scholarly journals Imaging methods are vastly underreported in biomedical research

eLife ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 9 ◽  
Author(s):  
Guillermo Marqués ◽  
Thomas Pengo ◽  
Mark A Sanders
Keyword(s):  
Biomedical Research ◽  
Research Articles ◽  
Original Research ◽  
Biomedical Sciences ◽  
Quality Of Reporting ◽  
Imaging Methods ◽  
Funding Agencies ◽  
Microscopy Techniques

A variety of microscopy techniques are used by researchers in the life and biomedical sciences. As these techniques become more powerful and more complex, it is vital that scientific articles containing images obtained with advanced microscopes include full details about how each image was obtained. To explore the reporting of such details we examined 240 original research articles published in eight journals. We found that the quality of reporting was poor, with some articles containing no information about how images were obtained, and many articles lacking important basic details. Efforts by researchers, funding agencies, journals, equipment manufacturers and staff at shared imaging facilities are required to improve the reporting of experiments that rely on microscopy techniques.

scholarly journals Why we need to report more than 'Data were Analyzed by t-tests or ANOVA'

eLife ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 7 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tracey L Weissgerber ◽  
Oscar Garcia-Valencia ◽  
Vesna D Garovic ◽  
Natasa M Milic ◽  
Stacey J Winham
Keyword(s):  
Statistical Tests ◽  
Critical Evaluation ◽  
Research Articles ◽  
Original Research ◽  
Biomedical Sciences ◽  
Quality Of Reporting ◽  
Essential Information ◽  
Post Hoc ◽  
Selection Of

Transparent reporting is essential for the critical evaluation of studies. However, the reporting of statistical methods for studies in the biomedical sciences is often limited. This systematic review examines the quality of reporting for two statistical tests, t-tests and ANOVA, for papers published in a selection of physiology journals in June 2017. Of the 328 original research articles examined, 277 (84.5%) included an ANOVA or t-test or both. However, papers in our sample were routinely missing essential information about both types of tests: 213 papers (95% of the papers that used ANOVA) did not contain the information needed to determine what type of ANOVA was performed, and 26.7% of papers did not specify what post-hoc test was performed. Most papers also omitted the information needed to verify ANOVA results. Essential information about t-tests was also missing in many papers. We conclude by discussing measures that could be taken to improve the quality of reporting.

ASSESSMENT OF QUALITY OF JOURNALS AND ARTICLES FOR RESEARCH COMMUNICATIONS

INDIAN DRUGS ◽  
2012 ◽  
Vol 49 (06) ◽  
pp. 5-11
Author(s):  
H Avasarala ◽  
◽  
S. K Dinakaran ◽  
K. R. Vinod ◽  
S. Sandhya ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Impact Factor ◽  
Present Article ◽  
Journal Impact Factor ◽  
Standard Setting ◽  
Research Articles ◽  
Original Research ◽  
Evaluation Tools ◽  
Journal Impact ◽  
Setting Parameters

Currently the worth of original research articles and reviews is being estimated by the quality of journal which selects the article for publication. The best the journal is cited, the better it moves into the researchers mind and thus it has a good impact factor depending on the citation. The present article helps to assess a journal and choose frequently cited journal. Impact Factor (IF), Index Copernicus (IC)and SC Imago Journal and Country Rank (SJR) are discussed. The various evaluation tools that set the standards are listed with method for calculate the standard setting parameters. This article may help to choose the apt journal for work of choice.

scholarly journals A checklist is associated with increased quality of reporting preclinical biomedical research: A systematic review

PLoS ONE ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 12 (9) ◽  
pp. e0183591 ◽  
Author(s):  
SeungHye Han ◽  
Tolani F. Olonisakin ◽  
John P. Pribis ◽  
Jill Zupetic ◽  
Joo Heung Yoon ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Biomedical Research ◽  
Quality Of Reporting

Quality Assessment of Pharmacoeconomic Abstracts of Original Research Articles in Selected Journals

