Search

Abstract Background When a journal receives a duplicate publication, the ability to identify the submitted work as previously published, and reject it, is an assay to publication ethics best practices. The aim of this study was to evaluate how three different types of journals, namely open access (OA) journals, subscription-based journals, and presumed predatory journals, responded to receiving a previously published manuscript for review. Methods We performed a quasi-experimental study in which we submitted a previously published article to a random sample of 602 biomedical journals, roughly 200 journals from each journal type sampled: OA journals, subscription-based journals, and presumed predatory journals. Three hundred and three journals received a Word version in manuscript format, while 299 journals received the formatted publisher’s PDF version of the published article. We then recorded responses to the submission received after approximately 1 month. Responses were reviewed, extracted, and coded in duplicate. Our primary outcome was the rate of rejection of the two types of submitted articles (PDF vs Word) within our three journal types. Results We received correspondence back from 308 (51.1%) journals within our study timeline (32 days); (N = 46 predatory journals, N = 127 OA journals, N = 135 subscription-based journals). Of the journals that responded, 153 received the Word version of the paper, while 155 received the PDF version. Four journals (1.3%) accepted our paper, 291 (94.5%) journals rejected the paper, and 13 (4.2%) requested a revision. A chi-square test looking at journal type, and submission type, was significant (χ 2 (4) = 23.50, p

Abstract Background Functional somatic symptoms and disorders are common and complex phenomena involving both bodily and brain processes. They pose major challenges across medical specialties. These disorders are common and have significant impacts on patients’ quality of life and healthcare costs. Main body We outline five problems pointing to the need for a new classification: (1) developments in understanding aetiological mechanisms; (2) the current division of disorders according to the treating specialist; (3) failure of current classifications to cover the variety of disorders and their severity (for example, patients with symptoms from multiple organs systems); (4) the need to find acceptable categories and labels for patients that promote therapeutic partnership; and (5) the need to develop clinical services and research for people with severe disorders. We propose ‘functional somatic disorders’ (FSD) as an umbrella term for various conditions characterised by persistent and troublesome physical symptoms. FSDs are diagnosed clinically, on the basis of characteristic symptom patterns. As with all diagnoses, a diagnosis of FSD should be made after considering other possible somatic and mental differential diagnoses. We propose that FSD should occupy a neutral space within disease classifications, favouring neither somatic disease aetiology, nor mental disorder. FSD should be subclassified as (a) multisystem, (b) single system, or (c) single symptom. While additional specifiers may be added to take account of psychological features or co-occurring diseases, neither of these is sufficient or necessary to make the diagnosis. We recommend that FSD criteria are written so as to harmonise with existing syndrome diagnoses. Where currently defined syndromes fall within the FSD spectrum – and also within organ system-specific chapters of a classification – they should be afforded dual parentage (for example, irritable bowel syndrome can belong to both gastrointestinal disorders and FSD). Conclusion We propose a new classification, ‘functional somatic disorder’, which is neither purely somatic nor purely mental, but occupies a neutral space between these two historical poles. This classification reflects both emerging aetiological evidence of the complex interactions between brain and body and the need to resolve the historical split between somatic and mental disorders.

Background: Functional somatic symptoms and disorders are common and complex phenomena involving both bodily and brain processes. They pose major challenges across medical specialties. These disorders are common and have significant impacts on patients' quality of life and healthcare costs., Main Body: We outline five problems pointing to the need for a new classification: (1) developments in understanding aetiological mechanisms; (2) the current division of disorders according to the treating specialist; (3) failure of current classifications to cover the variety of disorders and their severity (for example, patients with symptoms from multiple organs systems); (4) the need to find acceptable categories and labels for patients that promote therapeutic partnership; and (5) the need to develop clinical services and research for people with severe disorders. We propose 'functional somatic disorders' (FSD) as an umbrella term for various conditions characterised by persistent and troublesome physical symptoms. FSDs are diagnosed clinically, on the basis of characteristic symptom patterns. As with all diagnoses, a diagnosis of FSD should be made after considering other possible somatic and mental differential diagnoses. We propose that FSD should occupy a neutral space within disease classifications, favouring neither somatic disease aetiology, nor mental disorder. FSD should be subclassified as (a) multisystem, (b) single system, or (c) single symptom. While additional specifiers may be added to take account of psychological features or co-occurring diseases, neither of these is sufficient or necessary to make the diagnosis. We recommend that FSD criteria are written so as to harmonise with existing syndrome diagnoses. Where currently defined syndromes fall within the FSD spectrum - and also within organ system-specific chapters of a classification - they should be afforded dual parentage (for example, irritable bowel syndrome can belong to both gastrointestinal disorders and FSD)., Conclusion: We propose a new classification, 'functional somatic disorder', which is neither purely somatic nor purely mental, but occupies a neutral space between these two historical poles. This classification reflects both emerging aetiological evidence of the complex interactions between brain and body and the need to resolve the historical split between somatic and mental disorders.

