Search

Objective: To describe the biomedical journal characteristics that are associated with the retraction of papers. Method: A descriptive cross-sectional study was conducted. All papers retracted and indexed in PubMed from January 1st 2013 to December 31st, 2016 were included. We used nine main categories to classify retractions: aspects related with data, authors issues, plagiarism, unethical research, journal issues, review process, conflict of interest, other, and unknown. These categories were further classified as: misconduct, suspicion of misconduct, or no misconduct. Results: The proportion of retraction was 2.5 per 10,000 publications. Retractions appeared in 611 journals. During the study period, retraction due to misconduct was more frequent among journals with low-impact factor. Within these retracted publications, among low-impact journals the presence of misconduct was higher with a 73% compared to 61% for the high-impact journals (p = 0.001). There were differences in the percentage of retractions due to misconduct regarding the journal classification category (p

The need to generate evidence related to COVID-19, the acceleration of publication and peer-review process and the competition between journals may have influenced the quality of COVID-19 papers. Our objective was to compare the characteristics of COVID-19 papers against those of non-COVID-19 papers and identify the variables in which they differ.We conducted a journal-matched case-control study. Cases were COVID-19 papers and controls were non-COVID-19 papers published between March 2020 and January 2021. Journals belonging to five different Journal Citations Reports categories were selected. Within each selected journal, a COVID-19 paper (where there was one) and another non-COVID-19 paper were selected. Conditional logistic regression models were fitted.We included 81 COVID-19 and 143 non-COVID-19 papers. Descriptive observational studies and analytical observational studies had, respectively, a 55-fold (odds ratio [OR]: 55.12; 95% confidence interval [95%CI]: 7.41-409.84) and 19-fold (OR: 19.28; 95%CI: 3.09-120.31) higher likelihood of being COVID-19 papers, respectively, and also a higher probability of having a smaller sample size (OR: 7.15; 95%CI: 2.33-21.94). COVID-19 papers had a higher probability of being cited since their publication (OR: 4.97; 95%CI: 1.63-15.10).The characteristics of COVID-19 papers differed from those of non-COVID-19 papers published in the first months of the pandemic. In order to ensure the publication of good scientific evidence the quality of COVID-19-papers should be preserved.

In Spain, due to the lack of data at national level a lung cancer registry, the Thoracic Tumour Registry (TTR), was created. Such registry should demonstrate comparability with population-based data to ensure representativeness at population level. The aim is to compare the socio-demographic characteristics of the TTR with incidence data from the Red de Registros de Cáncer (REDECAN) and mortality data from the Instituto Nacional de Estadística (INE).Lung cancer data sources available to date, REDECAN and INE, were used. Lung cancer cases overall and disaggregated by sex and age groups were collected from each source of information and data were compared for the period 2017-2020. Sex and age group proportions of TTR were calculated for both databases (which collect incidence and mortality data), for the entire study period and broken down by year.A total of 17,109 incident lung cancer cases from the TTR, 58,668 estimated incident cases from REDECAN and 88,083 deaths registered from INE between 2017 and 2020 were included. In terms of sex, the proportions are very similar between the three sources and the differences do not exceed 4%. In terms of age, the differences are not large, being larger for mortality data in the older age group from the INE versus the TTR.The TTR seems to be representative of lung cancer cases diagnosed in Spain between 2019 and 2020, both by sex and age. This allows us to accurately characterise the status of this disease, which is the leading cause of cancer death in Spain, and that the analysis of results obtained from the RTT can be applied to cases of lung cancer diagnosed in our country.

In recent years, many cases of scientific misconduct have come to light, some with considerable consequences, highlighting the existing breaches in the scientific integrity globally. In Spain, there have also been high-profile cases of scientific misconduct. However, so far, no organism or agency has been created to monitor the execution, analysis and publication phases of biomedical research from an ethical point of view. Therefore, in this context, we consider that there is a need for the creation of an office which supervises research integrity in Spain which would act in cases of suspected scientific misconduct, carrying out an independent investigation and proposing public sanctions. The existence of such an organism would be of particular importance in the case of publicly funded research, since in that case research fraud would involve the misappropriation of public funds. The creation of an office that would act on detected cases could have a deterrent effect on potential misconduct by some researchers, thus preventing cases of scientific misconduct.

To assess the association between exposure to radon and genitourinary cancer in a mining population through a systematic review of the scientific literature.A systematic review of the scientific literature was carried out in MEDLINE (PubMed), combining MeSH (Medical Subject Heading) terms and free terms. We applied a specific scale to assess the quality of the included studies.We included 17 studies; all were cohort studies with the exception of one which was a pooling of data. All studies included analysed the relationship between exposure to radon and genitourinary cancer. While some studies point towards an association between radon exposure and genitourinary cancer, especially kidney cancer, others do not find such association.The included studies showed great heterogeneity. It cannot be concluded that there is an association between exposure to radon and genitourinary cancer. More research is needed on this topic, designing studies with higher statistical power, better control of confounders, and preferably prospective.

