Search

This column is intended to address the kinds of knotty problems and dilemmas with which many scholars grapple in studying health professions education. In this article, the authors address the challenges in proofreading a manuscript. Emerging researchers might think that someone in the production team will catch any errors. This may not always be the case. We emphasize the importance of guiding mentees to take the process of preparing a manuscript for submission seriously.

BACKGROUND: Despite the pivotal role of clinical trials in advancing orthopaedic oncology knowledge and treatment strategies, the persistent issues of trial discontinuation and nonpublication are significant problems. This study conducted an analysis examining clinical trial discontinuation rates, associations between intervention types and discontinuation/nonpublication, and the role of funding, enrollment size, and their implications for trial success and completion. METHODS: This study, conducted on May 1, 2023, utilized a cross-sectional design to comprehensively analyze phase 3 and 4 randomized controlled trials within the realm of orthopaedic oncology. We specifically incorporated Phase 3 and 4 trials as they are designed to evaluate prolonged outcomes in human subjects and are more likely to reach publication. Study characteristics of interest included the intervention utilized in the clinical trial, presence of funding, whether the trial was published, completed, and trial enrollment size. The investigation involved an examination of ClinicalTrials.gov, a prominent online repository of clinical trial data managed by the National Library of Medicine of the USA. Descriptive statistics and multivariate logistic regressions were used to determine statistical significance. RESULTS: Among the cohort of 130 trials, 19.2% were prematurely discontinued. Completion rates varied based on intervention type; 111 pharmaceutical trials demonstrated a completion rate of 83.8%, whereas 19 non-pharmaceutical trials exhibited a completion rate of 8.0% (P

OBJECTIVE: There is increasing consensus that open science practices improve the transparency and quality of clinical science. However, several barriers impede the implementation of these practices at the individual, institutional, and field levels; understanding and addressing these barriers is critical to promoting targeted efforts in increasing effective uptake of open science. METHODS: Within this research forum, we drew from publicly available online information sources to identify initial characterizations of researchers engaged in several types of open science practices in the field of eating disorders. We use these observations to discuss potential barriers and recommendations for next steps in the promotion of these practices. RESULTS: Data from online open science repositories suggest that individuals using these publishing approaches with pre-prints and articles with eating-disorder-relevant content are predominantly non-male gender identifying, early to mid-career stage, and are more likely to be European-, United States-, or Canada-based. DISCUSSION: We outline recommendations for tangible ways that the eating disorder field can support broad, increased uptake of open science practices, including supporting initiatives to increase knowledge and correct misconceptions; and prioritizing the development and accessibility of open science resources. PUBLIC SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT: The use of open science practices has the potential to increase the transparency and quality of clinical science. This Forum uses publicly sourced online data to characterize researchers engaged in open science practices in the field of eating disorders. These observations provide an important framework from which to discuss potential barriers to open science and recommendations for next steps in the promotion of these practices.

This essay is about the unique role of proper nouns at the intersection of knowledge and property, both tangible and intangible. Nouns are central to any form of property and credit, from a person's name listed on a property deed or copyright registration, to the name of an artist to whom a work is attributed, or that of a scientist after whom a discovery or theory is named. And names can also be found on the other end of the property spectrum, not as the names of authors and owners but as objects of property, as in the case of brand names. Here I trace some of the functions of these names as they move across different scenarios of knowledge-making and property-making, focusing on some of the effects those trajectories are having in the contemporary technosciences as they bring together the function of the author and that of the brand.

ObjectivesTo examine news coverage of Mexico's front-of-package food labelling policy.MethodsWe used Lexis Nexis to identify newspaper articles that mention the proposed law in four Mexican newspapers representing politically centre-left and centre-right perspectives. We coded for type and valence of arguments, sources and research evidence cited.ResultsWe identified N=361 relevant articles. Coverage of the front-of-package food label policy was primarily news (vs editorial/opinion). While most were neutral in tone, left-leaning newspapers had slightly more positive overall coverage compared with right-leaning newspapers, indicated by publishing more stories in favour of the policy, fewer in opposition, more propolicy arguments and more frequent inclusion of perspectives by government officials and public health advocates. Despite some evidence of bias, there was a general lack of credible opposition to the policy and mention of opponents across newspapers.Conclusions and policy implicationsThe relative absence of food and beverage industry stakeholders in news coverage of the food label policy is unexpected given their documented involvement in prior food policy debates. We discuss possible reasons for their conspicuous absence and lessons for public health advocates around the globe.

The question of whether it is appropriate to attribute authorship to deceased individuals of original studies in the biomedical literature is contentious. Authorship guidelines utilized by journals do not provide a clear consensus framework that is binding on those in the field. To guide and inform the implementation of authorship frameworks it would be useful to understand the extent of the practice in the scientific literature, but studies that have systematically quantified the prevalence of this phenomenon in the biomedical literature have not been performed to date. To address this issue, we quantified the prevalence of publications by deceased authors in the biomedical literature from the period 1990-2020. We screened 2,601,457 peer-reviewed papers from the full text Europe PubMed Central database. We applied natural language processing, stringent filtering and manual curation to identify a final set of 1,439 deceased authors. We then determined these authors published a total of 38,907 papers over their careers with 5,477 published after death. The number of deceased publications has been growing rapidly, a 146-fold increase since the year 2000. This rate of increase was still significant when accounting for the growing total number of publications and pool of authors. We found that more than 50% of deceased author papers were first submitted after the death of the author and that over 60% of these papers failed to acknowledge the deceased authors status. Most deceased authors published less than 10 papers after death but a small pool of 30 authors published significantly more. A pool of 266 authors published more than 90% of their total publications after death. Our analysis indicates that the attribution of deceased authorship in the literature is not an occasional occurrence but a burgeoning trend. A consensus framework to address authorship by deceased scientists is warranted.