Background: The introduction of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) into clinical practice has revolutionized the management of acid-related diseases. Studies in primary care and emergency settings suggest that PPIs are frequently prescribed for inappropriate indications or for indications where their use offers little benefit. Inappropriate PPI use is a matter of great concern, especially in the elderly, who are often affected by multiple comorbidities and are taking multiple medications, and are thus at an increased risk of long-term PPI-related adverse outcomes as well as drug-to-drug interactions. Herein, we aim to review the current literature on PPI use and develop a position paper addressing the benefits and potential harms of acid suppression with the purpose of providing evidence-based guidelines on the appropriate use of these medications. Methods: The topics, identified by a Scientific Committee, were assigned to experts selected by three Italian Scientific Societies, who independently performed a systematic search of the relevant literature using Medline/PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane databases. Search outputs were distilled, paying more attention to systematic reviews and meta-analyses (where available) representing the best evidence. The draft prepared on each topic was circulated amongst all the members of the Scientific Committee. Each expert then provided her/his input to the writing, suggesting changes and the inclusion of new material and/or additional relevant references. The global recommendations were then thoroughly discussed in a specific meeting, refined with regard to both content and wording, and approved to obtain a summary of current evidence. Results: Twenty-five years after their introduction into clinical practice, PPIs remain the mainstay of the treatment of acid-related diseases, where their use in gastroesophageal reflux disease, eosinophilic esophagitis, Helicobacter pylori infection, peptic ulcer disease and bleeding as well as, and Zollinger-Ellison syndrome is appropriate. Prevention of gastroduodenal mucosal lesions (and symptoms) in patients taking non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) or antiplatelet therapies and carrying gastrointestinal risk factors also represents an appropriate indication. On the contrary, steroid use does not need any gastroprotection, unless combined with NSAID therapy. In dyspeptic patients with persisting symptoms, despite successful H. pylori eradication, short-term PPI treatment could be attempted. Finally, addition of PPIs to pancreatic enzyme replacement therapy in patients with refractory steatorrhea may be worthwhile. Conclusions: Overall, PPIs are irreplaceable drugs in the management of acid-related diseases. However, PPI treatment, as any kind of drug therapy, is not without risk of adverse effects. The overall benefits of therapy and improvement in quality of life significantly outweigh potential harms in most patients, but those without clear clinical indication are only exposed to the risks of PPI prescription. Adhering with evidence-based guidelines represents the only rational approach to effective and safe PPI therapy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Evidence-based policy ensures that the best interventions are effectively implemented. Integrating rigorous, relevant science into policy is therefore essential. Barriers include the evidence not being there; lack of demand by policymakers; academics not producing rigorous, relevant papers within the timeframe of the policy cycle. This piece addresses the last problem. Academics underestimate the speed of the policy process, and publish excellent papers after a policy decision rather than good ones before it. To be useful in policy, papers must be at least as rigorous about reporting their methods as for other academic uses. Papers which are as simple as possible (but no simpler) are most likely to be taken up in policy. Most policy questions have many scientific questions, from different disciplines, within them. The accurate synthesis of existing information is the most important single offering by academics to the policy process. Since policymakers are making economic decisions, economic analysis is central, as are the qualitative social sciences. Models should, wherever possible, allow policymakers to vary assumptions. Objective, rigorous, original studies from multiple disciplines relevant to a policy question need to be synthesized before being incorporated into policy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Reviewing a surgical manuscript is not an easy task, and there is no formal training available for young referees in the early stage of their careers. Accepting a peer review assignment represents a personal honor for the invited referee and a fundamental ethical responsibility towards the scientific community. Designated reviewers must be accomplished and knowledgeable in the area of the respective topic of investigation. More importantly, they must be aware and cognizant about the cardinal ethical responsibility and stewardship for ensuring the preservation of scientific knowledge of unbiased and unquestionable accuracy in the published literature. Accepting a review assignment should never be taken lightly or considered a simple task, regardless of the reviewer's level of seniority and expertise. Indeed, there are multiple challenges, difficulties, and 'hidden dangers' that jeopardize the completion of a high-quality review, particularly in the hands of less experienced or novice reviewers. The present article was designed to provide a brief, concise, and practical guide on how to review manuscripts for the 'junior referee' in the field of surgery.

Background: Following the initial identification of the 2019 coronavirus disease (covid-19), the subsequent months saw substantial increases in published biomedical research. Concerns have been raised in both scientific and lay press around the quality of some of this research. We assessed clinical research from major clinical journals, comparing methodological and reporting quality of covid-19 papers published in the first wave (here defined as December 2019 to May 2020 inclusive) of the viral pandemic with non-covid papers published at the same time. Methods: We reviewed research publications (print and online) from The BMJ, Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), The Lancet, and New England Journal of Medicine, from first publication of a covid-19 research paper (February 2020) to May 2020 inclusive. Paired reviewers were randomly allocated to extract data on methodological quality (risk of bias) and reporting quality (adherence to reporting guidance) from each paper using validated assessment tools. A random 10% of papers were assessed by a third, independent rater. Overall methodological quality for each paper was rated high, low or unclear. Reporting quality was described as percentage of total items reported. Results: From 168 research papers, 165 were eligible, including 54 (33%) papers with a covid-19 focus. For methodological quality, 18 (33%) covid-19 papers and 83 (73%) non-covid papers were rated as low risk of bias, OR 6.32 (95%CI 2.85 to 14.00). The difference in quality was maintained after adjusting for publication date, results, funding, study design, journal and raters (OR 6.09 (95%CI 2.09 to 17.72)). For reporting quality, adherence to reporting guidelines was poorer for covid-19 papers, mean percentage of total items reported 72% (95%CI:66 to 77) for covid-19 papers and 84% (95%CI:81 to 87) for non-covid. Conclusions: Across various measures, we have demonstrated that covid-19 research from the first wave of the pandemic was potentially of lower quality than contemporaneous non-covid research. While some differences may be an inevitable consequence of conducting research during a viral pandemic, poor reporting should not be accepted. