Search

Your search keyword '"TER RIET, Gerben"' showing total 933 results
Start Over Author "TER RIET, Gerben"
933 results on '"TER RIET, Gerben"'

3. Understanding the provenance and quality of methods is essential for responsible reuse of FAIR data

Author

Weissgerber, Tracey L., Gazda, Małgorzata Anna, Nilsonne, Gustav, ter Riet, Gerben, Cobey, Kelly D., Prieß-Buchheit, Julia, Noro, Jorge, Schulz, Robert, Tijdink, Joeri K., Bobrov, Evgeny, Bannach-Brown, Alexandra, Franzen, Delwen L., Moschini, Ugo, Naudet, Florian, Mansmann, Ulrich, Salholz-Hillel, Maia, Bandrowski, Anita, and Macleod, Malcolm R.

Published
2024
Full Text
View/download PDF

4. Is the future of peer review automated?

Author

Schulz, Robert, Barnett, Adrian, Bernard, René, Brown, Nicholas, Byrne, Jennifer, Eckmann, Peter, Gazda, Małgorzata, Kilicoglu, Halil, Prager, Eric, Salholz-Hillel, Maia, Ter Riet, Gerben, Vines, Timothy, Vorland, Colby, Zhuang, Han, Bandrowski, Anita, and Weissgerber, Tracey

Subjects
Automated screening, Peer review, Reproducibility, Rigor, Transparency, Editorial Policies, Peer Review, Research, Research Design, Research Report
Abstract

The rising rate of preprints and publications, combined with persistent inadequate reporting practices and problems with study design and execution, have strained the traditional peer review system. Automated screening tools could potentially enhance peer review by helping authors, journal editors, and reviewers to identify beneficial practices and common problems in preprints or submitted manuscripts. Tools can screen many papers quickly, and may be particularly helpful in assessing compliance with journal policies and with straightforward items in reporting guidelines. However, existing tools cannot understand or interpret the paper in the context of the scientific literature. Tools cannot yet determine whether the methods used are suitable to answer the research question, or whether the data support the authors conclusions. Editors and peer reviewers are essential for assessing journal fit and the overall quality of a paper, including the experimental design, the soundness of the studys conclusions, potential impact and innovation. Automated screening tools cannot replace peer review, but may aid authors, reviewers, and editors in improving scientific papers. Strategies for responsible use of automated tools in peer review may include setting performance criteria for tools, transparently reporting tool performance and use, and training users to interpret reports.

Published
2022

7. Apathy and depressive symptoms in older people and incident myocardial infarction, stroke, and mortality: a systematic review and meta-analysis of individual participant data.

Author

Eurelings, Lisa Sm, van Dalen, Jan Willem, Ter Riet, Gerben, Moll van Charante, Eric P, Richard, Edo, van Gool, Willem A, Almeida, Osvaldo P, Alexandre, Tiago S, Baune, Bernhard T, Bickel, Horst, Cacciatore, Francesco, Cooper, Cyrus, de Craen, Ton Ajm, Degryse, Jean-Marie, Di Bari, Mauro, Duarte, Yeda A, Feng, Liang, Ferrara, Nicola, Flicker, Leon, Gallucci, Maurizio, Guaita, Antonio, Harrison, Stephanie L, Katz, Mindy J, Lebrão, Maria L, Leung, Jason, Lipton, Richard B, Mengoni, Marta, Ng, Tze Pin, Østbye, Truls, Panza, Francesco, Polito, Letizia, Sander, Dirk, Solfrizzi, Vincenzo, Syddall, Holly E, van der Mast, Roos C, Vaes, Bert, Woo, Jean, Yaffe, Kristine, and ICARA Study Group

Subjects
ICARA Study Group, apathy, cardiovascular disease, depression, meta-analysis, myocardial infarction, older people, stroke, Clinical Sciences, Public Health and Health Services
Abstract

