Search

Conflicts of interest exist in dermatology when professional judgement concerning a primary interest, such as research validity, may be influenced by a secondary interest, such as financial gain from a for-profit organization. Conflict of interest is a condition and not a behaviour, although there is clear evidence that gifts influence behaviour. Little has been written about conflicts of interest in dermatology. This series of papers raises awareness of the subject by exploring it in greater depth from the perspective of a dermatology researcher, an industry researcher, a dermatology journal editor, a health services researcher and a patient representative. Collectively, they illustrate the many ways in which conflicts can pervade the world of dermatology publications and patient support group activities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A response to letters to the editor about an article on qualitative research in the February 20, 2016 issue is presented.

The article explains that "The BMJ" journal cannot grant the request of some qualitative researchers to change its policy of rejecting qualitative research. Topics covered include the changes in the journal's research goals and objectives, preference of studies with definitive questions relevant to an international audience, lack of generalizable answers in qualitative studies and the focus of other journals in "The BMJ" family on qualitative studies such as "BMJ Open."

Objectives: To find what proportion of a broad set of health journals have published on climate change and health, how many articles they have published, and when they first published on the subject., Design: Bibliometric study., Setting and Participants: We conducted electronic searches in Ovid MEDLINE ALL for articles about climate change and human health published from 1860 to 31 December 2022 in 330 health journals. There were no limits by language or publication type. Results were independently screened by two raters for article eligibility., Results: After screening there were 2932 eligible articles published across 253 of the 330 journals between 1947 and 2022; most (2795/2932; 95%) were published in English. A few journals published articles in the early 90s, but there has been a rapid increase since about 2006. We were unable to categorise the types of publication but estimate that fewer than half are research papers. While articles were published in journals in 39 countries, two-thirds (1929/2932; 66%) were published in a journal published in the UK or the USA. Almost a quarter (77/330; 23%) of the journals published no eligible articles, and almost three-quarters (241/330; 73%) published five articles or fewer. The publication of joint editorials in over 200 journals in 2021 and 2022 boosted the number of journals publishing something on climate change and health. A third of the (112/330; 34%) journals in our sample published at least one of the joint editorials, and almost a third of those (32/112; 29%) were publishing on climate change and health for the first time., Conclusions: Health journals are rapidly increasing the amount they publish on climate change and health, but despite climate change being the major threat to global health many journals had until recently published little or nothing. A joint editorial published in multiple journals increased coverage, and for many journals it was the first thing they published on climate change and health., Competing Interests: Competing interests: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form at www.icmje.org/disclosure-of-interest/ and declare: no support from any organisation for the submitted work; SS is a full time employee of BMJ Publishing Group which published many of the articles included in this study. MLR is working on a self-funded PhD in conjunction with BMJ Publishing Group and Maastricht University. AP is working as a policy officer with the UK Health Alliance on Climate Change (UKHACC). RS was the editor of The BMJ from 1991 to 2004, an assistant editor before that from 1979, and is now chair of the UK Health Alliance on Climate Change, which organised and funded the joint editorial that has appeared in multiple journals. RS has long been concerned about environmental issues. FW recently completed a year as a sustainability fellowship at The BMJ, and she remains a freelance clinical editor at The BMJ. BR worked at UKHACC for 2 months in autumn 2022 and supported work on the second joint editorial. JM helped with the second joint editorial., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objectives: To conceptualise and discuss dissemination bias in qualitative research., Results: It is likely that the mechanisms leading to dissemination bias in quantitative research, including time lag, language, gray literature, and truncation bias also contribute to dissemination bias in qualitative research. These conceptual considerations have informed the development of a research agenda., Conclusion: Further exploration of dissemination bias in qualitative research is needed, including the extent of non-dissemination and related dissemination bias, and how to assess dissemination bias within qualitative evidence syntheses. We also need to consider the mechanisms through which dissemination bias in qualitative research could occur to explore approaches for reducing it., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: Adding, omitting or changing prespecified outcomes can result in bias because it increases the potential for unacknowledged or post hoc revisions of the planned analyses. Journals have adopted initiatives such as requiring the prospective registration of trials and the submission of study protocols to promote the transparency of reporting in clinical trials. The main objective of this feasibility study was to document the frequency and types of outcome discrepancy between prespecified outcomes in the protocol and reported outcomes in trials submitted to The BMJ., Methods: A review of all 3156 articles submitted to The BMJ between 1 September 2013 and 30 June 2014. Trial registry entries, protocols and trial reports of randomised controlled trials published by The BMJ and a random sample of those rejected were reviewed. Editorial, peer reviewer comments and author responses were also examined to ascertain any reasons for discrepancies., Results: In the study period, The BMJ received 311 trial manuscripts, 21 of which were subsequently published by the journal. In trials published by The BMJ, 27% (89/333) of the prespecified outcomes in the protocol were not reported in the submitted paper and 11% (31/275) of reported outcomes were not prespecified. In the sample of 21 trials rejected by The BMJ, 19% (63/335) of prespecified outcomes went unreported and 14% (45/317) of reported outcomes were not prespecified. None of the reasons provided by published authors were suggestive of outcome reporting bias as the reasons were unrelated to the results., Conclusions: Mandating the prospective registration of a trial and requesting that a protocol be uploaded when submitting a trial article to a journal has the potential to promote transparency and safeguard the evidence base against outcome reporting biases as a result of outcome discrepancies. Further guidance is needed with regard to documenting reasons for outcome discrepancies., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/)