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Pandemics and climate change each challenge health systems through increasing numbers and new types of patients. To adapt to these challenges, leading health systems have embraced a Learning Health System (LHS) approach, aiming to increase the efficiency with which data is translated into actionable knowledge. This rapid review sought to determine how these health systems have used LHS frameworks to both address the challenges posed by the COVID-19 pandemic and climate change, and to prepare for future disturbances, and thus transition towards the LHS2.0. Methods: Three databases (Embase, Scopus, and PubMed) were searched for peer-reviewed literature published in English in the five years to March 2023. Publications were included if they described a real-world LHS's response to one or more of the following: the COVID-19 pandemic, future pandemics, current climate events, future climate change events. Data were extracted and thematically analyzed using the five dimensions of the Institute of Medicine/Zurynski-Braithwaite's LHS framework: Science and Informatics, Patient-Clinician Partnerships, Continuous Learning Culture, Incentives, and Structure and Governance. Results: The search yielded 182 unique publications, four of which reported on LHSs and climate change. Backward citation tracking yielded 13 additional pandemic-related publications. None of the climate change-related papers met the inclusion criteria. Thirty-two publications were included after full-text review. Most were case studies (n = 12, 38%), narrative descriptions (n = 9, 28%) or empirical studies (n = 9, 28%). Science and Informatics (n = 31, 97%), Continuous Learning Culture (n = 26, 81%), Structure and Governance (n = 23, 72%) were the most frequently discussed LHS dimensions. Incentives (n = 21, 66%) and Patient-Clinician Partnerships (n = 18, 56%) received less attention. Twenty-nine papers (91%) discussed benefits or opportunities created by pandemics to furthering the development of an LHS, compared to 22 papers (69%) that discussed challenges. Conclusions: An LHS 2.0 approach appears well-suited to responding to the rapidly changing and uncertain conditions of a pandemic, and, by extension, to preparing health systems for the effects of climate change. LHSs that embrace a continuous learning culture can inform patient care, public policy, and public messaging, and those that wisely use IT systems for decision-making can more readily enact surveillance systems for future pandemics and climate change-related events. Trial registration: PROSPERO pre-registration: CRD42023408896. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Children and young people's (CYP) mental health is worsening, and an increasing number are seeking psychiatric and mental health care. Whilst many CYPs with low-to-medium levels of psychiatric distress can be treated in outpatient services, CYPs in crisis often require inpatient hospital treatment. Although necessary in many cases, inpatient care can be distressing for CYPs and their families. Amongst other things, inpatient stays often isolate CYPs from their support networks and disrupt their education. In response to such limitations, and in order to effectively support CYPs with complex mental health needs, intensive community-based treatment models, which are known in this paper as intensive community care services (ICCS), have been developed. Although ICCS have been developed in a number of settings, there is, at present, little to no consensus of what ICCS entails. Methods: A group of child and adolescent mental health clinicians, researchers and academics convened in London in January 2023. They met to discuss and agree upon the minimum requirements of ICCS. The discussion was semi-structured and used the Dartmouth Assertive Community Treatment Fidelity Scale as a framework. Following the meeting, the agreed features of ICCS, as described in this paper, were written up. Results: ICCS was defined as a service which provides treatment primarily outside of hospital in community settings such as the school or home. Alongside this, ICCS should provide at least some out-of-hours support, and a minimum of 90% of CYPs should be supported at least twice per week. The maximum caseload should be approximately 5 clients per full time equivalent (FTE), and the minimum number of staff for an ICCS team should be 4 FTE. The group also confirmed the importance of supporting CYPs engagement with their communities and the need to remain flexible in treatment provision. Finally, the importance of robust evaluation utilising tools including the Children's Global Assessment Scale were agreed. Conclusions: This paper presents the agreed minimum requirements of intensive community-based psychiatric care. Using the parameters laid out herein, clinicians, academics, and related colleagues working in ICCS should seek to further develop the evidence base for this treatment model. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Genome-wide association studies have enabled Mendelian randomization analyses to be performed at an industrial scale. Two-sample summary data Mendelian randomization analyses can be performed using publicly available data by anyone who has access to the internet. While this has led to many insightful papers, it has also fuelled an explosion of poor-quality Mendelian randomization publications, which threatens to undermine the credibility of the whole approach. Findings: We detail five pitfalls in conducting a reliable Mendelian randomization investigation: (1) inappropriate research question, (2) inappropriate choice of variants as instruments, (3) insufficient interrogation of findings, (4) inappropriate interpretation of findings, and (5) lack of engagement with previous work. We have provided a brief checklist of key points to consider when performing a Mendelian randomization investigation; this does not replace previous guidance, but highlights critical analysis choices. Journal editors should be able to identify many low-quality submissions and reject papers without requiring peer review. Peer reviewers should focus initially on key indicators of validity; if a paper does not satisfy these, then the paper may be meaningless even if it is technically flawless. Conclusions: Performing an informative Mendelian randomization investigation requires critical thought and collaboration between different specialties and fields of research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Where should I submit my paper? This is a question that young scientists and trainees frequently ask. In this Commentary, we advise on how to make such a decision whilst balancing the risks and benefits. We argue that trying to publish in top tier journals may not always be the best option and that publishing in indexed, open access journals may expose research to the same or larger audiences. The value of research should not be judged according to the publishing journal's name, but rather from other measures of impact such as successful commercialization of new technologies, number of citations, and downloads. We also highlight the role of mentors, who have the responsibility to protect the long-term interests of their trainees by balancing the consequences of acceptances and rejections. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this commentary, we address a paper published by Johnson et al. by assessing the robustness of their method to discover diagnostic biomarkers in Alzheimer's disease (AD). In addition, we examine how these newly discovered and previously discovered biomarkers, can play a role in assisting patients with AD and those at risk for developing AD, with an emphasis on the translational hurdles that accompany such discoveries. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Mobile and migrant populations (MMPs) pose a unique challenge to disease elimination campaigns as they are often hard to survey and reach with treatment. While some elimination efforts have had success reaching MMPs, other campaigns are struggling to do so, which may be affecting progress towards disease control and elimination. Therefore, this paper reviews the literature on elimination campaigns targeting MMPs across a selection of elimination diseases-neglected tropical diseases, malaria, trypanosomiasis, polio, smallpox, and rinderpest.Methods: Through a systematic review process following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, a three-person review team identified papers from databases, conference records, and citation searches using inclusion/exclusion criteria. Papers were divided into three key outcome domains during the synthetization process: (1) MMP movement patterns in East Africa including reasons for movement and consequences in terms of health outcomes and healthcare access; (2) MMP contribution to the transmission of disease across all geographies; (3) surveillance methods and treatment interventions used to implement programming in MMPs across all geographies. Experts in the field also provided supplemental information and gray literature to support this review.Results: The review identified 103 records which were descriptively analyzed using the outcome domains. The results indicate that in East Africa, there are various motivations for migration from economic opportunity to political unrest to natural disasters. Regardless of motivation, mobile lifestyles affect health service access such that MMPs in East Africa report barriers in accessing healthcare and have limited health knowledge. Often lower service delivery to these populations has resulted in higher disease prevalence. A minority of articles suggest MMPs do not pose challenges to reaching disease control and elimination thresholds. Finally, the literature highlighted surveillance methods (e.g., using satellite imagery or mobile phone data to track movement, participatory mapping, snowball sampling) and intervention strategies (e.g., integration with animal health campaigns, cross-border coordination, alternative mass drug administration [MDA] methods) to implement health interventions in MMPs.Conclusions: Ultimately, the literature reviewed here can inform programmatic decisions as the community attempts to reach these never treated populations.Systematic Review Registration: The protocol for this manuscript was registered with the International Prospective Registry of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) (No. CRD42021214743). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article discusses a special issue of BMC Medicine that focuses on maternal factors during pregnancy and their impact on maternal, fetal, and childhood outcomes. The collection includes 65 new papers that offer fresh insights into various aspects of this topic. The articles cover a wide range of research approaches, including epidemiological studies, meta-analyses, cohort studies, randomized trials, and laboratory-generated findings. The collection explores diverse questions related to pregnancy, such as risk factors for preterm birth, the link between breastfeeding and mental health, and the impact of in utero fetal programming on metabolic syndrome. The articles also discuss the use of big data, machine learning, and novel applications of technology in pregnancy research. The authors emphasize the global collaboration and the clinical impact of the research presented in the collection. They also invite further submissions on reproductive health topics. [Extracted from the article]