Background:Previous findings suggest that apathy symptoms independently of depressive symptoms measured using the Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS) are associated with cardiovascular disease (CVD) in older individuals. Aims:To study whether apathy and depressive symptoms in older people are associated with future CVD, stroke, and mortality using individual patient-data meta-analysis. Methods:Medline, Embase, and PsycInfo databases up to September 3, 2013, were systematically searched without language restrictions. We sought prospective studies with older (mean age ≥65 years) community-dwelling populations in which the GDS was employed and subsequent stroke and/or CVD were recorded to provide individual participant data. Apathy symptoms were defined as the three apathy-related subitems of the GDS, with depressive symptoms the remaining items. We used myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, and all-cause mortality as main outcomes. Analyses were adjusted for age, sex, and MI/stroke history. An adaptation of the Newcastle-Ottawa scale was used to evaluate bias. Hazard ratios were calculated using one-stage random-effect Cox regression models. Results:Of the 52 eligible studies, 21 (40.4%) were included, comprising 47,625 older people (mean age [standard deviation] 74 [7.4] years), over a median follow-up of 8.8 years. Participants with apathy symptoms had a 21% higher risk of MI (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.08-1.36), a 37% higher risk of stroke (95% CI 1.18-1.59), and a 47% higher risk of all-cause mortality (95% CI 1.38-1.56). Participants with depressive symptoms had a comparably higher risk of stroke (HR 1.36, 95% CI 1.18-1.56) and all-cause mortality (HR 1.44, 95% CI 1.35-1.53), but not of MI (HR 1.08, 95% CI 0.91-1.29). Associations for isolated apathy and isolated depressive symptoms were comparable. Sensitivity analyses according to risk of bias yielded similar results. Conclusion:Our findings stress the clinical importance of recognizing apathy independently of depressive symptoms, and could help physicians identify persons at increased risk of vascular disease.

Published
2018

24. Large-scale international validation of the ADO index in subjects with COPD: an individual subject data analysis of 10 cohorts.

Author

Puhan, Milo A, Hansel, Nadia N, Sobradillo, Patricia, Enright, Paul, Lange, Peter, Hickson, Demarc, Menezes, Ana M, ter Riet, Gerben, Held, Ulrike, Domingo-Salvany, Antonia, Mosenifar, Zab, Antó, Josep M, Moons, Karel GM, Kessels, Alphons, Garcia-Aymerich, Judith, and International COPD Cohorts Collaboration Working Group

Subjects
International COPD Cohorts Collaboration Working Group, Clinical Sciences, Public Health and Health Services, Other Medical and Health Sciences
Abstract

BackgroundLittle evidence on the validity of simple and widely applicable tools to predict mortality in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) exists.ObjectiveTo conduct a large international study to validate the ADO index that uses age, dyspnoea and FEV(1) to predict 3-year mortality and to update it in order to make prediction of mortality in COPD patients as generalisable as possible.DesignIndividual subject data analysis of 10 European and American cohorts (n=13 914).SettingPopulation-based, primary, secondary and tertiary care.PatientsCOPD GOLD stages I-IV.MeasurementsWe validated the original ADO index. We then obtained an updated ADO index in half of our cohorts to improve its predictive accuracy, which in turn was validated comprehensively in the remaining cohorts using discrimination, calibration and decision curve analysis and a number of sensitivity analyses.Results1350 (9.7%) of all subjects with COPD (60% male, mean age 61 years, mean FEV(1) 66% predicted) had died at 3 years. The original ADO index showed high discrimination but poor calibration (p

Published
2012

28. Transparency in conducting and reporting research: A survey of authors, reviewers, and editors across scholarly disciplines

Author

Malički, Mario, Aalbersberg, IJsbrand Jan, Bouter, Lex, Mulligan, Adrian, Ter Riet, Gerben, Malički, Mario, Aalbersberg, IJsbrand Jan, Bouter, Lex, Mulligan, Adrian, and Ter Riet, Gerben

Abstract

Calls have been made for improving transparency in conducting and reporting research, improving work climates, and preventing detrimental research practices. To assess attitudes and practices regarding these topics, we sent a survey to authors, reviewers, and editors. We received 3,659 (4.9%) responses out of 74,749 delivered emails. We found no significant differences between authors', reviewers', and editors' attitudes towards transparency in conducting and reporting research, or towards their perceptions of work climates. Undeserved authorship was perceived by all groups as the most prevalent detrimental research practice, while fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, and not citing prior relevant research, were seen as more prevalent by editors than authors or reviewers. Overall, 20% of respondents admitted sacrificing the quality of their publications for quantity, and 14% reported that funders interfered in their study design or reporting. While survey respondents came from 126 different countries, due to the survey's overall low response rate our results might not necessarily be generalizable. Nevertheless, results indicate that greater involvement of all stakeholders is needed to align actual practices with current recommendations.

