(1/369) Statistical reviewers improve reporting in biomedical articles: a randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Although peer review is widely considered to be the most credible way of selecting manuscripts and improving the quality of accepted papers in scientific journals, there is little evidence to support its use. Our aim was to estimate the effects on manuscript quality of either adding a statistical peer reviewer or suggesting the use of checklists such as CONSORT or STARD to clinical reviewers or both. METHODOLOGY AND PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Interventions were defined as 1) the addition of a statistical reviewer to the clinical peer review process, and 2) suggesting reporting guidelines to reviewers; with "no statistical expert" and "no checklist" as controls. The two interventions were crossed in a 2x2 balanced factorial design including original research articles consecutively selected, between May 2004 and March 2005, by the Medicina Clinica (Barc) editorial committee. We randomized manuscripts to minimize differences in terms of baseline quality and type of study (intervention, longitudinal, cross-sectional, others). Sample-size calculations indicated that 100 papers provide an 80% power to test a 55% standardized difference. We specified the main outcome as the increment in quality of papers as measured on the Goodman Scale. Two blinded evaluators rated the quality of manuscripts at initial submission and final post peer review version. Of the 327 manuscripts submitted to the journal, 131 were accepted for further review, and 129 were randomized. Of those, 14 that were lost to follow-up showed no differences in initial quality to the followed-up papers. Hence, 115 were included in the main analysis, with 16 rejected for publication after peer review. 21 (18.3%) of the 115 included papers were interventions, 46 (40.0%) were longitudinal designs, 28 (24.3%) cross-sectional and 20 (17.4%) others. The 16 (13.9%) rejected papers had a significantly lower initial score on the overall Goodman scale than accepted papers (difference 15.0, 95% CI: 4.6-24.4). The effect of suggesting a guideline to the reviewers had no effect on change in overall quality as measured by the Goodman scale (0.9, 95% CI: -0.3-+2.1). The estimated effect of adding a statistical reviewer was 5.5 (95% CI: 4.3-6.7), showing a significant improvement in quality. CONCLUSIONS AND SIGNIFICANCE: This prospective randomized study shows the positive effect of adding a statistical reviewer to the field-expert peers in improving manuscript quality. We did not find a statistically significant positive effect by suggesting reviewers use reporting guidelines.  (+info)

(2/369) CBCL pediatric bipolar disorder profile and ADHD: comorbidity and quantitative trait loci analysis.

 (+info)

(3/369) Assessment of explanatory models of mental illness: effects of patient and interviewer characteristics.

 (+info)

(4/369) Development of a work improvement checklist for occupational mental health focused on requests from workers.

OBJECTIVES: To develop tools offering definite orientation for managers and employees to support their work improvement through occupational mental health. This research was a part of the Mental Health Improvement & Reinforcement Study (MIR study), conducted from October 2004 to March 2006. METHODS: We developed a trial version named the Kaizen Check List (KCL) by referring to problem solving methods for quality management. Then we improved it for a formal version named MIR Research of Recognition (MIRROR). A feedback form named MIR Action Guidance (MIRAGe) was also developed. We analyzed data from 1,953 respondents at five manufacturing enterprises in Japan using MIRROR and the Brief Job Stress Questionnaire (BJSQ) to determine whether or not the workers requesting work improvement had more stress than other workers. RESULTS: The KCL had 47 items, which indicated desirable working conditions for mental health at work, and four answer categories. MIRROR has 45 selected items and improved answer categories. MIRAGe displays the results of MIRROR and step-by-step guidance for work improvement. Respondents with request had significantly higher scores in stressor and lower scores in buffer factors compared with respondents without request in many items of MIRROR. CONCLUSIONS: A combinational use of MIRROR and stress scales is useful for finding worksites with high risk factors for mental health and for directing focus on work improvement at these worksites according to workers' requests.  (+info)

(5/369) Development of an evidence-based checklist for the detection of drug related problems in type 2 diabetes.

 (+info)

(6/369) Curricular analysis of competency-based osteopathic medical education: application of a matrix for quality enhancement to a standardized patient encounter example.

CONTEXT: With the formal adoption of the seven core competencies, the American Osteopathic Association's Commission on Osteopathic College Accreditation instructed osteopathic medical educators to guide curricular development with these goals in mind. Tools to facilitate and monitor these purposes have been under development separately at each of the nation's colleges of osteopathic medicine. OBJECTIVE: To demonstrate the utility of a checklist-based curriculum assessment tool, the Matrix for Quality Enhancement, as developed at Kirksville (Mo) College of Osteopathic Medicine-A.T. Still University. METHODS: APPLICATION of the Matrix is illustrated using examples selected from our analysis of a set of 16 standardized patient encounters provided as part of a first-year basic science course in medical microbiology. Encounters were developed to improve student understanding of infectious disease entities while also providing a variety of clinical experiences. Feedback on professionalism and humanistic behaviors was also provided. A novel aspect of the Matrix is the inclusion of a component dealing with patient safety. APPLICATION: Adding standardized patient encounters to the medical microbiology teaching program at Kirksville College of Osteopathic Medicine was an effective means of integrating educational experiences with the seven core competencies, the requirements of Comprehensive Osteopathic Medical Licensing Examination-USA Level 2-PE (Performance Evaluation), and patient safety issues. CONCLUSION: The Matrix is a valuable tool for evaluating or developing curricular components that maintain osteopathic integrity while working toward standards for medical education specified by the commission.  (+info)

(7/369) Developmental effects of aggressive behavior in male adolescents assessed with structural and functional brain imaging.

 (+info)

(8/369) Depressive symptomatology, rather than neuroticism, predicts inflated physical symptom reports in community-residing women.

 (+info)