Anorectal Malformations: Finding the Pathway out of the Labyrinth.

Anorectal malformations (ARMs) are a complex group of congenital anomalies involving the distal anus and rectum, as well as the urinary and genital tracts in a significant number of cases. Most ARMs result from abnormal development of the urorectal septum in early fetal life. In most cases, the anus is not perforated and the distal enteric component ends blindly (atresia) or as a fistula into the urinary tract, genital tract, or perineum. ARMs are also present in a great number of syndromes and associations of congenital anomalies. The classification of ARMs is mainly based on the position of the rectal pouch relative to the puborectal sling, the presence or absence of fistulas, and the types and locations of the fistulas. All of this information is crucial in determining the most appropriate surgical approach for each case. Imaging studies play a key role in evaluation and classification of ARMs. In neonates, clinical and radiologic examinations in the first 3 days of life help determine the type of ARM and the need for early colostomy. In older children, preoperative pelvic magnetic resonance imaging is the most efficient diagnostic method for evaluating the size, morphology, and grade of development of the sphincteric musculature.

Publication trends of shared decision making in 15 high impact medical journals: a full-text review with bibliometric analysis.

BACKGROUND: Shared Decision Making (SDM) is increasingly advocated as a model for medical decision making. However, there is still low use of SDM in clinical practice. High impact factor journals might represent an efficient way for its dissemination. We aimed to identify and characterize publication trends of SDM in 15 high impact medical journals. METHODS: We selected the 15 general and internal medicine journals with the highest impact factor publishing original articles, letters and editorials. We retrieved publications from 1996 to 2011 through the full-text search function on each journal website and abstracted bibliometric data. We included publications of any type containing the phrase "shared decision making" or five other variants in their abstract or full text. These were referred to as SDM publications. A polynomial Poisson regression model with logarithmic link function was used to assess the evolution across the period of the number of SDM publications according to publication characteristics. RESULTS: We identified 1285 SDM publications out of 229,179 publications in 15 journals from 1996 to 2011. The absolute number of SDM publications by journal ranged from 2 to 273 over 16 years. SDM publications increased both in absolute and relative numbers per year, from 46 (0.32% relative to all publications from the 15 journals) in 1996 to 165 (1.17%) in 2011. This growth was exponential (P < 0.01). We found fewer research publications (465, 36.2% of all SDM publications) than non-research publications, which included non-systematic reviews, letters, and editorials. The increase of research publications across time was linear. Full-text search retrieved ten times more SDM publications than a similar PubMed search (1285 vs. 119 respectively). CONCLUSION: This review in full-text showed that SDM publications increased exponentially in major medical journals from 1996 to 2011. This growth might reflect an increased dissemination of the SDM concept to the medical community.

Systematic review of the empirical evidence of study publication bias and outcome reporting bias - an updated review.

BACKGROUND: The increased use of meta-analysis in systematic reviews of healthcare interventions has highlighted several types of bias that can arise during the completion of a randomised controlled trial. Study publication bias and outcome reporting bias have been recognised as a potential threat to the validity of meta-analysis and can make the readily available evidence unreliable for decision making. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: In this update, we review and summarise the evidence from cohort studies that have assessed study publication bias or outcome reporting bias in randomised controlled trials. Twenty studies were eligible of which four were newly identified in this update. Only two followed the cohort all the way through from protocol approval to information regarding publication of outcomes. Fifteen of the studies investigated study publication bias and five investigated outcome reporting bias. Three studies have found that statistically significant outcomes had a higher odds of being fully reported compared to non-significant outcomes (range of odds ratios: 2.2 to 4.7). In comparing trial publications to protocols, we found that 40-62% of studies had at least one primary outcome that was changed, introduced, or omitted. We decided not to undertake meta-analysis due to the differences between studies. CONCLUSIONS: This update does not change the conclusions of the review in which 16 studies were included. Direct empirical evidence for the existence of study publication bias and outcome reporting bias is shown. There is strong evidence of an association between significant results and publication; studies that report positive or significant results are more likely to be published and outcomes that are statistically significant have higher odds of being fully reported. Publications have been found to be inconsistent with their protocols. Researchers need to be aware of the problems of both types of bias and efforts should be concentrated on improving the reporting of trials.

