Published reports must report the results related to the primary hypthoses. To do otherwise - say to look at all the results and associations and only present those that are positive is misleading to readers: An observational study then becomes a data mining expedition - or fishing expedition. (That’s ok, but it ought to be reported as such - as an exploratory study. Let me give a personal expample. Tell me if it is malfeacance or incompetence? This is a published study in CMAJ. It was an RCT of an intensive intervention for patient with adult onset diabetes mellitus to determine if the intervention led a better outcome for the patients. This is an important question. Patients with diabetes are very difficult to manage, frequently do not follow advice and the disease carries a high risk of serious and fatal events if not properly managed. Thus there is great interest in seeing whether we can improve this situation. Would more intensive management - more frequent tests, diet counselling, nurse specialists encouraging and monitoring patients and so on improve outcomes? The protocol specified several outcomes that were of interest. Indeed a lot of outcomes - the differences between the patients in the control and experimental groups at the end of the study - were available to the authors. In the manuscript submitted, the Abstract (and the discussion of the paper) omitted the sentence that is unreadable on this slide. Thus there conclusion was that intensive therapy was “successful” blah blah blah. The result was positive. But this was not the key result of interest specified as the primary objective of the study. The primary objective was to compare a specific objective after 6 months of therapy had stopped. For that result there was no benefit and this was a negative trial according to our definitions. This was a publicly funded trial. So lets look at RCTs. Do published RCTs report the primary prespecified outcome(s)? One of the more interesting studies of this is work by AnWen Chen and Doug Altman.
Approved by US FDA 1994 RX partial seizures By 2003, one of Pfizer’s best selling drugs for minor seizures. Off-label uses account for 90% of sales migraine, bipolar disorders, OCD, depression, insommnia, etc.. Adverse effects - dizziness, mood swings etc.. hepatotoxcity, depression, suicide, Court cases - for illegally marketing a drug based on no evidence of efficacy
Dickinson’s analysis of another paper that was used by Pfizer to promote off-label uses of Neurontin. Clearly this is a seriously flawed RCT, as published by an editor, I hope not one in this room.
Does it matter. Well yes. This misleadingly reported study is still being cited, the drug is still being recommended for prevention of migraine and worse, has found it’s way into guidelines that are Evidence Based, whatever that means in this context.
Group 2 are highly recommended based on RCT evidence.