BackgroundNational, regional and global scientific production and research capacity for physical activity - PA may contribute to improving public health PA policies and programs. There is an uneven distribution of research productivity by region and country income group, where countries with the highest burden of non-communicable diseases attributable to physical inactivity having low research productivity. A first step towards improving global research capacity is to objectively quantify patterns, trends, and gaps in PA research. This study describes national, regional and global trends and patterns of PA research from 1950 to 2019.MethodsA systematic review using searches in PubMed, SCOPUS and ISI Web of Knowledge databases was conducted in August 2017 and updated between January and May 2020. The review was registered at the PROSPERO database number CRD42017070153. PA publications per 100,000 inhabitants per country was the main variable of interest. Descriptive and time-trend analyses were conducted in STATA version 16.0.ResultsThe search retrieved 555,468 articles of which 75,756 were duplicates, leaving 479,712 eligible articles. After reviewing inclusion and exclusion criteria, 23,860 were eligible for data extraction. Eighty-one percent of countries (n = 176) had at least one PA publication. The overall worldwide publication rate in the PA field was 0.46 articles per 100,000 inhabitants. Europe had the highest rate (1.44 articles per 100,000 inhabitants) and South East Asia had the lowest (0.04 articles per 100,000 inhabitants). A more than a 50-fold difference in publications per 100,000 inhabitants was identified between high and low-income countries. The least productive and poorest regions have rates resembling previous decades of the most productive and the richest.ConclusionThis study showed an increasing number of publications over the last 60 years with a growing number of disciplines and research methods over time. However, striking inequities were revealed and the knowledge gap across geographic regions and by country income groups was substantial over time. The need for regular global surveillance of PA research, particularly in countries with the largest data gaps is clear. A focus on the public health impact and global equity of research will be an important contribution to making the world more active.

PURPOSE: To evaluate reviewers timeliness and review quality for the International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics (IJROBP) by sex and seniority. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The IJROBP editorial office provided data on 3962 individuals invited to review manuscripts from 2011 through 2014. We identified 1657 reviewers who had been invited to provide a review on at least 3 occasions during the study period and compared review timeliness and scoring between male and female reviewers. We confirmed the reviewers sex after having unblinded their names based on our personal acquaintance with them and via an Internet search on their department websites. We then did a subset analysis of 124 US-based reviewers who had returned a major revision decision. We used the Review Quality Instrument (RQI) to rate their reviews. We used odds ratios and t tests to look for differences in mean RQI scores and factors that might be associated with quality-in particular, Hirsch indices (h indices) and year of first certification. RESULTS: Of the 1657 reviewers of interest, 1245 (75.1%) were men and 412 (24.9%) were women. We found no statistically significant differences between men and women in the time to respond to invitations. There were no statistically significant differences in timeliness or review reminders based on sex. Our subset analysis showed no difference in quality (RQI scores) based on the reviewers sex, h index, or year of first certification. CONCLUSIONS: Women and men render reviews of equal quality regardless of seniority and h index, yet women have been invited less frequently to review. This is likely because of the underrepresentation of women in radiation oncology. A more balanced academic population is needed to address this continuing disparity of womens representation in academic publishing.

Coccidioidomycosis is a fungal infection of the Western hemisphere that is endemic to the soil in areas with limited rainfall. Human and animal infections result with inhalation of arthroconidia. Most often, this is an asymptomatic event. When illness occurs, it is primarily a pneumonic presentation. A small minority of infections eventuate in disseminated disease. Predominately, this presents as meningitis or osteoarticular or integumentary disease. Treatment may not be required for the mildest illness. Azoles are commonly prescribed. Severe infections may require amphotericin B.

PhD-trained scientists are essential contributors to the workforce in diverse employment sectors that include academia, industry, government, and nonprofit organizations. Hence, best practices for training the future biomedical workforce are of national concern. Complementing coursework and laboratory research training, many institutions now offer professional training that enables career exploration and develops a broad set of skills critical to various career paths. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) funded academic institutions to design innovative programming to enable this professional development through a mechanism known as Broadening Experiences in Scientific Training (BEST). Programming at the NIH BEST awardee institutions included career panels, skill-building workshops, job search workshops, site visits, and internships. Because doctoral training is lengthy and requires focused attention on dissertation research, an initial concern was that students participating in additional complementary training activities might exhibit an increased time to degree or diminished research productivity. Metrics were analyzed from 10 NIH BEST awardee institutions to address this concern, using time to degree and publication records as measures of efficiency and productivity. Comparing doctoral students who participated to those who did not, results revealed that across these diverse academic institutions, there were no differences in time to degree or manuscript output. Our findings support the policy that doctoral students should participate in career and professional development opportunities that are intended to prepare them for a variety of diverse and important careers in the workforce.

As the premier journal in health sciences librarianship, the Journal of the Medical Library Association (JMLA) continuously strives to publish high-quality work that advances research and practice and to provide irreplaceable value for readers, authors, and reviewers. This editorial reflects on the state of JMLA in 2020 by describing our editorial team and volume of submissions, highlighting recent initiatives that strengthen the journal's position in the profession, and sharing future plans to enrich JMLA's content and promote open science. Committed to ending structural racism and other inequities in the field, we also issue an ongoing call for submissions pertaining to social justice and critical perspectives on health sciences librarianship.

ObjectiveBibliometric analyses are commonly used to document publication trends over time; however, this methodology has not been used to investigate possible trends concerning publishing about psychotherapy brands. In this study, the authors sought to identify the publication trends of peer-reviewed articles about 30 psychotherapy brands.MethodsAnalyses were focused on the past 50 years and on each decade from 1970 to 2019. All searches were performed between October 2018 and January 2019 on the EbscoHost platform. Two databases were selected for the searches: PsycINFO and PubMed.ResultsIn the 28,594 articles reviewed, most published articles concerned cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT), and five brands accounted for almost 78% of all publications: CBT, psychoanalysis, family systems therapy, behavioral therapy, and cognitive therapy. Three trends were identified across decades: five therapies consistently yielded the largest number of publications, the number of publications focused on therapies with less research support declined from the 1970s to the 1990s, and publications about therapies with more of a research basis increased in the 1990s through the 2010s. Publications on meditation and mindfulness presented the most salient growth area for all psychotherapies across the 5 decades. A few psychotherapy brands have dominated the publishing realm during the past 50 years and across each decade.ConclusionsPossible explanations for these publication trends were considered, including the emergence of the evidence-based therapy movement and various sociohistorical changes. Potential psychotherapy publications trends in the future are discussed.