Protocol for a systematic review on the extent of non-publication of research studies and associated study characteristics.

BACKGROUND: Methodological research has found that non-published studies often have different results than those that are published, a phenomenon known as publication bias. When results are not published, or are published selectively based on the direction or the strength of the findings, healthcare professionals and consumers of healthcare cannot base their decision-making on the full body of current evidence. METHODS: As part of the OPEN project (http://www.open-project.eu) we will conduct a systematic review with the following objectives:1. To determine the proportion and/or rate of non-publication of studies by systematically reviewing methodological research projects that followed up a cohort of studies that a. received research ethics committee (REC) approval,b. were registered in trial registries, orc. were presented as abstracts at conferences.2. To assess the association of study characteristics (for example, direction and/or strength of findings) with likelihood of full publication.To identify reports of relevant methodological research projects we will conduct electronic database searches, check reference lists, and contact experts. Published and unpublished projects will be included. The inclusion criteria are as follows:a. RECs: methodological research projects that examined the subsequent proportion and/or rate of publication of studies that received approval from RECs;b. Trial registries: methodological research projects that examine the subsequent proportion and/or rate of publication of studies registered in trial registries;c. Conference abstracts: methodological research projects that examine the subsequent proportion and/or rate of full publication of studies which were initially presented at conferences as abstracts.Primary outcomes: Proportion/rate of published studies; time to full publication (mean/median; cumulative publication rate by time).Secondary outcomes: Association of study characteristics with full publication.The different questions (a, b, and c) will be investigated separately. Data synthesis will involve a combination of descriptive and statistical summaries of the included methodological research projects. DISCUSSION: Results are expected to be publicly available in mid 2013.

Publication bias in animal research: a systematic review protocol.

BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of pre-clinical studies, in vivo animal experiments in particular, can influence clinical care. Publication bias is one of the major threats of validity in systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Previous empirical studies suggested that systematic reviews and meta-analyses have become more prevalent until 2010 and found evidence for compromised methodological rigor with a trend towards improvement. We aim to comprehensively summarize and update the evidence base on systematic reviews and meta-analyses of animal studies, their methodological quality and assessment of publication bias in particular. METHODS/DESIGN: The objectives of this systematic review are as follows: âeuro¢To investigate the epidemiology of published systematic reviews of animal studies until present. âeuro¢To examine methodological features of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of animal studies with special attention to the assessment of publication bias. âeuro¢To investigate the influence of systematic reviews of animal studies on clinical research by examining citations of the systematic reviews by clinical studies. Eligible studies for this systematic review constitute systematic reviews and meta-analyses that summarize in vivo animal experiments with the purpose of reviewing animal evidence to inform human health. We will exclude genome-wide association studies and animal experiments with the main purpose to learn more about fundamental biology, physical functioning or behavior. In addition to the inclusion of systematic reviews and meta-analyses identified by other empirical studies, we will systematically search Ovid Medline, Embase, ToxNet, and ScienceDirect from 2009 to January 2013 for further eligible studies without language restrictions. Two reviewers working independently will assess titles, abstracts, and full texts for eligibility and extract relevant data from included studies. Data reporting will involve a descriptive summary of meta-analyses and systematic reviews. DISCUSSION: Results are expected to be publicly available later in 2013 and may form the basis for recommendations to improve the quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of animal studies and their use with respect to clinical care.

Detecting, quantifying and adjusting for publication bias in meta-analyses: protocol of a systematic review on methods.