To describe the tool developed in Andalusia (Spain) to conduct an analysis and prospective assessment of health impacts from urban planning projects as well as the process followed to design it.On the one hand, direct and indirect relationships between urban setting and health were identified in light of the best scientific evidence available; and, on the other hand, methods and tools in impact assessment were reviewed. After the design of the tool, it was tested via both internal and external validation processes (meetings, workshops and interviews with key informants).The tool consists of seven phases, structured in two stages. A first descriptive stage shows how to obtain information about goals, objectives and general points pertaining the project and also to characterise the potentially affected population. The second one indicates, in several phases, how to identify and sort out potential impacts from the project using different supporting tools.Both in the testing phase and through its implementation since the entry into force of Andalusian Decree 169/2014 (16 June 2015) and forced all urban planning projects to be subjected to an Health Impact Assessment, this methodology has proved responsive, identifying major potential health impacts from the measures included in those projects. However, the tool has been shaped as a living tool and will be adapted in line with the experience acquired in its use.

como es el caso de los empleados en lugares subterraneos(garajes, metro, cuevas turisticas, ocinas o locales comerciales enel subsuelo, etc.) y tambien de los trabajadores cuyo puesto detrabajo se localice en zonas geogracas de alta exposicion al radon. radon residencial como carcinogeno humano. y cancer de pulmon radon ha sido declarado carcinogeno humano por la Envi- Protection Agency de Estados Unidos (USEPA) y la InternacionaldeInvestigacionenCancer(IARC)

Objective: To compare whether there are differences among hospital and population controls. Methods: Two case-control studies were conducted on lung cancer risk factors in the Santiago de Compostela Public Health District. Whereas one used randomly chosen census-based population controls, the other used consecutive hospital controls that went to the reference hospital for non-smoking-related trivial interventions. The differences were analyzed using logistic regression. The dependent variable was type of control (hospital or population). Results: Hospital controls had a similar tobacco habit than population controls, but consumed more alcohol. For those consuming more than 50 ml daily, the risk of being a hospital control was 4.83 (95%CI: 2.55-9.14). Conclusions: There may be some differences between hospital and population-based controls, which must be taken into account in the design of case-control studies. It is necessary to ascertain whether such differences are reproduced at other geographic locations and whether they can affect estimation of exposure-disease.Objetivo: Comparar si hay diferencias entre los controles poblacionales y los hospitalarios. Métodos: Se llevaron a cabo dos estudios de casos y controles sobre factores de riesgo de cáncer de pulmón en el Área Sanitaria de Santiago de Compostela. En uno de los estudios los controles fueron seleccionados aleatoriamente entre la población general, y en el otro los controles hospitalarios fueron incluidos de manera consecutiva entre los individuos que acudían al hospital por intervenciones quirúrgicas banales no relacionadas con el consumo de tabaco. Las diferencias fueron analizadas mediante regresión logística. La variable dependiente fue el tipo de control (hospitalario o poblacional). Resultados: Los controles hospitalarios y los poblacionales tenían un hábito tabáquico similar, pero los controles hospitalarios consumían más alcohol. Para los que consumían más de 50 ml al día, el riesgo de ser un control hospitalario fue de 4,83 (intervalo de confianza del 95%: 2,55-9,14). Conclusiones: Podría haber algunas diferencias entre los controles poblacionales y los hospitalarios que deberían tenerse en cuenta cuando se diseñe un estudio de casos y controles. Es necesario saber si esas diferencias son similares en otras áreas geográficas y si podrían afectar a la estimación de las medidas de efecto entre exposición y enfermedad.

Objective: The main objective of this study is to analyse the role of alcohol consumption on lung cancer risk in people who have never smoked. Methods: We conducted a systematic review of the scientific literature following the PRISMA statement. We searched Medline, EMBASE and CINAHL using different combinations of MeSH terms and free text. We included cohort studies, pooled cohort studies and case-control studies comprising at least 25 anatomopathologically-confirmed diagnoses of lung cancer cases, a sample size larger than 100 individuals and more than five years of follow-up for cohort studies. We excluded studies that did not specifically report results for never smokers. We developed a quality score to assess the quality of the included papers and we ultimately included 14 investigations with a heterogeneous design and methodology. Results: Results for alcohol consumption and lung cancer risk in never smokers are inconclusive; however, several studies showed a dose-response pattern for total alcohol consumption and for spirits. Heterogeneous results were found for wine and beer. Conclusion: No clear effect is observed for alcohol consumption. Due to the limited evidence, no conclusion can be drawn for beer or wine consumption. There is little research available on the effect of alcohol on lung cancer risk for people who have never smoked, and more studies are urgently needed on this topic.

Health impact assessment (HIA) aims to incorporate people's health and wellbeing as a key feature in policy-making. Many authors believe that HIA might be systematically integrated into all decision-making processes as a way to achieve that goal. To that end, there is need to overcome a number of challenges, including the fact that Andalusia (Spain) has made HIA compulsory by law, the need for awareness of all public sectors whose decisions might have substantial impacts on health and for a methodology that would enable a comprehensive approach to health determinants and inequalities, and the training of both the public health staff and professional sectors responsible for its application. In Andalusia, a law provides mandatory and binding health impact reports for most authorisation procedures in different areas: from sectoral plans to urban planning schemes, and especially projects subject to environmental assessment. Implementation of this law has required its integration into authorisation procedures, the training of interdisciplinary working groups in public health, the preparation of technical guidelines, and the organisation of dissemination and training seminars for developers.

Como cada año, presentamos en esta nota el resumen de la actividad de Gaceta Sanitaria durante el año 2011. Es necesario señalar el gran incremento de manuscritos recibidos: 489 trabajos (fig. 1), 200 más que en 2010, excluyendo los publicados en los suplementos «Evaluación en salud pública» y «Desafíos en la autonomía y la atención a la dependencia de la población mayor» aparecidos en 2011 y el Informe SESPAS que verá la luz en 2012. Todos los tipos de manuscritos se han incrementado, pero sobre todo los artículos originales. Este gran aumento probablemente se deba a que en 2010 Gaceta Sanitaria obtuvo su primer factor de impacto.