BackgroundGender disparities in authorship of heart failure (HF) guideline citations and clinical trials have not been examined.MethodsWe identified authors of publications referenced in Class I Recommendations in United States (n=173) and European (n=100) HF guidelines and of publications of all HF trials with >400 participants (n=118) published between 2001 and 2016. Authors' genders were determined, and changes in authorship patterns over time were evaluated with linear regression and nonparametric testing.ResultsThe median proportion of women authors per publication was 20% (interquartile range [IQR], 8%-33%) in United States guidelines, 14% (IQR, 2%-20%) in European guidelines, and 11% (IQR, 4%-20%) in HF trials. The proportion of women authors increased modestly over time in United States and European guidelines' references (β=0.005 and 0.003, respectively, from 1986 to 2016; P0.50). Overall proportions of women as first or last authors in HF trials (16%) did not change significantly over time (P=0.60). North American HF trials had the highest likelihood of having a woman as first or senior author (24%). HF trials with a woman first or senior author were associated with a higher proportion of enrolled female participants (39% versus 26%, P=0.01).ConclusionsIn HF practice guidelines and trials, few women are authors of pivotal publications. Higher number of women authors is associated with higher enrollment of women in HF trials. Barriers to authorship and representation of women in HF guidelines and HF trial leadership need to be addressed.

This editorial reports on an anonymous survey question posed to eating disorders researchers about changes the International Journal of Eating Disorders (IJED) should implement to support the eating disorders research community affected by COVID-19. The editorial accompanies an IJED article that details responses to the larger survey focusing more broadly on COVID-19-related research disruptions. Survey invitations were sent to editorial board members of eating disorders journals, members of eating disorder scientific organizations (e.g., Eating Disorders Research Society), and individuals who provided at least three IJED reviews in the prior 12 months. We reviewed the responses of 187 participants and identified three categories of changes that: (a) had already been implemented by the journal, (b) cannot be implemented because they fall outside the scope of IJED, or (c) will be implemented in coming weeks or months. The latter category includes publishing topical COVID-19 papers, making some COVID-19-related content available open access, revising statistical guidelines, and issuing author guidance on reporting protocol changes caused by COVID-19-related disruptions. IJED recognizes the disruptive impacts that COVID-19 has on all activities in our field, including clinical work, teaching, and advocacy, and is committed to supporting authors during this difficult time while striving to publish high-quality research.

ObjectivesWomen remain underrepresented on faculties of medicine and the life sciences more broadly. Whether gender differences in self presentation of clinical research exist and may contribute to this gender gap has been challenging to explore empirically. The objective of this study was to analyze whether men and women differ in how positively they frame their research findings and to analyze whether the positive framing of research is associated with higher downstream citations.DesignRetrospective observational study.Data sourcesTitles and abstracts from 101 720 clinical research articles and approximately 6.2 million general life science articles indexed in PubMed and published between 2002 and 2017.Main outcome measuresAnalysis of article titles and abstracts to determine whether men and women differ in how positively they present their research through use of terms such as "novel" or "excellent." For a set of 25 positive terms, we estimated the relative probability of positive framing as a function of the gender composition of the first and last authors, adjusting for scientific journal, year of publication, journal impact, and scientific field.ResultsArticles in which both the first and last author were women used at least one of the 25 positive terms in 10.9% of titles or abstracts versus 12.2% for articles involving a male first or last author, corresponding to a 12.3% relative difference (95% CI 5.7% to 18.9%). Gender differences in positive presentation were greatest in high impact clinical journals (impact factor >10), in which women were 21.4% less likely to present research positively. Across all clinical journals, positive presentation was associated with 9.4% (6.6% to 12.2%) higher subsequent citations, and in high impact clinical journals 13.0% (9.5% to 16.5%) higher citations. Results were similar when broadened to general life science articles published in journals indexed by PubMed, suggesting that gender differences in positive word use generalize to broader samples.ConclusionsClinical articles involving a male first or last author were more likely to present research findings positively in titles and abstracts compared with articles in which both the first and last author were women, particularly in the highest impact journals. Positive presentation of research findings was associated with higher downstream citations.

The derivation and interpretation of P values derived from inferential testing remain somewhat vague and ambiguous in the minds of some researchers/editors/reviewers/readers. The British polymath Fisher famously averred: “the value for which P = 0.05, or 1 in 20, is 1.96 or nearly 2; it is convenient to take this point as a limit in judging whether a deviation is to be considered significant or not. Deviations exceeding twice the standard deviation are thus formally regarded as significant.” This sometimes leads to an almost reductio ad absurdum mindset with an automatic discardment of studies with results where P > 0.05. It must be remembered that results may be negatively impacted by myriad factors that may be out of the researcher/s control, such as small sample sizes, small effects, bias, and random error. This paper briefly reviews the historical events leading to the acceptance of P ≤ 0.05 for statistical significance, the rationale behind the null hypothesis (H0 ), the meaning of P (and the potential for Type 1 and 2 Errors), α, β, the possibility of using non‑0.05 cut‑offs when studies are “trending toward statistical significance,” and the importance of including confidence intervals (CIs) in results. P values are vital but must be tempered by judicial consideration of CI and study design. P is a probability spectrum and not simply a binary significant/non‑significant statistical metric. MeSH: 95% confidence interval, biostatistics, P value. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Two 17th century institutions-learned societies and scientific journals-transformed science in ways that still dominate our professional lives today. Learned societies like the American Society for Cell Biology remain relevant because they provide forums for sharing results, discussing the practice of science, and projecting our voices to the public and the policy makers. Scientific journals still disseminate our work, but in the Internet-connected world of the 21st century, this is no longer their critical function. Journals remain relevant almost entirely because they provide a playing field for scientific and professional competition: to claim credit for a discovery, we publish it in a peer-reviewed journal; to get a job in academia or money to run a lab, we present these published papers to universities and funding agencies. Publishing is so embedded in the practice of science that whoever controls the journals controls access to the entire profession. We must reform our methods for evaluating the contributions of younger scientists and deflate the power of a small number of "elite" journals. More generally, given the recent failure of research institutions around the world to strike satisfactory deals with publishing giant Elsevier, the time has come to examine the motives and methods of those to whom we have entrusted the keys to the kingdom of science.

IntroductionRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) are widely viewed to generate the most reliable medical knowledge. However, RCTs are not always scientifically necessary and therefore not always ethical. Unfortunately, it is not clear when an RCT is not necessary or how this should be established. This study seeks to systematically catalogue justifications offered throughout the medical and ethics literature for performing randomisation within clinical trials.Methods and analysisWe will systematically search electronic databases of the medical literature including MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Clinical Trials Register, Web of Science Proceedings, ClinicalTrials.gov; databases of philosophical literature including Philosopher's Index, Phil Papers, JSTOR, Periodicals Archive Online, Project MUSE, National Reference Centre for Bioethics; the library catalogue at the University of Ottawa; bibliographies of retrieved papers; and the grey literature. We will also pursue suggestions from experts in the fields of medical ethics, philosophy and clinical trial methodology. Article screening, selection and data extraction will be performed by two independent reviewers based on prespecified inclusion/exclusion criteria. A third reviewer will be consulted to resolve any discrepancies. We will then extract the reasons given to justify randomisation using methodology established to extract data in a defensible, systematic manner. We will track the reasons given, their frequency of use and changes over time. Finally, using grounded theory, we will combine the reasons into broader themes. These themes will form the foundation of our subsequent analysis from qualitative and quantitative perspectives. This review will map existing arguments that clinicians, ethicists and philosophers use to ethically justify randomisation in clinical trials.Ethics and disseminationNo research ethics board approval is necessary because we are not examining patient-level data. This protocol complies with the reported guidance for conducting systematic scoping reviews. The findings of this paper will be disseminated via presentations and academic publication. In a subsequent phase of this research, we hope to engage with stakeholders and translate any recommendations derived from our findings into operational guidelines.

Hidradenitis suppurativa is a chronic inflammatory disorder affecting hair follicles, with profoundly negative impact on patient quality of life. Evidence informing ideal evaluation and management of patients with hidradenitis suppurativa is still sparse in many areas, but it has grown substantially in the last decade. Part I of this evidence-based guideline is presented to support health care practitioners as they select optimal management strategies, including diagnostic testing, comorbidity screening, and both complementary and procedural treatment options. Recommendations and evidence grading based on the evidence available at the time of the review are provided.

A Scientific Integrity Consortium developed a set of recommended principles and best practices that can be used broadly across scientific disciplines as a mechanism for consensus on scientific integrity standards and to better equip scientists to operate in a rapidly changing research environment. The two principles that represent the umbrella under which scientific processes should operate are as follows: (1) Foster a culture of integrity in the scientific process. (2) Evidence-based policy interests may have legitimate roles to play in influencing aspects of the research process, but those roles should not interfere with scientific integrity. The nine best practices for instilling scientific integrity in the implementation of these two overarching principles are (1) Require universal training in robust scientific methods, in the use of appropriate experimental design and statistics, and in responsible research practices for scientists at all levels, with the training content regularly updated and presented by qualified scientists. (2) Strengthen scientific integrity oversight and processes throughout the research continuum with a focus on training in ethics and conduct. (3) Encourage reproducibility of research through transparency. (4) Strive to establish open science as the standard operating procedure throughout the scientific enterprise. (5) Develop and implement educational tools to teach communication skills that uphold scientific integrity. (6) Strive to identify ways to further strengthen the peer review process. (7) Encourage scientific journals to publish unanticipated findings that meet standards of quality and scientific integrity. (8) Seek harmonization and implementation among journals of rapid, consistent, and transparent processes for correction and/or retraction of published papers. (9) Design rigorous and comprehensive evaluation criteria that recognize and reward the highest standards of integrity in scientific research.

IntroductionAlthough a variety of agencies have attempted to evaluate the academic achievements of orthopaedic surgery academic centers, most use opaque criteria that are difficult to interpret and do not provide clear targets for improvement. This study leverages a weighted algorithm using objective measurements that has been linked to academic achievement to attempt to provide a comprehensive assessment of scholarly accomplishment for orthopaedic surgery academic centers.MethodsWe examined full-time faculty at 138 US orthopaedic surgery academic centers; part-time or volunteer faculty were excluded. Five metrics of academic achievement were assessed: National Institutes of Health funding (2013), number of publications, Hirschberg-index (ie, a metric of impact of publications), leadership positions held in orthopaedic surgery societies, and editorial board positions of top orthopaedic and subspecialty journals. Academic programs were given a score for every category, and the algorithm was used to calculate an overall score of academic achievement for each program.ResultsThe five most academically productive programs were Washington University in St. Louis, Hospital for Special Surgery, Mayo Clinic, University of Pennsylvania, and Thomas Jefferson University.ConclusionThis algorithm may provide faculty with an assessment tool that can establish benchmarks to help focus efforts toward increasing the academic productivity of their respective programs.

Progress in basic and clinical research is slowed when researchers fail to provide a complete and accurate report of how a study was designed, executed, and the results analyzed. Publishing rigorous scientific research involves a full description of the methods, materials, procedures, and outcomes. Investigators may fail to provide a complete description of how their study was designed and executed because they may not know how to accurately report the information or the mechanisms are not in place to facilitate transparent reporting. Here, we provide an overview of how authors can write manuscripts in a transparent and thorough manner. We introduce a set of reporting criteria that can be used for publishing, including recommendations on reporting the experimental design and statistical approaches. We also discuss how to accurately visualize the results and provide recommendations for peer reviewers to enhance rigor and transparency. Incorporating transparency practices into research manuscripts will significantly improve the reproducibility of the results by independent laboratories. SIGNIFICANCE: Failure to replicate research findings often arises from errors in the experimental design and statistical approaches. By providing a full account of the experimental design, procedures, and statistical approaches, researchers can address the reproducibility crisis and improve the sustainability of research outcomes. In this piece, we discuss the key issues leading to irreproducibility and provide general approaches to improving transparency and rigor in reporting, which could assist in making research more reproducible.

The advancement of underrepresented minority and women PhD students to elite postdoctoral and faculty positions in the STEM fields continues to lag that of majority males, despite decades of efforts to mitigate bias and increase opportunities for students from diverse backgrounds. In 2015, the National Science Foundation Alliance for Graduate Education and the Professoriate (NSF AGEP) California Alliance (Berkeley, Caltech, Stanford, UCLA) conducted a wide-ranging survey of graduate students across the mathematical, physical, engineering, and computer sciences in order to identify levers to improve the success of PhD students, and, in time, improve diversity in STEM leadership positions, especially the professoriate. The survey data were interpreted via path analysis, a method that identifies significant relationships, both direct and indirect, among various factors and outcomes of interest. We investigated two important outcomes: publication rates, which largely determine a new PhD students competitiveness in the academic marketplace, and subjective well-being. Women and minority students who perceived that they were well-prepared for their graduate courses and accepted by their colleagues (faculty and fellow students), and who experienced well-articulated and structured PhD programs, were most likely to publish at rates comparable to their male majority peers. Women PhD students experienced significantly higher levels of distress than their male peers, both majority and minority, while both women and minority student distress levels were mitigated by clearly-articulated expectations, perceiving that they were well-prepared for graduate level courses, and feeling accepted by their colleagues. It is unclear whether higher levels of distress in women students is related directly to their experiences in their STEM PhD programs. The findings suggest that mitigating factors that negatively affect diversity should not, in principle, require the investment of large resources, but rather requires attention to the local culture and structure of individual STEM PhD programs.