BACKGROUND: Health professionals and policymakers aspire to make healthcare decisions based on the entire relevant research evidence. This, however, can rarely be achieved because a considerable amount of research findings are not published, especially in case of 'negative' results - a phenomenon widely recognized as publication bias. Different methods of detecting, quantifying and adjusting for publication bias in meta-analyses have been described in the literature, such as graphical approaches and formal statistical tests to detect publication bias, and statistical approaches to modify effect sizes to adjust a pooled estimate when the presence of publication bias is suspected. An up-to-date systematic review of the existing methods is lacking. METHODS/DESIGN: The objectives of this systematic review are as follows:âeuro¢ To systematically review methodological articles which focus on non-publication of studies and to describe methods of detecting and/or quantifying and/or adjusting for publication bias in meta-analyses.âeuro¢ To appraise strengths and weaknesses of methods, the resources they require, and the conditions under which the method could be used, based on findings of included studies.We will systematically search Web of Science, Medline, and the Cochrane Library for methodological articles that describe at least one method of detecting and/or quantifying and/or adjusting for publication bias in meta-analyses. A dedicated data extraction form is developed and pilot-tested. Working in teams of two, we will independently extract relevant information from each eligible article. As this will be a qualitative systematic review, data reporting will involve a descriptive summary. DISCUSSION: Results are expected to be publicly available in mid 2013. This systematic review together with the results of other systematic reviews of the OPEN project (To Overcome Failure to Publish Negative Findings) will serve as a basis for the development of future policies and guidelines regarding the assessment and handling of publication bias in meta-analyses.

Defining publication bias: protocol for a systematic review of highly cited articles and proposal for a new framework.

BACKGROUND: Selective publication of studies, which is commonly called publication bias, is widely recognized. Over the years a new nomenclature for other types of bias related to non-publication or distortion related to the dissemination of research findings has been developed. However, several of these different biases are often still summarized by the term 'publication bias'. METHODS/DESIGN: As part of the OPEN Project (To Overcome failure to Publish nEgative fiNdings) we will conduct a systematic review with the following objectives:- To systematically review highly cited articles that focus on non-publication of studies and to present the various definitions of biases related to the dissemination of research findings contained in the articles identified.- To develop and discuss a new framework on nomenclature of various aspects of distortion in the dissemination process that leads to public availability of research findings in an international group of experts in the context of the OPEN Project.We will systematically search Web of Knowledge for highly cited articles that provide a definition of biases related to the dissemination of research findings. A specifically designed data extraction form will be developed and pilot-tested. Working in teams of two, we will independently extract relevant information from each eligible article.For the development of a new framework we will construct an initial table listing different levels and different hazards en route to making research findings public. An international group of experts will iteratively review the table and reflect on its content until no new insights emerge and consensus has been reached. DISCUSSION: Results are expected to be publicly available in mid-2013. This systematic review together with the results of other systematic reviews of the OPEN project will serve as a basis for the development of future policies and guidelines regarding the assessment and prevention of publication bias.

Publication trends of shared decision making in 15 high impact medical journals: a full-text review with bibliometric analysis.

BACKGROUND: Shared Decision Making (SDM) is increasingly advocated as a model for medical decision making. However, there is still low use of SDM in clinical practice. High impact factor journals might represent an efficient way for its dissemination. We aimed to identify and characterize publication trends of SDM in 15 high impact medical journals. METHODS: We selected the 15 general and internal medicine journals with the highest impact factor publishing original articles, letters and editorials. We retrieved publications from 1996 to 2011 through the full-text search function on each journal website and abstracted bibliometric data. We included publications of any type containing the phrase "shared decision making" or five other variants in their abstract or full text. These were referred to as SDM publications. A polynomial Poisson regression model with logarithmic link function was used to assess the evolution across the period of the number of SDM publications according to publication characteristics. RESULTS: We identified 1285 SDM publications out of 229,179 publications in 15 journals from 1996 to 2011. The absolute number of SDM publications by journal ranged from 2 to 273 over 16 years. SDM publications increased both in absolute and relative numbers per year, from 46 (0.32% relative to all publications from the 15 journals) in 1996 to 165 (1.17%) in 2011. This growth was exponential (P < 0.01). We found fewer research publications (465, 36.2% of all SDM publications) than non-research publications, which included non-systematic reviews, letters, and editorials. The increase of research publications across time was linear. Full-text search retrieved ten times more SDM publications than a similar PubMed search (1285 vs. 119 respectively). CONCLUSION: This review in full-text showed that SDM publications increased exponentially in major medical journals from 1996 to 2011. This growth might reflect an increased dissemination of the SDM concept to the medical community.