Published
2023
Full Text
View/download PDF

37. Elucidating the effects of peer review

Author

Malički, Mario, primary, Jerončić, Ana, additional, Bouter, Lex, additional, Ter Riet, Gerben, additional, Ioannidis, John P.A., additional, Aalbersberg, IJsbrand J., additional, and Goodman, Steven N., additional

Published
2022
Full Text
View/download PDF

42. International multi‐stakeholder consensus statement on clinical trial integrity.

Author

Khan, Khalid Saeed, Khalaf, Yacoub, Fawzy, Mohamed, Chien, Patrick, Bueno‐Cavanillas, Aurora, Nuñez‐Nuñez, Maria, Maes‐Carballo, Marta, Serour, Gamal, Aboulghar, Mohamed, ter Riet, Gerben, Zamora, Javier, Andrews, Jeffery, Sallam, Hassan, Wilkinson, Jack, Abdelghaffar, Hazem, Walczak, Jacek, Wasim, Tayyiba, Moss, Ngawai, Maghraby, Hassan, and Zhang, Jun Jim

Subjects
CLINICAL trials, LIFE cycles (Biology), DELPHI method, RANDOMIZED controlled trials, CONSUMERS
Abstract

Objective: To prepare a set of statements for randomised clinical trials (RCT) integrity through an international multi‐stakeholder consensus. Methods: The consensus was developed via: multi‐country multidisciplinary stakeholder group composition and engagement; evidence synthesis of 55 systematic reviews concerning RCT integrity; anonymised two‐round modified Delphi survey with consensus threshold based on the average percentage of majority opinions; and, a final consensus development meeting. Prospective registrations: (https://osf.io/bhncy, https://osf.io/3ursn). Results: There were 30 stakeholders representing 15 countries from five continents including triallists, ethicists, methodologists, statisticians, consumer representatives, industry representatives, systematic reviewers, funding body panel members, regulatory experts, authors, journal editors, peer‐reviewers and advisors for resolving integrity concerns. Delphi survey response rate was 86.7% (26/30 stakeholders). There were 111 statements (73 stakeholder‐provided, 46 systematic review‐generated, 8 supported by both) in the initial long list, with eight additional statements provided during the consensus rounds. Through consensus the final set consolidated 81 statements (49 stakeholder‐provided, 41 systematic review‐generated, 9 supported by both). The entire RCT life cycle was covered by the set of statements including general aspects (n = 6), design and approval (n = 11), conduct and monitoring (n = 19), reporting of protocols and findings (n = 20), post‐publication concerns (n = 12), and future research and development (n = 13). Conclusion: Implementation of this multi‐stakeholder consensus statement is expected to enhance RCT integrity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Published
2023
Full Text
View/download PDF

44. Large-scale external validation and comparison of prognostic models: an application to chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

Author

Guerra, Beniamino, Haile, Sarah R., Lamprecht, Bernd, Ramírez, Ana S., Martinez-Camblor, Pablo, Kaiser, Bernhard, Alfageme, Inmaculada, Almagro, Pere, Casanova, Ciro, Esteban-González, Cristóbal, Soler-Cataluña, Juan J., de-Torres, Juan P., Miravitlles, Marc, Celli, Bartolome R., Marin, Jose M., ter Riet, Gerben, Sobradillo, Patricia, Lange, Peter, Garcia-Aymerich, Judith, Antó, Josep M., Turner, Alice M., Han, Meilan K., Langhammer, Arnulf, Leivseth, Linda, Bakke, Per, Johannessen, Ane, Oga, Toru, Cosio, Borja, Ancochea-Bermúdez, Julio, Echazarreta, Andres, Roche, Nicolas, Burgel, Pierre-Régis, Sin, Don D., Soriano, Joan B., Puhan, Milo A., and for the 3CIA collaboration

Published
2018
Full Text
View/download PDF

46. Ken je beperkingen en schrijf ze op: Zelfkritisch kijken naar je eigen werk

Author

ter Riet, Gerben, Faculteit Gezondheid, and Lectoraat Voeding en Beweging

Abstract

Door verslag te doen van je eigen zwaktes kun je volgens Gerben ter Riet een bijdrage leveren aan de ‘georganiseerde scepsis’ van de onderzoeksgemeenschap. ‘Voor mij persoonlijk geldt dat ik de gebreken in het onderzoek van anderen veel beter zie dan die in onderzoek waarvan ik de bedenker en projectleider ben.’

Published
2022

47. Prevalence of questionable research practices, research misconduct and their potential explanatory factors: A survey among academic researchers in the Netherlands

Author

Gopalakrishna, Gowri, ter Riet, Gerben, Vink, Gerko, Stoop, Ineke, Wicherts, Jelte M., Bouter, Lex M., Gopalakrishna, Gowri, ter Riet, Gerben, Vink, Gerko, Stoop, Ineke, Wicherts, Jelte M., and Bouter, Lex M.