This study estimates the effect of data sharing on the citations of academic articles, using journal policies as a natural experiment. We begin by examining 17 high-impact journals that have adopted the requirement that data from published articles be publicly posted. We match these 17 journals to 13 journals without policy changes and find that empirical articles published just before their change in editorial policy have citation rates with no statistically significant difference from those published shortly after the shift. We then ask whether this null result stems from poor compliance with data sharing policies, and use the data sharing policy changes as instrumental variables to examine more closely two leading journals in economics and political science with relatively strong enforcement of new data policies. We find that articles that make their data available receive 97 additional citations (estimate standard error of 34). We conclude that: a) authors who share data may be rewarded eventually with additional scholarly citations, and b) data-posting policies alone do not increase the impact of articles published in a journal unless those policies are enforced.

Importance:Surgical and medical device manufacturers have a cooperative relationship with clinicians. When evaluating published works, one should assess the integrity and academic credentials of the authors, who serve as putative experts. A relationship with a relevant manufacturer may increase the potential risk for bias in relevant studies. Objective:To characterize the association of industrial payments by device manufacturers, self-declared conflict of interest (COI), and relevance of publications among physicians receiving the highest compensation. Design, Setting, and Participants:This population-based bibliometric analysis identified 10 surgical and medical device manufacturing companies and the 10 physicians receiving the highest compensation from each company using the 2015 Open Payments Database (OPD) general payments data. For each of the 100 physicians, the total amount of general payments, number of payments, institution type, and academic rank were recorded. Royalty or license payments were excluded. A search of PubMed identified articles published by each physician from January 1 through December 31, 2016, and their associated COI declaration. Scopus was used to identify bibliometric data reported as the h index (number of papers by a researcher with at least h citations each). Main Outcomes and Measures:Discrepancy between self-declared COI and industry payments. Results:The 100 physicians included in the sample population (88% men) were paid a total of $12 446 969, with a median payment of $95 993. Fifty physicians (50.0%) were faculty at academic institutions. The mean (SD) h index was 18 (18; range, 0-75) for the authors. In 2016, 412 articles were published by these physicians, with a mean (SD) of 4 (6) publications (range, 0-25) and median of 1 (36 physicians had no publications). Of these articles, 225 (54.6%) were relevant to the general payments received by the authors. Only in 84 of the 225 relevant publications (37.3%) was the potential COI declared by the authors. Conclusions and Relevance:A high level of inconsistency was found between self-declared COI and the OPD among the physicians receiving the highest industry payments. Therefore, a policy of full disclosure for all publications, regardless of relevance, is proposed. No statistically significant association was demonstrated between academic rank or productivity and industrial payments.

IntroductionVery few pragmatic and community-level effectiveness trials integrate the use of qualitative research over all stages of the trial, to inform trial design, implementation optimization, results interpretation and post-trial policy recommendations. This is despite the growing demand for mixed methods research from funding agencies and awareness of the vital importance of qualitative and mixed methods research for understanding trial successes and challenges.DiscussionWe offer examples from work we have been involved in to illustrate how qualitative research conducted within trials can reveal vital contextual factors that influence implementation and outcomes, can enable an informed adaptation of trials as they are being conducted and can lead to the formulation of theory regarding the social and behavioural pathways of intervention, while also enabling community engagement in trial design and implementation. These examples are based on published findings from qualitative studies embedded within two ongoing large-scale studies demonstrating the population-level impacts of universal HIV testing and treatment strategies in southern and eastern Africa, and a qualitative study conducted alongside a clinical trial testing the adaptation, acceptability and experience of short-cycle therapy in children and adolescents living with HIV.ConclusionsWe advocate for the integration of qualitative with clinical and survey research methods in pragmatic clinical and community-level trials and implementation studies, and for increasing visibility of qualitative and mixed methods research in medical journals. Qualitative research from trials ideally should be published along with clinical outcome data, either integrated into the "main" trial papers or published concurrently in the same journal issue. Integration of qualitative research within trials can help not only to understand the why behind success or failure of interventions in different contexts, but also inform the adaptation of interventions that can facilitate their success, and lead to new alternative strategies and to policy changes that may be vital for achieving public health goals, including the end of AIDS.

Born out of the Human Genome Project (HGP), the field of genomics evolved with phenomenal speed into a dominant scientific and business force. While other efforts were intent on estimating the economic impact of the genomics revolution, we shift focus to the social and cultural capital generated by bridging together biology and computing-two of the constitutive disciplines of "genomics". We quantify this capital by measuring the pervasiveness of bio-computing cross-disciplinarity (XD) in genomics research during and after the HGP. To provide interlocking perspectives at the career and epistemic levels, we assembled three data sets to measure XD via (i) the collaboration network between 4190 biology and computing faculty from 155 departments in the United States, (ii) cross-departmental affiliations within a comprehensive set of human genomics publications, and (iii) the application of computational concepts and methods in research published in a preeminent genomics journal. Our results show the following: First, research featuring XD collaborations has higher citation impact than other disciplinary research-an effect observed at both the career and individual article levels. Second, genomics articles featuring XD methods tend to have higher citation impact than epistemically pure articles. Third, XD researchers of computing pedigree are drawn to the biology culture. This statistical evidence acquires deeper meaning when viewed against the organizational and knowledge transfer mechanisms revealed by the data models. With cross-disciplinary initiatives set to dominate the agenda of funding agencies, our case study provides a framework for appreciating the long-term effects of these initiatives on science and its standard-bearers.