Extent of non-publication in cohorts of studies approved by research ethics committees or included in trial registries

BACKGROUND: The synthesis of published research in systematic reviews is essential when providing evidence to inform clinical and health policy decision-making. However, the validity of systematic reviews is threatened if journal publications represent a biased selection of all studies that have been conducted (dissemination bias). To investigate the extent of dissemination bias we conducted a systematic review that determined the proportion of studies published as peer-reviewed journal articles and investigated factors associated with full publication in cohorts of studies (i) approved by research ethics committees (RECs) or (ii) included in trial registries. METHODS AND FINDINGS: Four bibliographic databases were searched for methodological research projects (MRPs) without limitations for publication year, language or study location. The searches were supplemented by handsearching the references of included MRPs. We estimated the proportion of studies published using prediction intervals (PI) and a random effects meta-analysis. Pooled odds ratios (OR) were used to express associations between study characteristics and journal publication. Seventeen MRPs (23 publications) evaluated cohorts of studies approved by RECs; the proportion of published studies had a PI between 22% and 72% and the weighted pooled proportion when combining estimates would be 46.2% (95% CI 40.2%-52.4%, I2 = 94.4%). Twenty-two MRPs (22 publications) evaluated cohorts of studies included in trial registries; the PI of the proportion published ranged from 13% to 90% and the weighted pooled proportion would be 54.2% (95% CI 42.0%-65.9%, I2 = 98.9%). REC-approved studies with statistically significant results (compared with those without statistically significant results) were more likely to be published (pooled OR 2.8; 95% CI 2.2-3.5). Phase-III trials were also more likely to be published than phase II trials (pooled OR 2.0; 95% CI 1.6-2.5). The probability of publication within two years after study completion ranged from 7% to 30%. CONCLUSIONS: A substantial part of the studies approved by RECs or included in trial registries remains unpublished. Due to the large heterogeneity a prediction of the publication probability for a future study is very uncertain. Non-publication of research is not a random process, e.g., it is associated with the direction of study findings. Our findings suggest that the dissemination of research findings is biased.

Safety and occlusion rates of surgical treatment of unruptured intracranial aneurysms: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature from 1990 to 2011.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Surgical clipping of unruptured intracranial aneurysms (UIAs) has recently been challenged by the emergence of endovascular treatment. We performed an updated systematic review and meta-analysis on the surgical treatment of UIAs, in an attempt to determine the aneurysm occlusion rates and safety of surgery in the modern era. METHODS: A detailed protocol was developed prior to conducting the review according to the Cochrane Collaboration guidelines. Electronic databases spanning January 1990-April 2011 were searched, complemented by hand searching. Heterogeneity was assessed using I(2), and publication bias with funnel plots. Surgical mortality and morbidity were analysed with weighted random effect models. RESULTS: 60 studies with 9845 patients harbouring 10 845 aneurysms were included. Mortality occurred in 157 patients (1.7%; 99% CI 0.9% to 3.0%; I(2)=82%). Unfavourable outcomes, including death, occurred in 692 patients (6.7%; 99% CI 4.9% to 9.0%; I(2)=85%). Morbidity rates were significantly greater in higher quality studies, and with large or posterior circulation aneurysms. Reported morbidity rates decreased over time. Studies were generally of poor quality; funnel plots showed heterogeneous results and publication bias, and data on aneurysm occlusion rates were scant. CONCLUSIONS: In studies published between 1990 and 2011, clipping of UIAs was associated with 1.7% mortality and 6.7% overall morbidity. The reputed durability of clipping has not been rigorously documented. Due to the quality of the included studies, the available literature cannot properly guide clinical decisions.