Peer review of journal articles is an important step in the research process. Editors rely on the expertise of peer reviewers to properly assess submissions. Yet, peer review quality varies widely and few receive training or guidance in how to approach the task. This paper describes some of the main steps that peer reviewers in general and, in particular, those performing reviewes of randomised controlled trials (RCT), can use when carrying out a review. It can be helpful to begin with a brief read to acquaint yourself with the study, followed by a detailed read and a careful check for flaws. These can be divided into 'major' (problems that must be resolved before publication can be considered) and 'minor' (suggested improvements that are discretionary) flaws. Being aware of the appropriate reporting checklist for the study being reviewed (such as CONSORT and its extensions for RCTs) can also be valuable. Competing interests or prejudices might corrode the review, so ensuring transparency about them is important. Finally, ensuring that the paper's strengths are acknowledged along with a dissection of the weaknesses provides balance and perspective to both authors and editors. Helpful reviews are constructive and improve the quality of the paper. The proper conduct of a peer review is the responsibility of all who accept the role. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) need to be reported so that their results can be unambiguously and robustly interpreted. Binary outcomes yield unique challenges, as different analytical approaches may produce relative, absolute, or no treatment effects, and results may be particularly sensitive to the assumptions made about missing data. This review of recently published RCTs aimed to identify the methods used to analyse binary primary outcomes, how missing data were handled, and how the results were reported.Methods: Systematic review of reports of RCTs published in January 2019 that included a binary primary outcome measure. We identified potentially eligible English language papers on PubMed, without restricting by journal or medical research area. Papers reporting the results from individually randomised, parallel-group RCTs were included.Results: Two hundred reports of RCTs were included in this review. We found that 64% of the 200 reports used a chi-squared-style test as their primary analytical method. Fifty-five per cent (95% confidence interval 48% to 62%) reported at least one treatment effect measure, and 38% presented only a p value without any treatment effect measure. Missing data were not always adequately described and were most commonly handled using available case analysis (69%) in the 140 studies that reported missing data. Imputation and best/worst-case scenarios were used in 21% of studies. Twelve per cent of articles reported an appropriate sensitivity analysis for missing data.Conclusions: The statistical analysis and reporting of treatment effects in reports of randomised trials with a binary primary endpoint requires substantial improvement. Only around half of the studied reports presented a treatment effect measure, hindering the understanding and dissemination of the findings. We also found that published trials often did not clearly describe missing data or sensitivity analyses for these missing data. Practice for secondary endpoints or observational studies may differ. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Multiple long-term conditions—the co-existence of two or more chronic health conditions in an individual—present an increasing challenge to populations and healthcare systems worldwide. This challenge is keenly felt in hospital settings where care is oriented around specialist provision for single conditions. The aim of this scoping review was to identify and summarise published qualitative research on the experiences of hospital care for people living with multiple long-term conditions, their informal caregivers and healthcare professionals. Methods: We undertook a scoping review, following established guidelines, of primary qualitative research on experiences of hospital care for people living with multiple long-term conditions published in peer-reviewed journals between Jan 2010 and June 2022. We conducted systematic electronic searches of MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycInfo, Proquest Social Science Premium, Web of Science, Scopus and Embase, supplemented by citation tracking. Studies were selected for inclusion by two reviewers using an independent screening process. Data extraction included study populations, study design, findings and author conclusions. We took a narrative approach to reporting the findings. Results: Of 8002 titles and abstracts screened, 54 papers reporting findings from 41 studies conducted in 14 countries were identified as eligible for inclusion. The perspectives of people living with multiple long-term conditions (21 studies), informal caregivers (n = 13) and healthcare professionals (n = 27) were represented, with 15 studies reporting experiences of more than one group. Findings included poor service integration and lack of person-centred care, limited confidence of healthcare professionals to treat conditions outside of their specialty, and time pressures leading to hurried care transitions. Few studies explored inequities in experiences of hospital care. Conclusions: Qualitative research evidence on the experiences of hospital care for multiple long-term conditions illuminates a tension between the desire to provide and receive person-centred care and time pressures inherent within a target-driven system focussed on increasing specialisation, reduced inpatient provision and accelerated journeys through the care system. A move towards more integrated models of care may enable the needs of people living with multiple long-term conditions to be better met. Future research should address how social circumstances shape experiences of care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: This paper investigates the consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic on mortality and hospitalization among nursing home residents in Norway. While existing evidence shows that nursing home residents were overrepresented among COVID-19-related deaths, suggesting inadequate protection measures, this study argues that the observed overrepresentation in mortality and hospitalization may partly stem from the inherent frailty of this demographic. Using nationwide administrative data, we assessed excess deaths and hospitalization by comparing pandemic-era rates to those of a pre-pandemic cohort. Methods: We compared mortality and hospitalization rates between a pandemic cohort of nursing home residents as of September 2019 (N = 30,052), and a pre-pandemic cohort as of September 2017 (N = 30,429). Both cohorts were followed monthly for two years, beginning in September 2019 and 2017, respectively. This analysis was conducted at the national level and separately for nursing home residents in areas with low, medium, and high SARS-CoV-2 community transmission. Event studies and difference-in-difference models allowed us to separate the impact of the pandemic on mortality and hospitalization from secular and seasonal changes. Results: The pandemic cohort experienced a non-significant 0.07 percentage points (95% confidence interval (CI): − 0.081 to 0.221) increase in all-cause mortality during the 18 months following pandemic onset, compared to the pre-pandemic cohort. Moreover, our findings indicate a substantial reduction in hospitalizations of 0.27 percentage points (95% CI: − 0.464 to − 0.135) and a non-significant decrease of 0.80 percentage points (95% CI: − 2.529 to 0.929) in the proportion of nursing home residents hospitalized before death. The effect on mortality remained consistent across regions with both high and low levels of SARS-CoV-2 community transmission. Conclusions: Our findings indicate no clear evidence of excess all-cause mortality in Norway during the pandemic, neither nationally nor in areas with high infection rates. This suggests that early implementation of nationwide and nursing home-specific infection control measures during the pandemic effectively protected nursing home residents. Furthermore, our results revealed a decrease in hospitalizations, both overall and prior to death, suggesting that nursing homes adhered to national guidelines promoting on-site treatment for residents. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Although many individuals with alcohol dependence (AD) are recognized in the German healthcare system, only a few utilize addiction-specific treatment services. Those who enter treatment are not well characterized regarding their prospective pathways through the highly fragmented German healthcare system. This paper aims to (1) identify typical care pathways of patients with AD and their adherence to treatment guidelines and (2) explore the characteristics of these patients using routine data from different healthcare sectors. Methods: We linked routinely collected register data of individuals with a documented alcohol-related diagnosis in the federal state of Bremen, Germany, in 2016/2017 and their addiction-specific health care: two statutory health insurance funds (outpatient pharmacotherapy for relapse prevention and inpatient episodes due to AD with and without qualified withdrawal treatment (QWT)), the German Pension Insurance (rehabilitation treatment) and a group of communal hospitals (outpatient addiction care). Individual care pathways of five different daily states of utilized addiction-specific treatment following an index inpatient admission due to AD were analyzed using state sequence analysis and cluster analysis. The follow-up time was 307 days (10 months). Individuals of the clustered pathways were compared concerning current treatment recommendations (1: QWT followed by postacute treatment; 2: time between QWT and rehabilitation). Patients' characteristics not considered during the cluster analysis (sex, age, nationality, comorbidity, and outpatient addiction care) were then compared using a multinomial logistic regression. Results: The analysis of 518 individual sequences resulted in the identification of four pathway clusters differing in their utilization of acute and postacute treatment. Most did not utilize subsequent addiction-specific treatment after their index inpatient episode (n = 276) or had several inpatient episodes or QWT without postacute treatment (n = 205). Two small clusters contained pathways either starting rehabilitation (n = 26) or pharmacotherapy after the index episode (n = 11). Overall, only 9.3% utilized postacute treatment as recommended. Conclusions: A concern besides the generally low utilization of addiction-specific treatment is the implementation of postacute treatments for individuals after QWT. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Research collaboration contributes to the advancement of knowledge by exploiting the results of scientific efforts more efficiently, but the global patterns of collaboration on meta-analysis are unknown. The purpose of this research was to describe and characterize the global collaborative patterns in meta-analyses of randomized trials published in high impact factor medical journals over the past three decades. Methods This was a cross-sectional, social network analysis. We searched PubMed for relevant meta- analyses of randomized trials published up to December 2012. We selected meta-analyses (including at least randomized trials as primary evidence source) published in the top seven high impact factor general medical journals (according to Journal Citation Reports 2011): The New England Journal of Medicine, The Lancet, the BMJ, JAMA, Annals of Internal Medicine, Archives of Internal Medicine (now renamed JAMA Internal Medicine), and PLoS Medicine. Opinion articles, conceptual papers, narrative reviews, reviews without meta-analysis, reviews of reviews, and other study designs were excluded. Results Overall, we included 736 meta-analyses, in which 3,178 authors, 891 institutions, and 51 countries participated. The BMJ was the journal that published the greatest number of articles (39%), followed by The Lancet (18%), JAMA (15%) and the Archives of Internal Medicine (15%). The USA, the UK, and Canada headed the absolute global productivity ranking in number of papers. The 64 authors and the 39 institutions with the highest publication rates were identified. We also found 82 clusters of authors (one group with 55 members and one group with 54 members) and 19 clusters of institutions (one major group with 76 members). The most prolific authors were mainly affiliated with the University of Oxford (UK), McMaster University (Canada), and the University of Bern (Switzerland). Conclusions Our analysis identified networks of authors, institutions and countries publishing meta-analyses of randomized trials in high impact medical journals. This valuable information may be used to strengthen scientific capacity for collaboration and to help to promote a global agenda for future research of excellence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The health care is likely to break down unless we are able to increase the level of functioning for the growing number of patients with complex, chronic illnesses. Hence, novel high-capacity and cost-effective treatments with trans-diagnostic effects are warranted. In accordance with the protocol paper, we aimed to examine the acceptability, satisfaction, and effectiveness of an interdisciplinary micro-choice based concentrated group rehabilitation for patients with chronic low back pain, long COVID, and type 2 diabetes. Methods: Patients with low back pain > 4 months sick-leave, long COVID, or type 2 diabetes were included in this clinical trial with pre-post design and 3-month follow-up. The treatment consisted of three phases: (1) preparing for change, (2) the concentrated intervention for 3–4 days, and (3) integrating change into everyday life. Patients were taught and practiced how to monitor and target seemingly insignificant everyday micro-choices, in order to break the patterns where symptoms or habits contributed to decreased levels of functioning or increased health problems. The treatment was delivered to groups (max 10 people) with similar illnesses. Client Satisfaction Questionnaire (CSQ-8)) (1 week), Work and Social Adjustment Scale (WSAS), Brief Illness Perception Questionnaire (BIPQ), and self-rated health status (EQ-5D-5L) were registered at baseline and 3-month follow-up. Results: Of the 241 included participants (57% women, mean age 48 years, range 19–84), 99% completed the concentrated treatment. Treatment satisfaction was high with a 28.9 (3.2) mean CSQ-8-score. WSAS improved significantly from baseline to follow-up across diagnoses 20.59 (0.56) to 15.76 (0.56). BIPQ improved from: 22.30 (0.43) to 14.88 (0.47) and EQ-5D-5L: 0.715 (0.01) to 0.779 (0.01)), all P<0.001. Conclusions: Across disorders, the novel approach was associated with high acceptability and clinically important improvements in functional levels, illness perception, and health status. As the concentrated micro-choice based treatment format might have the potential to change the way we deliver rehabilitation across diagnoses, we suggest to proceed with a controlled trial. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05234281 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This document is a correction notice for an article titled "Neutrophil extracellular trap-induced intermediate monocytes trigger macrophage activation syndrome in adult-onset Still's disease" published in BMC Medicine. The authors have identified an error in Figure 2D of the original article, which contained a duplicated picture. However, the authors have confirmed that this error does not affect the overall results and conclusions of the paper. The corrected version of Figure 2D has been provided in the correction notice. [Extracted from the article]

Abstract Background Genome-wide association studies have enabled Mendelian randomization analyses to be performed at an industrial scale. Two-sample summary data Mendelian randomization analyses can be performed using publicly available data by anyone who has access to the internet. While this has led to many insightful papers, it has also fuelled an explosion of poor-quality Mendelian randomization publications, which threatens to undermine the credibility of the whole approach. Findings We detail five pitfalls in conducting a reliable Mendelian randomization investigation: (1) inappropriate research question, (2) inappropriate choice of variants as instruments, (3) insufficient interrogation of findings, (4) inappropriate interpretation of findings, and (5) lack of engagement with previous work. We have provided a brief checklist of key points to consider when performing a Mendelian randomization investigation; this does not replace previous guidance, but highlights critical analysis choices. Journal editors should be able to identify many low-quality submissions and reject papers without requiring peer review. Peer reviewers should focus initially on key indicators of validity; if a paper does not satisfy these, then the paper may be meaningless even if it is technically flawless. Conclusions Performing an informative Mendelian randomization investigation requires critical thought and collaboration between different specialties and fields of research.

