scholarly journals Microbiome research in general and business newspapers: How many microbiome articles are published and which study designs make the news the most?

PLoS ONE ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (4) ◽  
pp. e0249835
Author(s):  
Andreu Prados-Bo ◽  
Gonzalo Casino
Keyword(s):  
New York ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Study Design ◽  
Observational Studies ◽  
New York Times ◽  
Environmental Studies ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Academic Journals ◽  
News Stories ◽  
Randomized Controlled

The microbiome is a matter of interest for science, consumers and business. Our objective is to quantify that interest in academic journals and newspapers, both quantitatively and by study design. We calculated the number of articles on the microbiome from the total number of biomedicine articles featured in both PubMed and Spanish science news agency SINC, from 2008 to 2018. We used the Factiva database to identify news stories on microbiome papers in three general newspapers (The New York Times, The Times and El País) and three business newspapers (The Wall Street Journal, the Financial Times and Expansión), from 2007 to 2019. Then, we compared news stories with microbiome papers in PubMed, while also analyzing the frequencies of five study design types, both in the newspapers and in the papers themselves. Microbiome papers represented 0.8% of biomedicine papers in PubMed from 2008 to 2018 (increasing from 0.4% to 1.4%), while microbiome news published by SINC represented 1.6% of total biomedical news stories during the same period (increasing from 0.2% to 2.2%). The number of news stories on microbiome papers correlated with the number of microbiome papers (0.91, p < 0.001) featured in general newspapers, but not in business ones. News stories on microbiome papers represented 78.9% and 42.7% of all microbiome articles in general and business newspapers, respectively. Both media outlet types tended to over-report observational studies in humans while under-reporting environmental studies, while the representation of systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials, randomized controlled trials and animal/laboratory studies was similar when comparing newspapers and PubMed. The microbiome is receiving increasing attention in academic journals and newspapers. News stories on the microbiome in general and business newspapers are mostly based on research findings and are more interested in observational studies in humans and less in environmental studies compared to PubMed.

Abstract P395: Statin Use in Late Life Does Not Impact Risk of Dementia or Cognitive Change in the Next Few Years: Results of a Systematic Review and Methodological Commentary

Circulation ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 131 (suppl_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Melinda C Power ◽  
Jennifer Weuve ◽  
A. R Sharrett ◽  
Deborah Blacker ◽  
Rebecca F Gottesman
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Protective Effect ◽  
Cognitive Decline ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Study Design ◽  
Observational Studies ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Study Quality ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Statin Use

Introduction: The recently published American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association guidelines on the management of cholesterol expanded the population recommended to receive statins by approximately 13 million United States adults. Statins are hypothesized to reduce risk of dementia through treatment of hyperlipidemia, through anti-oxidant and anti-inflammatory effects, or through influence on brain amyloid-beta or tau metabolism. However, firm conclusions about whether statin use impacts cognitive decline and dementia remain elusive. Existing reviews have focused solely on trials, did not systematically discuss study quality, or discussed and meta-analyzed all observational studies as a group, which may be inappropriate when differences in study design or analyses yield non-comparable effect estimates. Hypothesis: The purpose of this systematic review is to summarize findings from randomized controlled trials and observational cohort studies, study designs that are most useful for evaluating the putative causal effect of statin use on cognition. We hypothesized that the literature would support a protective effect of statin use on cognitive decline and dementia. METHODS: Following a systematic literature search, we grouped eligible reports by study design and statistical approach, and provide specific commentary on findings, as well as the potential for and direction of bias. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: While observational studies of statin use at or near the time of dementia diagnosis suggest a protective effect, these findings may be attributable to reverse causation. Randomized controlled trials and well-conducted observational studies of baseline statin use and subsequent cognition do not support a causal preventive effect of statin use in late-life on cognitive decline or dementia. This of course does not undermine existing recommendations regarding statin use for preventing cardiovascular disease. Important questions remain unanswered, including questions about the impact of midlife or long-term statin use. Much future human research on statins and cognition will be observational; careful study design and analysis will be required to avoid common sources of bias. We advocate continuing systematic review with attention to study quality and the likelihood of bias; the AlzRisk database entry on this topic, which is currently limited to studies reporting on Alzheimer’s disease, will be available shortly and will be updated over time (see www.alzrisk.org for reviews of 11 other potential non-genetic risk factors for Alzheimer’s disease).

scholarly journals High-cited favorable studies for COVID-19 treatments ineffective in large trials

2022 ◽  
Author(s):  
John P.A. Ioannidis
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Clinical Studies ◽  
Observational Studies ◽  
Randomized Trials ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Wide Dissemination ◽  
Highly Cited Articles ◽  
Highly Cited