BACKGROUND:The Hirsch index (h-index) quantifies research publication productivity for an individual, and has widely been considered a valuable measure of academic influence. In 2010, the Physician Payments Sunshine Act (PPSA) was introduced as a way to increase transparency regarding U.S. physician-industry relationships. The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship between industry payments and academic influence as measured by the h-index and number of publications among orthopaedic surgeons. We also examined the relationship of the h-index to National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding. METHODS:The h-indices of faculty members at academic orthopaedic surgery residency programs were obtained using the Scopus database. The PPSA web site was used to abstract their 2014 industry payments. NIH funding data were obtained from the NIH web site. Mann-Whitney U testing and Spearman correlations were used to explore the relationships. RESULTS:Of 3,501 surgeons, 78.3% received nonresearch payments, 9.2% received research payments, and 0.9% received NIH support. Nonresearch payments ranged from $6 to $4,538,501, whereas research payments ranged from $16 to $517,007. Surgeons receiving NIH or industry research funding had a significantly higher mean h-index and number of publications than those not receiving such funding. Surgeons receiving nonresearch industry payments had a slightly higher mean h-index and number of publications than those not receiving these kinds of payments. Both the h-index and the number of publications had weak positive correlations with industry nonresearch payment amount, industry research payment amount, and total number of industry payments. CONCLUSIONS:There are large differences in industry payment size and distribution among academic surgeons. The small percentage of academic surgeons who receive industry research support or NIH funding tend to have higher h-indices. For the overall population of orthopaedic surgery faculty, the h-index correlates poorly with the dollar amount and the total number of industry research payments. Regarding nonresearch industry payments, the h-index also appears to correlate poorly with the number and the dollar amount of payments. These results are encouraging because they suggest that industry bias may play a smaller role in the orthopaedic literature than previously thought.

IntroductionMedical educators often have great ideas for medical education scholarship but have difficulty converting their educational abstract or project into a published manuscript.MethodsDuring this workshop, participants addressed common challenges in developing an educational manuscript. In small-group case scenarios, participants discovered the importance of the "So what?" in making the case for their project. Incorporating conceptual frameworks, participants chose appropriate outcome metrics, discussed how to frame the discussion section, and ensured appropriate journal fit. After each small-group exercise, large-group discussions allowed the small groups to report back so that facilitators could highlight and reinforce key learning points. At the conclusion of the workshop, participants left with a checklist for creating an educational manuscript and an additional resources document to assist them in avoiding common pitfalls when turning their educational abstract/project into a publishable manuscript.ResultsThis workshop was presented in 2016 and 2017. Presenter evaluations were completed by 33 participants; 11 completed conference evaluations. The mean overall rating on presenter evaluations was 4.55 out of 5, while the conference evaluations mean was 3.73 out of 4. Comments provided on both evaluation tools highlighted the perceived effectiveness of the delivery and content. More than 50% of respondents stated that they planned to incorporate the use of conceptual frameworks in future work.DiscussionThis workshop helped participants address common challenges by providing opportunities for hands-on practice as well as tips and resources for use when submitting a medical education manuscript for publication.

In the 10 years since the inception of Implementation Science, we have witnessed a continued rise in the number of submissions received, reflecting the continued global interest in methods to enhance the uptake of research findings into healthcare practice and policy. We receive over 750 submissions annually, and there is now a large gap between what is submitted and what gets published. In this editorial, we restate the journal scope and current boundaries. We also identify some specific reporting issues that if addressed will help enhance the scientific reporting quality and transparency of the manuscripts we receive. We hope that this editorial acts as a further guide to researchers seeking to publish their work in Implementation Science.

IntroductionThe gender demographics within urology are changing as more women are entering the workforce. Since research productivity strongly influence career advancement, we aim to characterize gender differences in scholarly productivity and promotions in a cohort of graduated academic urologists.Materials and methodsUrologists who graduated between 2002 and 2008 from 34 residency programs affiliated with the top 50 urology hospitals as ranked in 2009 by U.S. News & World Report were followed longitudinally. Only urologists affiliated with an academic teaching hospital were included for analysis.ResultsA total of 543 residents graduated, 459 (84.5%) males and 84 (15.5%) females. Of these, 173 entered academia, 137 (79.2%) males and 36 (20.8%) females. Women had fewer publications compared to men (mean 19.3 versus 61.7, p = 0.001). Fewer women compared to men were promoted from assistant professor 11 (30.6%) versus 83 (60.6%), p = 0.005. Fewer women achieved associate professor 10 (27.8%) versus 67 (48.9%), p = 0.005 or professor ranks 1 (2.8%) versus 16 (11.7%), p = 0.005 respectively compared to men. In a multivariate logistic regression analysis, after controlling for the number of total publications and number of years since graduation, gender was not predictive of achieving promotion, OR = 0.81 (95% CI 0.31-2.13), p = 0.673.ConclusionsWomen are underrepresented in senior faculty roles in urology. Scholarly productivity seems to play a major role in academic promotion within urology. With increasing women in academic urology, further studies are needed to explore predictors of promotion and how women can achieve higher leadership roles in the field.

The academic mantra, to the point of cliché, is "publish or perish." Academia is generally too preoccupied with research and publishing to stand back and consider the driving forces behind the actual processes and systems involved. Indeed, academics are generally unaware of the factors that influence one's ability to publish: The drive to publish itself, readers' information overload, and editors' desire to increase journals' impact factors. This paper will detail these forces, and it behooves potential researchers to keep this veritable tripod of forces in mind since understanding the tripod may facilitate publication chances through the invocation and active implementation of news media theory. Media writers' remuneration is dependent on readers clicking on their articles. The media reel in readers by displaying an intriguing/bold/provocative headline and then keep the readers interested and hooked with initial sentences that not only give information but also tantalize with the promise of more to come. A paper's title and abstract should adhere to these precepts so as to increase the chances of avoiding immediate rejection at editorial or initial reviewer level. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

ObjectivesTraumatic Brain Injury (TBI) is a common and debilitating injury that is particularly prevalent in patients over 60. Given the influence of head injury on dementia (and vice versa), and the increased likelihood of ground-level falls, elderly patients are vulnerable to TBI. Educational interventions can increase knowledge and influence preventative activity to decrease the likelihood of further TBI. We sought to determine the efficacy of interactive tablet-based educational interventions in elderly patients on self-reported knowledge.Patients and methodsPatients and family members, ages 20-90, presenting to a NeuroTrauma clinic completed a pre-survey to assess baseline TBI or concussion knowledge, depending on their diagnosis. Participants then received an interactive electronic book (eBook), or a text-based pamphlet with identical information, and completed a post-survey to test interim knowledge improvement.ResultsAll participants (n=180), regardless of age, had significantly higher post-survey scores (p

Objectives. This study investigated the impact of an optional 12-week summer research program on the publication outcomes and satisfaction with the required research projects of doctor of pharmacy (PharmD) students at the Skaggs School of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences (SSPPS) at the University of California San Diego. Methods. PubMed and Google searches provided student publications, and satisfaction surveys submitted by students provided their perceptions of the research project value. Results. Of the studied cohort, the 130 students who fulfilled the requirement through the optional summer research program provided 61 full-text manuscripts and 113 abstracts. The 305 students who chose the standard pathway provided 35 full-text manuscripts and 34 abstracts. Students in both pathways agreed or strongly agreed that the research project was a valuable experience. Conclusions. The 12-week intensive summer research program improved the publication rate of pharmacy students and provided a high overall satisfaction with this independent learning experience.