Effectiveness of interventions targeting frequent users of emergency departments: a systematic review

L'article publié de le cadre de cette thèse est intitulé "Effectiveness of interventions targeting frequent users of emergency departments: A systematic review." Il a été publié par les "Annals of Emergency Medicine (AEM)" en juillet 2011. Le titre en français pourrait être: "Efficacité des interventions ciblant les utilisateurs fréquents des services d'urgence: Une revue systématique." Le titre du journal américain pourrait être: "Annales de Médecine d'Urgence". Il s'agit du journal du "Collège Américain des Médecins d'Urgence", en anglais "American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP)". L'article a été soumis à l'AEM en raison de l'intérêt que ses rédacteurs en chef portent pour le sujet des utilisateurs fréquents des services d'urgence, démontré depuis plus de dix ans par la publication de nombreux articles dans ce domaine. Le facteur d'impact de l'AEM est de surcroît le plus important des journaux d'urgence, assurant ainsi une large diffusion des articles publiés. Lors de sa publication, l'article a été accompagné d'un éditorial signé par le Docteur Maria C. Raven, médecin au Centre Hospitalier de Bellevue à New York, Etats-Unis.¦Contexte et enjeux¦La Direction Générale du Centre Hospitalier Vaudois (CHUV) finance, dans le cadre du plan stratégique 2009-2013, un axe "populations vulnérables". Cet axe est porté en grande partie par des projets développés au sein de la Policinlique Médicale Universitaire et l'Unité des Populations Vulnérables qui prend en charge, enseigne la prise en charge et s'interroge sur la prise en charge des personnes les plus vulnérables. C'est dans ce contexte que nous avons été amenés à réfléchir à l'existence éventuelle de marqueurs de vulnérabilité; l'utilisation fréquente des services d'urgence par certains individus constitue à n'en pas douter l'un de ces marqueurs. Il existe une importante littérature décrivant en détail ces utilisateurs fréquents des services d'urgence, raison pour laquelle nous avons décidé de faire un pas supplémentaire et de nous interroger sur l'efficacité des interventions (quelle qu'elles soient) ciblant cette population particulière. Nous avons ainsi entrepris une revue systématique de la littérature scientifique médicale et sociale pour approfondir cette question, et c'est précisément le résultat de cette recherche qui constitue ce travail de thèse.¦Conclusions et perspectives¦Les utilisateurs fréquents des services d'urgence sont des individus particulièrement vulnérables, et ce aussi bien aux Etats-Unis, qu'en Europe ou en Australie: ils présentent par exemple une mortalité supérieure aux autres utilisateurs des urgences; ils sont également plus à risque de présenter une consommation abusive d'alcool ou de drogues, une maladie mentale, ou une maladie chronique. Ils sont plus souvent sans abri, sans assurance et d'un statut socio-économique bas.¦De nombreuses interventions on été développées pour prendre en charge les utilisateurs fréquents des urgences. Le but de ces interventions est d'une part de réduire la consommation des services d'urgence et d'autre part d'améliorer la santé au sens large de ces patients vulnérables. C'est en ces termes (réduction de la fréquence d'utilisation des services d'urgence et amélioration de la santé) que l'efficacité d'une intervention est mesurée.¦Parmi l'ensemble des interventions étudiées, l'une semble particulièrement efficace pour réduire le nombre de visites aux urgences et améliorer un certain nombre de marqueurs sociaux (accès à un logement ou à une assurance-maladie). Cette intervention est appelée "case management" (ou "gestion de cas", difficile tentative de traduction de ce concept en français), et consiste en une approche multidisciplinaire (médecins, infirmiers, assistants sociaux) fournissant un service individualisé, dans le cadre de l'hôpital et souvent également dans la communauté. L'approche consiste à évaluer les besoins précis du patient, à l'accompagner dans son parcours de soin, à l'orienter si nécessaire et à mettre en place autour de lui un réseau communiquant de manière adaptée.¦Le "case management" ayant montré son efficacité dans la prise en charge des utilisateurs fréquents des services d'urgence, y-compris en termes de coûts, notre conclusion va dans le sens d'encourager les hôpitaux à évaluer l'importance de ce phénomène dans leur propre pratique et à mettre en place des équipes de prise en charge de ces patients, dans le double but de soutenir des patients particulièrement vulnérables et de réduire la consommation des services d'urgence. Suite à la réflexion suscitée par ce travail de thèse, une telle équipe a été mise en place en 2010, dans un cadre de recherche-action, au niveau du CHUV. Ce projet est dirigé par le Dr Patrick Bodenmann, responsable de l'Unité Populations Vulnérables de la Policlinique Médicale Universitaire de Lausanne. Le Dr Bodenmann est également le directeur de cette thèse et le dernier auteur de la revue systématique.