Abstract

Prevalence of research misconduct, questionable research practices (QRPs) and their associations with a range of explanatory factors has not been studied sufficiently among academic researchers. The National Survey on Research Integrity targeted all disciplinary fields and academic ranks in the Netherlands. It included questions about engagement in fabrication, falsification and 11 QRPs over the previous three years, and 12 explanatory factor scales. We ensured strict identity protection and used the randomized response method for questions on research misconduct. 6,813 respondents completed the survey. Prevalence of fabrication was 4.3% (95% CI: 2.9, 5.7) and of falsification 4.2% (95% CI: 2.8, 5.6). Prevalence of QRPs ranged from 0.6% (95% CI: 0.5, 0.9) to 17.5% (95% CI: 16.4, 18.7) with 51.3% (95% CI: 50.1, 52.5) of respondents engaging frequently in at least one QRP. Being a PhD candidate or junior researcher increased the odds of frequently engaging in at least one QRP, as did being male. Scientific norm subscription (odds ratio (OR) 0.79; 95% CI: 0.63, 1.00) and perceived likelihood of detection by reviewers (OR 0.62, 95% CI: 0.44, 0.88) were associated with engaging in less research misconduct. Publication pressure was associated with more often engaging in one or more QRPs frequently (OR 1.22, 95% CI: 1.14, 1.30). We found higher prevalence of misconduct than earlier surveys. Our results suggest that greater emphasis on scientific norm subscription, strengthening reviewers in their role as gatekeepers of research quality and curbing the “publish or perish” incentive system promotes research integrity.

Published
2022

48. Prevalence of responsible research practices among academics in The Netherlands

Author

Gopalakrishna, Gowri, Wicherts, Jelte M., Vink, Gerko, Stoop, Ineke, van den Akker, Olmo R., ter Riet, Gerben, Bouter, Lex M., Gopalakrishna, Gowri, Wicherts, Jelte M., Vink, Gerko, Stoop, Ineke, van den Akker, Olmo R., ter Riet, Gerben, and Bouter, Lex M.

Abstract

Background: Traditionally, research integrity studies have focused on research misbehaviors and their explanations. Over time, attention has shifted towards preventing questionable research practices and promoting responsible ones. However, data on the prevalence of responsible research practices, especially open methods, open codes and open data and their underlying associative factors, remains scarce. Methods: We conducted a web-based anonymized questionnaire, targeting all academic researchers working at or affiliated to a university or university medical center in The Netherlands, to investigate the prevalence and potential explanatory factors of 11 responsible research practices. Results: A total of 6,813 academics completed the survey, the results of which show that prevalence of responsible practices differs substantially across disciplines and ranks, with 99 percent avoiding plagiarism in their work but less than 50 percent pre-registering a research protocol. Arts and humanities scholars as well as PhD candidates and junior researchers engaged less often in responsible research practices. Publication pressure negatively affected responsible practices, while mentoring, scientific norms subscription and funding pressure stimulated them. Conclusions: Understanding the prevalence of responsible research practices across disciplines and ranks, as well as their associated explanatory factors, can help to systematically address disciplinary- and academic rank-specific obstacles, and thereby facilitate responsible conduct of research.

Published
2022

49. Prevalence of responsible research practices among academics in The Netherlands

Author

Leerstoel van Buuren, Methodology and statistics for the behavioural and social sciences, Gopalakrishna, Gowri, Wicherts, Jelte M., Vink, Gerko, Stoop, Ineke, van den Akker, Olmo R., ter Riet, Gerben, Bouter, Lex M., Leerstoel van Buuren, Methodology and statistics for the behavioural and social sciences, Gopalakrishna, Gowri, Wicherts, Jelte M., Vink, Gerko, Stoop, Ineke, van den Akker, Olmo R., ter Riet, Gerben, and Bouter, Lex M.

Published
2022

50. Prevalence of questionable research practices, research misconduct and their potential explanatory factors: A survey among academic researchers in the Netherlands

Author

Leerstoel van Buuren, Methodology and statistics for the behavioural and social sciences, Gopalakrishna, Gowri, ter Riet, Gerben, Vink, Gerko, Stoop, Ineke, Wicherts, Jelte M., Bouter, Lex M., Leerstoel van Buuren, Methodology and statistics for the behavioural and social sciences, Gopalakrishna, Gowri, ter Riet, Gerben, Vink, Gerko, Stoop, Ineke, Wicherts, Jelte M., and Bouter, Lex M.

Published
2022

Catalog

Books, media, physical & digital resources
See catalog results