1997 ◽  
Vol 31 (4) ◽  
pp. 423-428 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kostas Trakas ◽  
Antonio Addis ◽  
Dorothy Kruk ◽  
Yvona Buczek ◽  
Michael Iskedjian ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Health Economics ◽  
Quality Assessment ◽  
Cost Minimization ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
Cost Utility ◽  
Quality Analysis ◽  
Research Articles ◽  
Original Research ◽  
Economics Journals

Objective To assess and compare the quality of pharmacoeconomic abstracts of cost-minimization analyses, cost–effectiveness analyses, cost–utility analyses, and cost-benefit analyses of original research articles in selected medical, pharmacy, and health economics journals. Methods MEDLINE was used to identify articles in selected medical, pharmacy, and health economics journals using the MeSH word “economic” and text words “cost” and “pharmacoeconomic”; the journal PharmacoEconomics was searched manually. All retrieved abstracts were evaluated. Original, comparative (at least one drug comparator) research articles (1990–1994) reporting both costs and clinical outcomes were included in the quality analysis. Abstract quality was assessed as a percentage by using a checklist with 29 objective criteria. Group consensus produced interrater reliability greater than 0.8. Results One thousand two published abstracts labeled with the above key words were identified. Of these, 951 were excluded from quality assessment because they were not original research (18%), were not pharmacoeconomic research (47%), lacked a drug comparator (35%), or did not report a clinical outcome (0.5%). Thus, the quality of 51 (5% of the total) remaining abstracts was assessed. Overall scores were 56% in 1990 and 58% in 1994 (p = 0.094). Medical articles scored highest (61.5%; n = 25), pharmacy articles were next (54.3%; n = 5), and health economics articles were lowest (53.4%; n = 21) (p = 0.091); structured abstracts scored significantly higher (62.5%; n = 20) than unstructured (53.3%; n = 31) (p = 0.003). Conclusions Abstract quality was generally poor, with no significant change in quality over time. Medical journals scored highest, probably because they use structured abstracts. Guidelines for structured pharmacoeconomic abstracts may assist in improving quality.

scholarly journals Welcome Message from Editor-in-Chief of Journal of Clinical and Biomedical Investigation

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-1
Author(s):  
Castejón OJ
Keyword(s):  
Biomedical Research ◽  
Research Performance ◽  
Scientific Work ◽  
Bibliographic Databases ◽  
Complex Nature ◽  
Original Research ◽  
Biomedical Sciences ◽  
Critical Approach ◽  
Biomedical Investigation ◽  
Design And Methods

This new Journal of Clinical and Biomedical Investigation appears as an expression of the vertiginous and rapid advancements in worldwide in biomedical Sciences and Clinical Research. It will be an online indexed journal in major bibliographic databases and adhere to strict standards of editorial quality in a globalized academic scenario. Our main goal is to publish the most relevant original research and secondly to obtain the broadest possible visibility and the widest dissemination of their scientific contents. We will also publish preliminary research communications, review papers and postgraduate thesis and seminars highly recommended by their mentors or advisors. We will adopt the peer review system and we ask to the authors to send the address and email of three reviewers. The prestige of our journal will be measured by its impact factor and other recent emerging and alternative indicators of research performance. Due to its complex nature modern biomedical research has become increasingly inter- and transdisciplinary and collaborative scientific work. Educational researchers should describe concepts, study design and methods in order to provide transparency, clarity, appropriate ethic guidelines, and a constructive and critical approach. In such a way we can obtain a modern and updated perspective that allows the readers interested to study in depth this emerging field of biomedical research.

scholarly journals Quality of reporting of otorhinolaryngology articles using animal models with the ARRIVE statement

2017 ◽  
Vol 52 (1) ◽  
pp. 79-87 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aren Bezdjian ◽  
Sjaak F L Klis ◽  
Jeroen P M Peters ◽  
Wilko Grolman ◽  
Inge Stegeman
Keyword(s):  
Animal Models ◽  
Animal Studies ◽  
Quality Of Reporting ◽  
Research Reporting ◽  
In Vivo Experiments ◽  
Funding Agencies ◽  
Pubmed Database ◽  
In Vivo Animal Models