Background: Rapid reviews are a form of knowledge synthesis in which components of the systematic review process are simplified or omitted to produce information in a timely manner. Although numerous centers are conducting rapid reviews internationally, few studies have examined the methodological characteristics of rapid reviews. We aimed to examine articles, books, and reports that evaluated, compared, used or described rapid reviews or methods through a scoping review.Methods: MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, internet websites of rapid review producers, and reference lists were searched to identify articles for inclusion. Two reviewers independently screened literature search results and abstracted data from included studies. Descriptive analysis was conducted.Results: We included 100 articles plus one companion report that were published between 1997 and 2013. The studies were categorized as 84 application papers, seven development papers, six impact papers, and four comparison papers (one was included in two categories). The rapid reviews were conducted between 1 and 12 months, predominantly in Europe (58 %) and North America (20 %). The included studies failed to report 6 % to 73 % of the specific systematic review steps examined. Fifty unique rapid review methods were identified; 16 methods occurred more than once. Streamlined methods that were used in the 82 rapid reviews included limiting the literature search to published literature (24 %) or one database (2 %), limiting inclusion criteria by date (68 %) or language (49 %), having one person screen and another verify or screen excluded studies (6 %), having one person abstract data and another verify (23 %), not conducting risk of bias/quality appraisal (7 %) or having only one reviewer conduct the quality appraisal (7 %), and presenting results as a narrative summary (78 %). Four case studies were identified that compared the results of rapid reviews to systematic reviews. Three studies found that the conclusions between rapid reviews and systematic reviews were congruent.Conclusions: Numerous rapid review approaches were identified and few were used consistently in the literature. Poor quality of reporting was observed. A prospective study comparing the results from rapid reviews to those obtained through systematic reviews is warranted. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Clinicians are inaccurate at predicting survival. The 'Surprise Question' (SQ) is a screening tool that aims to identify people nearing the end of life. Potentially, its routine use could help identify patients who might benefit from palliative care services. The objective was to assess the accuracy of the SQ by time scale, clinician, and speciality.Methods: Searches were completed on Medline, Embase, CINAHL, AMED, Science Citation Index, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Open Grey literature (all from inception to November 2016). Studies were included if they reported the SQ and were written in English. Quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale.Results: A total of 26 papers were included in the review, of which 22 reported a complete data set. There were 25,718 predictions of survival made in response to the SQ. The c-statistic of the SQ ranged from 0.512 to 0.822. In the meta-analysis, the pooled accuracy level was 74.8% (95% CI 68.6-80.5). There was a negligible difference in timescale of the SQ. Doctors appeared to be more accurate than nurses at recognising people in the last year of life (c-statistic = 0.735 vs. 0.688), and the SQ seemed more accurate in an oncology setting 76.1% (95% CI 69.7-86.3).Conclusions: There was a wide degree of accuracy, from poor to reasonable, reported across studies using the SQ. Further work investigating how the SQ could be used alongside other prognostic tools to increase the identification of people who would benefit from palliative care is warranted.Trial Registration: PROSPERO CRD42016046564 . [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In 2013, a few years after the launch of the National Institute of Mental Health's Research Domain Criteria (RDoC) initiative, Cuthbert and Insel published a paper titled "Toward the future of psychiatric diagnosis: the seven pillars of RDoC." The RDoC project is a translational research effort to encourage new ways of studying psychopathology through a focus on disruptions in normal functions (such as reward learning or attention) that are defined jointly by observable behavior and neurobiological measures. The paper outlined the principles of the RDoC research framework, including emphases on research that acquires data from multiple measurement classes to foster integrative analyses, adopts dimensional approaches, and employs novel methods for ascertaining participants and identifying valid subgroups.Discussion: To mark the first decade of the RDoC initiative, we revisit the seven pillars and highlight new research findings and updates to the framework that are related to each. This reappraisal emphasizes the flexible nature of the RDoC framework and its application in diverse areas of research, new findings related to the importance of developmental trajectories within and across neurobehavioral domains, and the value of computational approaches for clarifying complex multivariate relations among behavioral and neurobiological systems.Conclusion: The seven pillars of RDoC have provided a foundation that has helped to guide a surge of new studies that have examined neurobehavioral domains related to mental disorders, in the service of informing future psychiatric nosology. Building on this footing, future areas of emphasis for the RDoC project will include studying central-peripheral interactions, developing novel approaches to phenotyping for genomic studies, and identifying new targets for clinical trial research to facilitate progress in precision psychiatry. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Background Although missed appointments in healthcare have been an area of concern for policy, practice and research, the primary focus has been on reducing single ‘situational’ missed appointments to the benefit of services. Little attention has been paid to the causes and consequences of more ‘enduring’ multiple missed appointments in primary care and the role this has in producing health inequalities. Methods We conducted a realist review of the literature on multiple missed appointments to identify the causes of ‘missingness.’ We searched multiple databases, carried out iterative citation-tracking on key papers on the topic of missed appointments and identified papers through searches of grey literature. We synthesised evidence from 197 papers, drawing on the theoretical frameworks of candidacy and fundamental causation. Results Missingness is caused by an overlapping set of complex factors, including patients not identifying a need for an appointment or feeling it is ‘for them’; appointments as sites of poor communication, power imbalance and relational threat; patients being exposed to competing demands, priorities and urgencies; issues of travel and mobility; and an absence of choice or flexibility in when, where and with whom appointments take place. Conclusions Interventions to address missingness at policy and practice levels should be theoretically informed, tailored to patients experiencing missingness and their identified needs and barriers; be cognisant of causal domains at multiple levels and address as many as practical; and be designed to increase safety for those seeking care.

