All Blogs and Mailing Lists in the World

Jill Jarrell hipped me to the fun videos her library posts on Vimeo. Here’s one on workplace etiquette (Jill stars in the fridge, grazing, at about 3m:19s).

More than 90% of a sample of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published in Chinese journals between 1994 and 2005 did not adhere to recognised methodology for randomisation, according to a study published yesterday in Trials, casting doubt on the reliability of research that has the potential to influence medical decision-makers.

Wu and colleagues (Chinese Cochrane Centre at Sichuan University, China and Ottawa Hospital Research Institute) searched the China National Knowledge Infrastructure electronic database for reports published in the Chinese literature between January 1994 and June 2005, that were described by the authors as RCTs or claimed to have used random sequence generation or allocation concealment.

Telephone interviews with the first or co-authors of 2235 reports about randomisation methods and quality-control features of the trial indicated that only 6.8% of the studies be considered “authentic” RCTs. Although only 51.6% of trials supported by government or other official organizations were found to be authentic, all trials of pre-market drugs were identified as such. Wu et al. report that of the first-authors erroneously identifying their studies as RCTs, 85.6% did not fully understand the principles of randomisation, whilst 5.1% mislabelled their trials despite an understanding of the relevant methodology.

Methodology    
Randomized trials published in some Chinese journals: how many are randomized?
Taixiang Wu, Youping Li, Zhaoxiang Bian, Guanjian Liu, David Moher
Trials 2009, 10:46 (2 July 2009)
[Abstract] [Provisional PDF]

The misleading reporting of RCTs is likely a worldwide problem, but the investigators suggest a link between their results and the high proportion of positive trial results published in Chinese journals, noting that inadequate randomisation has been previously shown to result in more favourable estimates of treatment effects. They also highlight the potential for falsely reported RCTs to mislead healthcare providers and policy makers, and impact upon the findings of systematic reviews.

Wu et al. advocate improvements to the education of researchers in the principles of randomisation methodology and scientific reporting. In addition, they suggest that the development of peer review guidelines is needed to help identify poorly randomised studies before publication.

Victoria Thompson
Assistant Journal Development Editor - Trials

A review of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that had been published in five prominent medical journals has revealed that heterogeneity of treatment effects (HTE) is frequently ignored or incorrectly analysed. The results of this study were published last week in Trials.

Some patients will experience more or less benefit from treatment than the averages reported from clinical trials; the magnitude of such variation in therapeutic outcome across a population is termed HTE. Highly variable treatment response rates are known to exist for many common conditions, including ischemic stroke and diabetes. Identifying HTE is therefore necessary to individualise treatment.

Gabler et al., conducted a review of the prevalence of HTE analyses in 319 RCTs published in Annals of Internal Medicine, BMJ, Journal of the American Medical Association, The Lancet, and New England Journal of Medicine. They found that just 29% of studies reported HTE analysis and were only marginally better in 2004 than in 1994. Another 28% reported subgroup-only analyses, without the formal statistical tests of heterogeneity that are recommended by the CONSORT guidelines.  

The authors conclude that HTE reporting in the general medical literature is neither rigorous nor routine and suggest it may be time to develop new standards for reporting.

Dealing with heterogeneity of treatment effects: is the literature up to the challenge?
Nicole B Gabler, Naihua Duan, Diana Liao, Joann G Elmore, Theodore G Ganiats, Richard L Kravitz

These results follow those of a another study published last year in Trials, which revealed that only 31% of RCTs published in the same leading medical journals reliably accounted for missing data when analysing quality of life outcomes.

In addition to original research relating to RCTs, Trials also encourages the publication of study protocols, recognizing that this reduces risk of non-publication of trial results and facilitates methodological discussion. Such published study protocols, while important to the scientific record, are unlikely to be heavily cited. It is therefore all the more impressive that Trials has increased its Impact Factor in the latest 2008 Journal Citation Reports to 1.74 (up from 1.44 last year). For the first time the journal is ranked above competitors such as the official journal of the Society for Clinical Trials, Clinical Trials (2008 Impact Factor 1.69)  and the Elsevier title Contemporary Clinical Trials (2008 Impact Factor 1.42).

For more information about the journal Trials, please contact the editorial office.

Abigail Jones
Senior Assistant Editor – Trials

Data publication: towards a database of everything, a Commentary article published in BMC Research Notes, discusses the changing nature of data publication, the challenges that face the Open Science movement, and why the publication of primary scientific data is important to us all.

This short Commentary article by Vincent S Smith is an interesting and timely contribution to the literature and debate surrounding publication of primary scientific data.

Rhian Cunliffe

Senior Journal Development Editor, BMC-series journals

Martha Hardy (friend, medical librarian, incredibly cool person) hipped me to NCBI ROFL, a wonderful blog that highlights the best chuckles from PubMed citations.

Edit: D’oh! Nikki posted about this yesterday and Berci before that!

I have become a truly lame blogger.

Richard Hays has recently joined Tai Pong Lam and Zorayda Leopando as co-Editor-in-Chief of Asia Pacific Family Medicine. We are pleased to welcome Richard, the Head of the School of Medicine at Keele University, onboard the journal. We would also like to extend our gratitude to Lyn Clearihan for her hard work and dedication as she retires as co-Editor.

Asia Pacific Family Medicine is currently inviting contributions to a thematic series entitled ‘The expanding role of family medicine in medical education’.  Authors are invited to submit their latest research on this topic for publication in a article series highlighting the important role of GPs in medical education, review and commentary articles will also be considered.  Anyone wishing to contribute to this thematic series should submit their work by the end of December 2009, or contact the Editorial Office to discuss further.

A new BioMed Central journal, Stem Cell Research & Therapy, is now accepting submissions.

Stem Cell Research & Therapy aims to be the major forum for translational research into stem cell therapies. An international peer-reviewed journal, it will publish open access research articles of outstanding quality. The journal will have a special emphasis on translational, laboratory, and clinical research into stem cells. It will include animal trials, pre-clinical and clinical trials. We will consider adult, embryonic, and induced pluripotent stem cell research, especially with a focus on cell-based transplantation, drug discovery and testing, cell-mediated tissue response and biological effects stimulated by endogenous cells. We will have a unique focus on drug discovery and testing, stem cell manufacture, engineering, and biomaterials.

The journal is edited by Dr Rocky Tuan (National Institutes of Health, USA) and Prof Timothy O'Brien (National University of Ireland, Galway), and is supported by an international Editorial Board.

Stem Cell Research & Therapy joins BioMed Central’s growing portfolio of journals that uniquely focus on publishing translational research of exceptional interest, as well as authoritative reviews and commentaries. Other titles in this series include the well-established Arthritis Research & Therapy, and Alzheimer’s Research & Therapy, which is due to publish its first issue in July 2009.

For more information on Stem Cell Research & Therapy please visit the journal’s information page or contact the editorial office. To keep up to date with the latest developments and to receive a copy of the inaugural issue, please register your email address on the website.

Submit your next outstanding piece of research to Stem Cell Research & Therapy to benefit from the rapid peer review, high visibility, and immediate and free access to all research papers.

Surayya Johar
In-house Editor
Stem Cell Research & Therapy