Importance. COVID-19 has resulted in massive production, publication and wide dissemination of clinical studies trying to identify effective treatments. However, several widely touted treatments failed to show effectiveness in large well-done randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Objective. To evaluate for COVID-19 treatments that showed no benefits in subsequent large RCTs how many of their most-cited clinical studies had declared favorable results for these interventions. Methods. Scopus (last update December 23, 2021) identified articles on lopinavir-ritonavir, hydroxycholoroquine/azithromycin, remdesivir, convalescent plasma, colchicine or interferon (index interventions) that represented clinical trials and that had received >150 citations. Their conclusions were assessed and correlated with study design features. The ten most recent citations for the most-cited article on each index intervention were examined on whether they were critical to the highly-cited study. Altmetric scores were also obtained. Findings. 40 articles of clinical studies on these index interventions had received >150 citations (7 exceeded 1,000 citations). 20/40 (50%) had favorable conclusions and 4 were equivocal. Highly-cited articles with favorable conclusions were rarely RCTs while those without favorable conclusions were mostly RCTs (3/20 vs 15/20, p=0.0003). Only 1 RCT with favorable conclusions had sample size >160. Citation counts correlated strongly with Altmetric scores, in particular news items. Only 9 (15%) of 60 recent citations to the most highly-cited studies with favorable or equivocal conclusions were critical to the highly-cited study. Conclusion. Many clinical studies with favorable conclusions for largely ineffective COVID-19 treatments are uncritically heavily cited and disseminated. Early observational studies and small randomized trials may cause spurious claims of effectiveness that get perpetuated.

scholarly journals Impact of Ramadan Diurnal Intermittent Fasting on Hypoglycemic Events in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes: A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials and Observational Studies

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dana Abdelrahim ◽  
MoezAlIslam E. Faris ◽  
Mohamed Hassanein ◽  
Ayman Z. Shakir ◽  
Ayesha M. Yusuf ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Type 2 Diabetes ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Observational Studies ◽  
Dietary Behaviors ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Ramadan Fasting ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
The Impact

Ramadan is the 9th month of the lunar calendar during which Muslims abstain from food and drink between dawn and sunset for 30 consecutive days. Ramadan fasting is observed by all healthy Muslim adults, as well many Muslims with type 2 diabetes (T2DM). Hypoglycemic events (HE) are a serious complication associated with diabetes management and are associated with increased cardiovascular disease risk. Conflicting results have been reported concerning the incidence of HE among people with T2DM observing Ramadan fasting. This review summarizes available scientific evidence on the occurrence of HE and the effects of different moderators on the incidence of HE among patients with T2DM during Ramadan. We conducted a systematic review of available observational studies and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for patients with T2DM who fasted during Ramadan, with HE as the primary outcome. Ten databases were searched for relevant studies from inception until October 31, 2020. In total, 68 studies (35 RCTs and 33 observational studies) met the inclusion criteria. Non-sulfonylureas hypoglycemic medications showed superior effects in lowering the incidence of HE over sulfonylureas hypoglycemic medications. Variable moderators were associated with experiencing HE during Ramadan in both observational studies and RCTs, including sex, geographical location, body anthropometric indicators, season, dietary behaviors, fasting duration, time since diagnosis, and pre-fasting education. This comprehensive systematic review covered the largest number of observational and clinical studies investigating the impact of Ramadan on HE among patients with T2DM. The study highlights the significance of different moderators that influence the effect of Ramadan fasting on HE, including dietary behaviors, fasting time duration, sex, season, country, pre-fasting education, age, and time since diagnosis. The study also highlighted the impact of different hypoglycemic medications on HE and noted the superiority of non-sulfonylureas over sulfonylureas hypoglycemic medications in lowering the risk for hypoglycemia in people with T2DM during Ramadan fasting.

Observational studies: going beyond the boundaries of randomized controlled trials

2010 ◽  
Vol 88 ◽  
pp. S3-S9 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wenying Yang ◽  
Alexey Zilov ◽  
Pradana Soewondo ◽  
Ole Molskov Bech ◽  
Fawzia Sekkal ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Observational Studies ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Randomized Controlled

Mechanical Thromboprophylaxis in Critically Ill Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2006 ◽  
Vol 15 (4) ◽  
pp. 402-412 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anthony Limpus ◽  
Wendy Chaboyer ◽  
Ellen McDonald ◽  
Lukman Thalib
Keyword(s):  
Intensive Care ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Observational Studies ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Trauma Patients ◽  
Intensive Care Patients ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Confounding Variables

• Objective To systematically review the randomized trials, observational studies, and survey evidence on compression and pneumatic devices for thromboprophylaxis in intensive care patients. • Methods Published studies on the use of compression and pneumatic devices in intensive care patients were assessed. A meta-analysis was conducted by using the randomized controlled trials. • Results A total of 21 relevant studies (5 randomized controlled trials, 13 observational studies, and 3 surveys) were found. A total of 811 patients were randomized in the 5 randomized controlled trials; 3421 patients participated in the observational studies. Trauma patients only were enrolled in 4 randomized controlled trials and 4 observational studies. Meta-analysis of 2 randomized controlled trials with similar populations and outcomes revealed that use of compression and pneumatic devices did not reduce the incidence of venous thromboembolism. The pooled risk ratio was 2.37, indicative of favoring the control over the intervention in reducing the deep venous thrombosis; however, the 95% CI of 0.57 to 9.90 indicated no significant differences between the intervention and the control. A range of methodological issues, including bias and confounding variables, make meaningful interpretation of the observational studies difficult. • Conclusions The limited evidence suggests that use of compressive and pneumatic devices yields results not significantly different from results obtained with no treatment or use of low-molecular-weight heparin. Until large randomized controlled trials are conducted, the role of mechanical approaches to thromboprophylaxis for intensive care patients remains uncertain.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document