Background: Factors contributing to the lack of understanding of research studies include poor reporting practices, such as selective reporting of statistically significant findings or insufficient methodological details. Systematic reviews have shown that prognostic factor studies continue to be poorly reported, even for important aspects, such as the effective sample size. The REMARK reporting guidelines support researchers in reporting key aspects of tumor marker prognostic studies. The REMARK profile was proposed to augment these guidelines to aid in structured reporting with an emphasis on including all aspects of analyses conducted. Methods: A systematic search of prognostic factor studies was conducted, and fifteen studies published in 2015 were selected, three from each of five oncology journals. A paper was eligible for selection if it included survival outcomes and multivariable models were used in the statistical analyses. For each study, we summarized the key information in a REMARK profile consisting of details about the patient population with available variables and follow-up data, and a list of all analyses conducted. Results: Structured profiles allow an easy assessment if reporting of a study only has weaknesses or if it is poor because many relevant details are missing. Studies had incomplete reporting of exclusion of patients, missing information about the number of events, or lacked details about statistical analyses, e.g., subgroup analyses in small populations without any information about the number of events. Profiles exhibit severe weaknesses in the reporting of more than 50% of the studies. The quality of analyses was not assessed, but some profiles exhibit several deficits at a glance. Conclusions: A substantial part of prognostic factor studies is poorly reported and analyzed, with severe consequences for related systematic reviews and meta-analyses. We consider inadequate reporting of single studies as one of the most important reasons that the clinical relevance of most markers is still unclear after years of research and dozens of publications. We conclude that structured reporting is an important step to improve the quality of prognostic marker research and discuss its role in the context of selective reporting, meta-analysis, study registration, predefined statistical analysis plans, and improvement of marker research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Breast cancer is the second most common cause of cancer mortality worldwide. Biomarker discovery has led to advances in understanding molecular phenotyping and thus has a great potential for precision management of this diverse disease. Despite increased interest in the biomarker field, only a small number of breast cancer biomarkers are known to be clinically useful. Therefore, it is very important to characterise the success rate of biomarkers in this field and study potential reasons for the deficit. We therefore aim to achieve quantitative characterisation of the biomarker translation gap by tracking the progress of prognostic biomarkers associated with breast cancer recurrence. Methods: An electronic systematic search was conducted in Medline and Embase databases using keywords and mesh headings associated with breast cancer recurrence biomarkers (1940–2023). Abstracts were screened, and primary clinical studies involving breast cancer recurrence biomarkers were selected. Upon identification of relevant literature, we extracted the biomarker name, date of publication and journal name. All analyses were performed using IBM SPSS Statistics and GraphPad prism (La Jolla, California, USA). Results: A total of 19,195 articles were identified, from which 4597 articles reported breast cancer biomarkers associated with recurrence. Upon data extraction, 2437 individual biomarkers were identified. Out of these, 23 are currently recommended for clinical use, which corresponds to only 0.94% of all discovered biomarkers. Conclusions: This study characterised for the first time the translational gap in the field of recurrence-related breast cancer biomarkers, indicating that only 0.94% of identified biomarkers were recommended for clinical use. This denotes an evident barrier in the biomarker research field and emphasises the need for a clearer route from biomarker discovery through to implementation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Social prescribing is gaining traction internationally. It is an approach which seeks to address non-medical and health-related social needs through taking a holistic person-centred and community-based approach. This involves connecting people with and supporting them to access groups and organisations within their local communities. It is hoped that social prescribing might improve health inequities and reduce reliance on healthcare services. In the UK, social prescribing link workers have become core parts of primary care teams. Despite growing literature on the implementation of social prescribing, to date there has been no synthesis that develops a theoretical understanding of the factors that shape link workers' experiences of their role. Methods: We undertook a meta-ethnographic evidence synthesis of qualitative literature to develop a novel conceptual framework that explains how link workers experience their roles. We identified studies using a systematic search of key databases, Google alerts, and through scanning reference lists of included studies. We followed the eMERGe guidance when conducting and reporting this meta-ethnography. Results: Our synthesis included 21 studies and developed a "line of argument" or overarching conceptual framework which highlighted inherent and interacting tensions present at each of the levels that social prescribing operates. These tensions may arise from a mismatch between the policy logic of social prescribing and the material and structural reality, shaped by social, political, and economic forces, into which it is being implemented. Conclusions: The tensions highlighted in our review shape link workers' experiences of their role. They may call into question the sustainability of social prescribing and the link worker role as currently implemented, as well as their ability to deliver desired outcomes such as reducing health inequities or healthcare service utilisation. Greater consideration should be given to how the link worker role is defined, deployed, and trained. Furthermore, thought should be given to ensuring that the infrastructure into which social prescribing is being implemented is sufficient to meet needs. Should social prescribing seek to improve outcomes for those experiencing social and economic disadvantage, it may be necessary for social prescribing models to allow for more intensive and longer-term modes of support. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Several economic obstacles can deter the development and use of vaccines. This can lead to limited product options for some diseases, delays in new product development, and inequitable access to vaccines. Although seemingly distinct, these obstacles are actually interrelated and therefore need to be addressed through a single over-arching strategy encompassing all stakeholders. Methods: To help overcome these obstacles, we propose a new approach, the Full Value of Vaccines Assessments (FVVA) framework, to guide the assessment and communication of the value of a vaccine. The FVVA framework is designed to facilitate alignment across key stakeholders and to enhance decision-making around investment in vaccine development, policy-making, procurement, and introduction, particularly for vaccines intended for use in low- and middle-income countries. Results: The FVVA framework has three key elements. First, to enhance assessment, existing value-assessment methods and tools are adapted to include broader benefits of vaccines as well as opportunity costs borne by stakeholders. Second, to improve decision-making, a deliberative process is required to recognize the agency of stakeholders and to ensure country ownership of decision-making and priority setting. Third, the FVVA framework provides a consistent and evidence-based approach that facilitates communication about the full value of vaccines, helping to enhance alignment and coordination across diverse stakeholders. Conclusions: The FVVA framework provides guidance for stakeholders organizing global-level efforts to promote investment in vaccines that are priorities for LMICs. By providing a more holistic view of the benefits of vaccines, its application also has the potential to encourage greater take-up by countries, thereby leading to more sustainable and equitable impacts of vaccines and immunization programmes. Highlights: 1. What is already known on this subject? While existing 'pull' and 'push' mechanisms to incentivize new vaccine development can enhance coordination across multiple stakeholders with different agendas, these mechanisms have not fully addressed interrelated obstacles for the optimal development, use, and impact of vaccines and immunization programmes in an integrated and holistic way. 2. What this study adds? This paper presents a conceptual framework, the Full Value of Vaccine Assessments (FVVA), which outlines coherent, organizing principles to guide the assessment of the value of vaccines, promote communication across stakeholders, and facilitate more informed country ownership of decision-making. Application of the FVVA approach has the potential to expand the sustainable and equitable impact of vaccines and immunization programmes. 3. Policy implications The FVVA approach outlined here will inform global-level efforts to enhance coordination among diverse stakeholders involved in policy- and decision-making related to the development and implementation of new vaccines. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Considerable emphasis is presently being placed on usage of generic medicines by governments focussed on the potential economic benefits associated with their use. Concurrently, there is increasing discussion in the lay media of perceived doubts regarding the quality and equivalence of generic medicines. The objective of this paper is to report the outcomes of a systematic search for peer-reviewed, published studies that focus on physician, pharmacist and patient/consumer perspectives of generic medicines. Methods: Literature published between January 2003 and November 2014, which is indexed in PubMed and Scopus, on the topic of opinions of physicians, pharmacists and patients with respect to generic medicines was searched, and articles within the scope of this review were appraised. Search keywords used included perception, opinion, attitude and view, along with keywords specific to each cohort. Results: Following review of titles and abstracts to identify publications relevant to the scope, 16 papers on physician opinions, 11 papers on pharmacist opinions and 31 papers on patient/consumer opinions were included in this review. Quantitative studies (n = 37) were the most common approach adopted by researchers, generally in the form of self-administered questionnaires/surveys. Qualitative methodologies (n = 15) were also reported, albeit in fewer cases. In all three cohorts, opinions of generic medicines have improved but some mistrust remains, most particularly in the patient group where there appears to be a strongly held belief that less expensive equals lower quality. Acceptance of generics appears to be higher in consumers with higher levels of education while patients from lower socioeconomic demographic groups, hence generally having lower levels of education, tend to have greater mistrust of generics. Conclusions: A key factor in improving confidence in generic products is the provision of information and education, particularly in the areas of equivalency, regulation and dispelling myths about generic medicines (such as the belief that they are counterfeits). Further, as patient trust in their physician often overrules their personal mistrust of generic medicines, enhancing the opinions of physicians regarding generics may have particular importance in strategies to promote usage and acceptance of generic medicines in the future. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: New models of primary care are needed to address funding and staffing pressures. We addressed the research question "what works for whom in what circumstances in relation to the role of community pharmacies in providing lifestyle interventions to support smoking cessation?" Methods: This is a realist review conducted according to RAMESES standards. We began with a sample of 103 papers included in a quantitative review of community pharmacy intervention trials identified through systematic searching of seven databases. We supplemented this with additional papers: studies that had been excluded from the quantitative review but which provided rigorous and relevant additional data for realist theorising; citation chaining (pursuing reference lists and Google Scholar forward tracking of key papers); the 'search similar citations' function on PubMed. After mapping what research questions had been addressed by these studies and how, we undertook a realist analysis to identify and refine candidate theories about context-mechanism-outcome configurations. Results: Our final sample consisted of 66 papers describing 74 studies (12 systematic reviews, 6 narrative reviews, 18 RCTs, 1 process detail of a RCT, 1 cost-effectiveness study, 12 evaluations of training, 10 surveys, 8 qualitative studies, 2 case studies, 2 business models, 1 development of complex intervention). Most studies had been undertaken in the field of pharmacy practice (pharmacists studying what pharmacists do) and demonstrated the success of pharmacist training in improving confidence, knowledge and (in many but not all studies) patient outcomes. Whilst a few empirical studies had applied psychological theories to account for behaviour change in pharmacists or people attempting to quit, we found no studies that had either developed or tested specific theoretical models to explore how pharmacists' behaviour may be affected by organisational context. Because of the nature of the empirical data, only a provisional realist analysis was possible, consisting of five mechanisms (pharmacist identity, pharmacist capability, pharmacist motivation and clinician confidence and public trust). We offer hypotheses about how these mechanisms might play out differently in different contexts to account for the success, failure or partial success of pharmacy-based smoking cessation efforts. Conclusion: Smoking cessation support from community pharmacists and their staff has been extensively studied, but few policy-relevant conclusions are possible. We recommend that further research should avoid duplicating existing literature on individual behaviour change; seek to study the organisational and system context and how this may shape, enable and constrain pharmacists' extended role; and develop and test theory. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Manuscript preparation and the (re)submission of articles can create a significant workload in academic jobs. In this exploratory analysis, we estimate the time and costs needed to meet the diverse formatting requirements for manuscript submissions in biomedical publishing. Methods: We reviewed 302 leading biomedical journals' submission guidelines and extracted information on the components that tend to vary the most among submission guidelines (the length of the title, the running title, the abstract, and the manuscript; the structure of the abstract and the manuscript, number of items and references allowed, whether the journal has a template). We estimated annual research funding lost due to manuscript formatting by calculating hourly academic salaries, the time lost to reformatting articles, and quantifying the total number of resubmissions per year. We interviewed several researchers and senior journal editors and editors-in-chief to contextualize our findings and develop guidelines that could help both biomedical journals and researchers work more efficiently. Results: Among the analyzed journals, we found a huge diversity in submission requirements. By calculating average researcher salaries in the European Union and the USA, and the time spent on reformatting articles, we estimated that ~ 230 million USD were lost in 2021 alone due to reformatting articles. Should the current practice remain unchanged within this decade, we estimate ~ 2.5 billion USD could be lost between 2022 and 2030—solely due to reformatting articles after a first editorial desk rejection. In our interviews, we found alignment between researchers and editors; researchers would like the submission process alignment between researchers and editors; researchers would like the submission process to be as straightforward and simple as possible, and editors want to easily identify strong, suitable articles and not waste researchers' time. Conclusions: Based on the findings from our quantitative analysis and contextualized by the qualitative interviews, we conclude that free-format submission guidelines would benefit both researchers and editors. However, a minimum set of requirements is necessary to avoid manuscript submissions that lack structure. We developed our guidelines to improve the status quo, and we urge the publishers and the editorial-advisory boards of biomedical journals to adopt them. This may also require support from publishers and major international organizations that govern the work of editors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Background Pandemics and climate change each challenge health systems through increasing numbers and new types of patients. To adapt to these challenges, leading health systems have embraced a Learning Health System (LHS) approach, aiming to increase the efficiency with which data is translated into actionable knowledge. This rapid review sought to determine how these health systems have used LHS frameworks to both address the challenges posed by the COVID-19 pandemic and climate change, and to prepare for future disturbances, and thus transition towards the LHS2.0. Methods Three databases (Embase, Scopus, and PubMed) were searched for peer-reviewed literature published in English in the five years to March 2023. Publications were included if they described a real-world LHS’s response to one or more of the following: the COVID-19 pandemic, future pandemics, current climate events, future climate change events. Data were extracted and thematically analyzed using the five dimensions of the Institute of Medicine/Zurynski-Braithwaite’s LHS framework: Science and Informatics, Patient-Clinician Partnerships, Continuous Learning Culture, Incentives, and Structure and Governance. Results The search yielded 182 unique publications, four of which reported on LHSs and climate change. Backward citation tracking yielded 13 additional pandemic-related publications. None of the climate change-related papers met the inclusion criteria. Thirty-two publications were included after full-text review. Most were case studies (n = 12, 38%), narrative descriptions (n = 9, 28%) or empirical studies (n = 9, 28%). Science and Informatics (n = 31, 97%), Continuous Learning Culture (n = 26, 81%), Structure and Governance (n = 23, 72%) were the most frequently discussed LHS dimensions. Incentives (n = 21, 66%) and Patient-Clinician Partnerships (n = 18, 56%) received less attention. Twenty-nine papers (91%) discussed benefits or opportunities created by pandemics to furthering the development of an LHS, compared to 22 papers (69%) that discussed challenges. Conclusions An LHS 2.0 approach appears well-suited to responding to the rapidly changing and uncertain conditions of a pandemic, and, by extension, to preparing health systems for the effects of climate change. LHSs that embrace a continuous learning culture can inform patient care, public policy, and public messaging, and those that wisely use IT systems for decision-making can more readily enact surveillance systems for future pandemics and climate change-related events. Trial registration PROSPERO pre-registration: CRD42023408896.