Critical review of cancer risk associated with angiotensin receptor blocker therapy.

The role of drugs in new cancer occurrence and cancer-related death is a major concern. Recently, a meta-analysis raised the possibility that angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) might have an adverse effect on patients. This generated a significant debate until the publication of two further meta-analyses, neither of which demonstrated an increased risk of new cancer occurrence or cancer-related death with the use of ARBs in patients with hypertension, heart failure, and/or nephropathy. This illustrates that the results of meta-analyses should be interpreted cautiously and critically as bias, such as selection bias, might lead to erroneous conclusions. Overall, the bulk of evidence today indicates that ARBs are not associated with increased cancer risk.

Accelerated publication versus usual publication in 2 leading medical journals.

BACKGROUND: A number of medical journals have developed policies for accelerated publication of articles judged by the authors, the editors or the peer reviewers to be of special importance. However, the validity of these judgements is unknown. We therefore compared the importance of articles published on a "fast track" with those published in the usual way. METHODS: We identified 12 "case" articles--6 articles from the New England Journal of Medicine that were prereleased on the journal's Web site before publication in print and 6 "fast-tracked" articles from The Lancet. We then identified 12 "control" articles matched to the case articles according to journal, disease or procedure of focus, theme area and year of publication. Forty-two general internists rated the articles, using 10-point scales, on dimensions addressing the articles' importance, ease of applicability and impact on health outcomes. RESULTS: For each dimension, the mean score for the case articles was significantly higher than the mean score for the control articles: importance to clinical practice 7.6 v. 7.1 respectively (p = 0.001), importance from a public health perspective 6.5 v. 6.0 (p &lt; 0.001), contribution to advancement of medical knowledge 6.2 v. 5.8 (p &lt; 0.001), ease of applicability in practice 7.0 v. 6.5 (p &lt; 0.001), potential impact on health outcomes 6.5 v. 5.9 (p &lt; 0.001). Despite these general findings, in 5 of the 12 matched pairs of articles the control article had a higher mean score than the case article across all the dimensions. INTERPRETATION: The accelerated publication practices of 2 leading medical journals targeted articles that, on average, had slightly higher importance scores than similar articles published in the usual way. However, our finding of higher importance scores for control articles in 5 of the 12 matched pairs shows that current journal practices for selecting articles for expedited publication are inconsistent.

Seeking good peer review in geomorphology

This paper provides an extended guide to reviewing for ESPL in particular and geomorphology in general. After a brief consideration of both how we choose reviewers and why we hope that reviewers will accept, I consider what makes a fair and constructive review. I note that we aim to publish papers with the rigour (r) necessary to sustain an original and significant contribution (q). I note that judging q is increasingly difficult because of the ever-growing size of the discipline (the Q). This is the sense in which we rarely have a full appreciation of Q, and our reviews are inevitably going to contain some bias. It is this bias that cannot be avoided (cf. Nicholas and Gordon, 2011) and makes the job of ESPL's Editors of critical importance. With this in mind, I identify six elements of a good review: (1) an introductory statement that explains your assessment of your competences in relation to the manuscript (r and Q); (2) a summative view of the originality and significance of the manuscript (q) in relation to Q: (3) a summative view of the methodological rigour of the manuscript (r); (4) identification and justification of any major concerns; (5) identification of any minor issues to be corrected if you think the manuscript merits eventual publication; and (6) note of any typographical or presentation issues to be addressed although this latter activity is also an editorial responsibility. In addition, I note the importance of a constructive review, grounded in what is written in the manuscript, justified where appropriate and avoiding reference to personal views as far as is possible. I conclude with a discussion of whether or not you should sign your review openly and the importance of reviewer confidentiality. Copyright (C) 2012 John Wiley &amp; Sons, Ltd.