Background: Peer reviewers are usually unpaid and their efforts not formally acknowledged. Some journals have difficulty finding appropriate reviewers able to complete timely reviews, resulting in publication delay., Objectives and Methods: A survey of peer reviewers from five biomedical journals was conducted to determine why reviewers decline to review and their opinions on reviewer incentives. Items were scored on 5-point Likert scales, with low scores indicating low importance or low agreement., Results: 551/890 (62%) reviewers responded. Factors rated most highly in importance for the decision to accept to review a paper included contribution of the paper to subject area (mean 3.67 (standard deviation (SD) 86)), relevance of topic to own work (mean 3.46 (SD 0.99)) and opportunity to learn something new (mean 3.41 (SD 0.96)). The most highly rated factor important in the decision to decline to review was conflict with other workload (mean 4.06 (SD 1.31)). Most respondents agreed that financial incentives would not be effective when time constraints are prohibitive (mean 3.59 (SD 1.01)). However, reviewers agreed that non-financial incentives might encourage reviewers to accept requests to review: free subscription to journal content (mean 3.72 (SD 1.04)), annual acknowledgement on the journal's website (mean 3.64 (SD 0.90)), more feedback about the outcome of the submission (mean 3.62 (SD 0.88)) and quality of the review (mean 3.60 (SD 0.89), and appointment of reviewers to the journal's editorial board (mean 3.57 (SD 0.99))., Conclusion: Reviewers are more likely to accept to review a manuscript when it is relevant to their area of interest. Lack of time is the principal factor in the decision to decline. Reviewing should be formally recognised by academic institutions and journals should acknowledge reviewers' work.

We describe a comparison of the responsiveness of three validated instruments when used with patients undergoing coronary bypass surgery (CABG) and angioplasty (PTCA). Patients were randomly selected to receive the Coronary Revascularisation Outcome Questionnaire (CROQ), and either the Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ), or the SF-36 before and 3 months after coronary revascularisation. At total of 199 patients (127 CABG, 72 PTCA) completed the CROQ; 55/72 CABG and 34/38 PTCA patients also completed the SAQ or SF-36, respectively. Effect sizes and standardised response means were calculated as change over the 3-month period for scales measuring similar constructs on each instrument. We used bootstrap estimation to derive 95% confidence intervals for differences in the responsiveness indices. For CABG, the CROQ demonstrated significantly greater change in psychosocial functioning than the SF-36, but less than the SAQ. For PTCA, the CROQ showed greater change for symptoms than the SAQ, but the SAQ was more responsive in terms of physical functioning; and the CROQ showed significantly greater change than the SF-36 for psychosocial functioning. There were no other significant differences between similar scales on the three instruments. In conclusion, the CROQ was as responsive as the disease-specific SAQ and more responsive than the generic SF-36.