PurposeTo learn the size, composition, and scholarly output of biostatistics, epidemiology, and research design (BERD) units in U.S. academic health centers (AHCs).MethodEach year for four years, the authors surveyed all BERD units in U.S. AHCs that were members of the Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) Consortium. In 2010, 46 BERD units were surveyed; in 2011, 55; in 2012, 60; and in 2013, 61.ResultsResponse rates to the 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013 surveys were 93.5%, 98.2%, 98.3%, and 86.9%, respectively. Overall, the size of BERD units ranged from 3 to 86 individuals. The median FTE in BERD units remained similar and ranged from 3.0 to 3.5 FTEs over the years. BERD units reported more availability of doctoral-level biostatisticians than doctoral-level epidemiologists. In 2011, 2012, and 2013, more than a third of BERD units provided consulting support on 101 to 200 projects. A majority of BERD units reported that between 25% and 75% (in 2011) and 31% to 70% (in 2012) of their consulting was to junior investigators. More than two-thirds of BERD units reported their contributions to the submission of 20 or more non-BERD grant or contract applications annually. Nearly half of BERD units reported 1 to 10 manuscripts submitted annually with a BERD practitioner as the first or corresponding author.ConclusionsThe findings regarding BERD units provide a benchmark against which to compare BERD resources and may be particularly useful for institutions planning to develop new units to support programs such as the CTSA.

Two independent surveys of PhD students in STEM fields at the University of California, Berkeley, indicate that underrepresented minorities (URMs) publish at significantly lower rates than non-URM males, placing the former at a significant disadvantage as they compete for postdoctoral and faculty positions. Differences as a function of gender reveal a similar, though less consistent, pattern. A conspicuous exception is Berkeley's College of Chemistry, where publication rates are tightly clustered as a function of ethnicity and gender, and where PhD students experience a highly structured program that includes early and systematic involvement in research, as well as clear expectations for publishing. Social science research supports the hypothesis that this more structured environment hastens the successful induction of diverse groups into the high-performance STEM academic track.

ObjectiveTo assess the adequacy of reporting of non-inferiority trials alongside the consistency and utility of current recommended analyses and guidelines.DesignReview of randomised clinical trials that used a non-inferiority design published between January 2010 and May 2015 in medical journals that had an impact factor >10 (JAMA Internal Medicine, Archives Internal Medicine, PLOS Medicine, Annals of Internal Medicine, BMJ, JAMA, Lancet and New England Journal of Medicine).Data sourcesOvid (MEDLINE).MethodsWe searched for non-inferiority trials and assessed the following: choice of non-inferiority margin and justification of margin; power and significance level for sample size; patient population used and how this was defined; any missing data methods used and assumptions declared and any sensitivity analyses used.ResultsA total of 168 trial publications were included. Most trials concluded non-inferiority (132; 79%). The non-inferiority margin was reported for 98% (164), but less than half reported any justification for the margin (77; 46%). While most chose two different analyses (91; 54%) the most common being intention-to-treat (ITT) or modified ITT and per-protocol, a large number of articles only chose to conduct and report one analysis (65; 39%), most commonly the ITT analysis. There was lack of clarity or inconsistency between the type I error rate and corresponding CIs for 73 (43%) articles. Missing data were rarely considered with (99; 59%) not declaring whether imputation techniques were used.ConclusionsReporting and conduct of non-inferiority trials is inconsistent and does not follow the recommendations in available statistical guidelines, which are not wholly consistent themselves. Authors should clearly describe the methods used and provide clear descriptions of and justifications for their design and primary analysis. Failure to do this risks misleading conclusions being drawn, with consequent effects on clinical practice.

ObjectivesTo evaluate the quality of reporting of single-patient (N-of-1) trials published in the medical literature based on the CONSORT Extension for N-of-1 Trials (CENT) statement and to examine factors that influence reporting quality in these trials.Study design and settingThrough a search of 10 electronic databases, we identified N-of-1 trials in clinical medicine published between January 1, 1985, and December 31, 2013. Two reviewers screened articles for eligibility and independently extracted data. Quality assessment was performed using the CENT statement. Discrepancies were resolved by consensus.ResultsWe identified 112 eligible N-of-1 trials published in 87 journals and involving a total of 2,278 patients. Overall, kappa agreement between the two evaluators for compliance with CENT criteria was 0.80 (95% confidence interval: 0.79, 0.82). Trials assessed pharmacology and therapeutics (87%), behavior (11%), or diagnosis (2%). Although 87% of articles described the trial design (including the planned number of subjects and length of treatment period), the median percentage of specific CENT elements reported in the Methods was 41% (range, 16-87%), and the median percentage in the Results was 38% (range, 32-93%). First authors were predominantly from North America (46%), Europe (29%), and Australia (17%). Quality of reporting was higher in articles published in journals with relatively high-impact factors (P = 0.004).ConclusionThe quality of reporting of published N-of-1 trials is variable and in need of improvement. Because the CENT guidelines were not published until near the end of the period of this review, these results represent a baseline from which improvement may be expected in the future.

Research is communicated more effectively and reproducibly when articles depict genetic designs consistently and fully disclose the complete sequences of all reported constructs. ACS Synthetic Biology is now providing authors with updated guidance and piloting a new tool and publication workflow that facilitate compliance with these recommended practices and standards for visual representation and data exchange.