Research involving animal models is crucial for the advancement of science, provided that experiments are designed, performed, interpreted, and reported well. In order to investigate the quality of reporting of articles in otorhinolaryngology research using animal models, a PubMed database search was conducted to retrieve eligible articles. The checklist of the ARRIVE (Animal Research: Reporting of In Vivo Experiments) guidelines was used to assess the quality of reporting of articles published in ear, nose and throat (ENT) and multidisciplinary journals. Two authors screened titles, abstracts, and full texts to select articles reporting otorhinolaryngology research using in vivo animal models. ENT journals ( n = 35) reported a mean of 57.1% adequately scored ARRIVE items (median: 58.3%; 95% confidence interval [CI; 53.4–60.9%]), while articles published in multidisciplinary journals ( n = 36) reported a mean of 49.1% adequately scored items (median: 50.0; 95% CI [46.2–52.0%]). Articles published in ENT journals showed better quality of reporting of animal studies based on the ARRIVE guidelines ( P < 0.05). However, adherence to the ARRIVE guidelines is generally poor in otorhinolaryngology research using in vivo animal models. The endorsement of the ARRIVE guidelines by authors, research and academic institutes, editorial offices and funding agencies is recommended for improved reporting of scientific research using animal models.

scholarly journals Bias in the reporting of sex and age in biomedical research on mouse models

eLife ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 5 ◽  
Author(s):  
Oscar Flórez-Vargas ◽  
Andy Brass ◽  
George Karystianis ◽  
Michael Bramhall ◽  
Robert Stevens ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Text Mining ◽  
Biomedical Research ◽  
Experimental Methods ◽  
Response To Treatment ◽  
Disease Models ◽  
Preclinical Research ◽  
Quality Of Reporting ◽  
Research Areas ◽  
Female Bias

In animal-based biomedical research, both the sex and the age of the animals studied affect disease phenotypes by modifying their susceptibility, presentation and response to treatment. The accurate reporting of experimental methods and materials, including the sex and age of animals, is essential so that other researchers can build on the results of such studies. Here we use text mining to study 15,311 research papers in which mice were the focus of the study. We find that the percentage of papers reporting the sex and age of mice has increased over the past two decades: however, only about 50% of the papers published in 2014 reported these two variables. We also compared the quality of reporting in six preclinical research areas and found evidence for different levels of sex-bias in these areas: the strongest male-bias was observed in cardiovascular disease models and the strongest female-bias was found in infectious disease models. These results demonstrate the ability of text mining to contribute to the ongoing debate about the reproducibility of research, and confirm the need to continue efforts to improve the reporting of experimental methods and materials.

scholarly journals STARD 2015: An Updated List of Essential Items for Reporting Diagnostic Accuracy Studies

2015 ◽  
Vol 61 (12) ◽  
pp. 1446-1452 ◽  
Author(s):  
Patrick M Bossuyt ◽  
Johannes B Reitsma ◽  
David E Bruns ◽  
Constantine A Gatsonis ◽  
Paul P Glasziou ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Diagnostic Accuracy ◽  
Biomedical Research ◽  
Critical Appraisal ◽  
Diagnostic Accuracy Study ◽  
Quality Of Reporting ◽  
Essential Information ◽  
Accuracy Study

Abstract Incomplete reporting has been identified as a major source of avoidable waste in biomedical research. Essential information is often not provided in study reports, impeding the identification, critical appraisal, and replication of studies. To improve the quality of reporting of diagnostic accuracy studies, the Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (STARD) statement was developed. Here we present STARD 2015, an updated list of 30 essential items that should be included in every report of a diagnostic accuracy study. This update incorporates recent evidence about sources of bias and variability in diagnostic accuracy and is intended to facilitate the use of STARD. As such, STARD 2015 may help to improve completeness and transparency in reporting of diagnostic accuracy studies.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document