Objectives: To evaluate how acceptable authors find the BMJ's current practice of publishing short versions of research articles in the paper journal and a longer version on the web and to determine authors' attitudes towards publishing only abstracts in the paper journal and publishing unedited versions on bmj.com once papers have been accepted for publication., Design: Two cross sectional surveys., Setting: General medical journal., Participants: Survey 1: corresponding authors of a consecutive sample of published BMJ research articles that had undergone the ELPS (electronic long, paper short) process. Survey 2: corresponding authors of consecutive research articles submitted to BMJ., Results: Response rates were 90% (104/115) in survey 1 and 75% (213/283) in survey 2. ELPS is largely acceptable to BMJ authors, but there is some concern that electronic information is not permanent and uncertainty about how versions are referenced. While authors who had experienced ELPS reported some problems with editors shortening papers, most were able to rectify these. Overall, 70% thought that the BMJ should continue to use ELPS; 49% thought that publishing just the abstract in the printed journal with the full version only on bmj.com was unacceptable; and 23% thought it unacceptable to post unedited versions on bmj.com once a paper had been accepted for publication., Conclusions: It is acceptable to authors to publish short versions of research articles in the printed version of a general medical journal with longer versions on the website. Authors dislike the idea of publishing only abstracts in the printed journal but are in favour of posting accepted articles on the website ahead of the printed version.

Objective: To determine the effects of training on the quality of peer review., Design: Single blind randomised controlled trial with two intervention groups receiving different types of training plus a control group., Setting and Participants: Reviewers at a general medical journal. Interventions Attendance at a training workshop or reception of a self taught training package focusing on what editors want from reviewers and how to critically appraise randomised controlled trials., Main Outcome Measures: Quality of reviews of three manuscripts sent to reviewers at four to six monthly intervals, evaluated using the validated review quality instrument; number of deliberate major errors identified; time taken to review the manuscripts; proportion recommending rejection of the manuscripts., Results: Reviewers in the self taught group scored higher in review quality after training than did the control group (score 2.85 v 2.56; difference 0.29, 95% confidence interval 0.14 to 0.44; P = 0.001), but the difference was not of editorial significance and was not maintained in the long term. Both intervention groups identified significantly more major errors after training than did the control group (3.14 and 2.96 v 2.13; P < 0.001), and this remained significant after the reviewers' performance at baseline assessment was taken into account. The evidence for benefit of training was no longer apparent on further testing six months after the interventions. Training had no impact on the time taken to review the papers but was associated with an increased likelihood of recommending rejection (92% and 84% v 76%; P = 0.002)., Conclusions: Short training packages have only a slight impact on the quality of peer review. The value of longer interventions needs to be assessed.

Objectives: To estimate the proportion of advertised non-consultant hospital posts that do not conform to nationally recognised terms and conditions of service and to investigate why these posts exist, who fills them, and what the doctors in such jobs do., Design: Analysis of job advertisements and a cross sectional survey of advertisers., Setting: Job advertisements in one of the leading UK publications listing hospital doctor vacancies (BMJ Careers)., Results: Nearly a quarter of non-consultant posts advertised in the two study periods (23% and 21%) were for non-standard grade posts. A questionnaire was sent to the medical staffing officer for each post. Of 430 questionnaires sent out 192 (45%) were returned. 98 trusts said they advertised non-standard grades because there was no more funding from the deanery for approved posts and 75 because service needs could not be met by doctors in training grades. In 132 posts (69%) the post holder would be required to do on-call work, and 50 advertisers (26%) required on-call duty for 1 in 5 or more frequently, which would conflict with the European Working Time Directive. 131 advertisers (68%) expected the posts to be filled by doctors from outside the European Economic Area., Conclusions: Non-standard grade posts are mostly being created to meet service requirements when there is no more funding for standard training posts and are expected to be filled by doctors from overseas. Doctors in such posts can be more easily exploited and their careers hindered. The Department of Health's annual census should include non-standard grade doctors.