A central tenet in support of research reproducibility is the ability to uniquely identify research resources, i.e., reagents, tools, and materials that are used to perform experiments. However, current reporting practices for research resources are insufficient to identify the exact resources that are reported or to answer basic questions such as "How did other studies use resource X?" To address this issue, the Resource Identification Initiative was launched as a pilot project to improve the reporting standards for research resources in the methods sections of papers and thereby improve identifiability and scientific reproducibility. The pilot engaged over 25 biomedical journal editors from most major publishers, as well as scientists and funding officials. Authors were asked to include Research Resource Identifiers (RRIDs) in their manuscripts prior to publication for three resource types: antibodies, model organisms, and tools (i.e., software and databases). RRIDs are assigned by an authoritative database, for example a model organism database, for each type of resource. To make it easier for authors to obtain RRIDs, resources were aggregated from the appropriate databases and their RRIDs made available in a central web portal ( http://scicrunch.org/resources ). RRIDs meet three key criteria: they are machine readable, free to generate and access, and are consistent across publishers and journals. The pilot was launched in February of 2014 and over 300 papers have appeared that report RRIDs. The number of journals participating has expanded from the original 25 to more than 40 with RRIDs appearing in 62 different journals to date. Here, we present an overview of the pilot project and its outcomes to date. We show that authors are able to identify resources and are supportive of the goals of the project. Identifiability of the resources post-pilot showed a dramatic improvement for all three resource types, suggesting that the project has had a significant impact on identifiability of research resources.

BackgroundDespite the ethical imperative to publish clinical trials when human subjects are involved, such data frequently remain unpublished. The objectives were to tabulate the rate and ascertain factors associated with eventual publication of clinical trial results reported as abstracts in the Proceedings of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (American Society of Clinical Oncology).Materials and methodsAbstracts describing clinical trials for patients with breast, lung, colorectal, ovarian, and prostate cancer from 2009 to 2011 were identified by using a comprehensive online database (http://meetinglibrary.asco.org/abstracts). Abstracts included reported results of a treatment or intervention assessed in a discrete, prospective clinical trial. Publication status at 4-6 years was determined by using a standardized search of PubMed. Primary outcomes were the rate of publication for abstracts of randomized and nonrandomized clinical trials. Secondary outcomes included factors influencing the publication of results.ResultsA total of 1,075 abstracts describing 378 randomized and 697 nonrandomized clinical trials were evaluated. Across all years, 75% of randomized and 54% of nonrandomized trials were published, with an overall publication rate of 61%. Sample size was a statistically significant predictor of publication for both randomized and nonrandomized trials (odds ratio [OR] per increase of 100 participants = 1.23 [1.11-1.36], p < .001; and 1.64 [1.15-2.34], p = .006, respectively). Among randomized studies, an industry coauthor or involvement of a cooperative group increased the likelihood of publication (OR 2.37, p = .013; and 2.21, p = .01, respectively). Among nonrandomized studies, phase II trials were more likely to be published than phase I (p < .001). Use of an experimental agent was not a predictor of publication in randomized (OR 0.76 [0.38-1.52]; p = .441) or nonrandomized trials (OR 0.89 [0.61-1.29]; p = .532).ConclusionThis is the largest reported study examining why oncology trials are not published. The data show that 4-6 years after appearing as abstracts, 39% of oncology clinical trials remain unpublished. Larger sample size and advanced trial phase were associated with eventual publication; among randomized trials, an industry-affiliated author or a cooperative group increased likelihood of publication. Unfortunately, we found that, despite widespread recognition of the problem and the creation of central data repositories, timely publishing of oncology clinical trials results remains unsatisfactory.

BackgroundThere is little information on how to increase the scientific writing productivity of early-stage investigators in the addictions field. A scientific writing seminar is presented in this article, aiming to encourage manuscript writing and dissemination of addiction research, and outcomes are reported for 14 years of the seminar.MethodsIn 14 years, there were 113 postdoctoral fellow enrollments in a 6-month writing seminar. Records of submission and publication rates of manuscripts were collected for 14 cohorts.ResultsOf the 113 participant enrollments, 97 (86%) submitted a manuscript for publication, and 87 participants (77%) published their manuscript.ConclusionsA scientific writing seminar may benefit writing productivity, but more research is needed to compare this training model with other existing models.

ObjectiveValid, reliable critical appraisal tools advance quality improvement (QI) intervention impacts by helping stakeholders identify higher quality studies. QI approaches are diverse and differ from clinical interventions. Widely used critical appraisal instruments do not take unique QI features into account and existing QI tools (eg, Standards for QI Reporting Excellence) are intended for publication guidance rather than critical appraisal. This study developed and psychometrically tested a critical appraisal instrument, the QI Minimum Quality Criteria Set (QI-MQCS) for assessing QI-specific features of QI publications.MethodsApproaches to developing the tool and ensuring validity included a literature review, in-person and online survey expert panel input, and application to empirical examples. We investigated psychometric properties in a set of diverse QI publications (N=54) by analysing reliability measures and item endorsement rates and explored sources of disagreement between reviewers.ResultsThe QI-MQCS includes 16 content domains to evaluate QI intervention publications: Organisational Motivation, Intervention Rationale, Intervention Description, Organisational Characteristics, Implementation, Study Design, Comparator Description, Data Sources, Timing, Adherence/Fidelity, Health Outcomes, Organisational Readiness, Penetration/Reach, Sustainability, Spread and Limitations. Median inter-rater agreement for QI-MQCS items was κ 0.57 (83% agreement). Item statistics indicated sufficient ability to differentiate between publications (median quality criteria met 67%). Internal consistency measures indicated coherence without excessive conceptual overlap (absolute mean interitem correlation=0.19). The critical appraisal instrument is accompanied by a user manual detailing What to consider, Where to look and How to rate.ConclusionsWe developed a ready-to-use, valid and reliable critical appraisal instrument applicable to healthcare QI intervention publications, but recognise scope for continuing refinement.

Systematic reviews should build on a protocol that describes the rationale, hypothesis, and planned methods of the review; few reviews report whether a protocol exists. Detailed, well-described protocols can facilitate the understanding and appraisal of the review methods, as well as the detection of modifications to methods and selective reporting in completed reviews. We describe the development of a reporting guideline, the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses for Protocols 2015 (PRISMA-P 2015). PRISMA-P consists of a 17-item checklist intended to facilitate the preparation and reporting of a robust protocol for the systematic review. Funders and those commissioning reviews might consider mandating the use of the checklist to facilitate the submission of relevant protocol information in funding applications. Similarly, peer reviewers and editors can use the guidance to gauge the completeness and transparency of a systematic review protocol submitted for publication in a journal or other medium.