The SwissLipids knowledgebase for lipid biology.

MOTIVATION: Lipids are a large and diverse group of biological molecules with roles in membrane formation, energy storage and signaling. Cellular lipidomes may contain tens of thousands of structures, a staggering degree of complexity whose significance is not yet fully understood. High-throughput mass spectrometry-based platforms provide a means to study this complexity, but the interpretation of lipidomic data and its integration with prior knowledge of lipid biology suffers from a lack of appropriate tools to manage the data and extract knowledge from it. RESULTS: To facilitate the description and exploration of lipidomic data and its integration with prior biological knowledge, we have developed a knowledge resource for lipids and their biology-SwissLipids. SwissLipids provides curated knowledge of lipid structures and metabolism which is used to generate an in silico library of feasible lipid structures. These are arranged in a hierarchical classification that links mass spectrometry analytical outputs to all possible lipid structures, metabolic reactions and enzymes. SwissLipids provides a reference namespace for lipidomic data publication, data exploration and hypothesis generation. The current version of SwissLipids includes over 244 000 known and theoretically possible lipid structures, over 800 proteins, and curated links to published knowledge from over 620 peer-reviewed publications. We are continually updating the SwissLipids hierarchy with new lipid categories and new expert curated knowledge. AVAILABILITY: SwissLipids is freely available at http://www.swisslipids.org/. CONTACT: alan.bridge@isb-sib.ch SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online.

The mzTab Data Exchange Format: Communicating Mass-spectrometry-based Proteomics and Metabolomics Experimental Results to a Wider Audience.

The HUPO Proteomics Standards Initiative has developed several standardized data formats to facilitate data sharing in mass spectrometry (MS)-based proteomics. These allow researchers to report their complete results in a unified way. However, at present, there is no format to describe the final qualitative and quantitative results for proteomics and metabolomics experiments in a simple tabular format. Many downstream analysis use cases are only concerned with the final results of an experiment and require an easily accessible format, compatible with tools such as Microsoft Excel or R. We developed the mzTab file format for MS-based proteomics and metabolomics results to meet this need. mzTab is intended as a lightweight supplement to the existing standard XML-based file formats (mzML, mzIdentML, mzQuantML), providing a comprehensive summary, similar in concept to the supplemental material of a scientific publication. mzTab files can contain protein, peptide, and small molecule identifications together with experimental metadata and basic quantitative information. The format is not intended to store the complete experimental evidence but provides mechanisms to report results at different levels of detail. These range from a simple summary of the final results to a representation of the results including the experimental design. This format is ideally suited to make MS-based proteomics and metabolomics results available to a wider biological community outside the field of MS. Several software tools for proteomics and metabolomics have already adapted the format as an output format. The comprehensive mzTab specification document and extensive additional documentation can be found online.

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.

Prevalence, characteristics, and publication of discontinued randomized trials.

IMPORTANCE: The discontinuation of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) raises ethical concerns and often wastes scarce research resources. The epidemiology of discontinued RCTs, however, remains unclear. OBJECTIVES: To determine the prevalence, characteristics, and publication history of discontinued RCTs and to investigate factors associated with RCT discontinuation due to poor recruitment and with nonpublication. DESIGN AND SETTING: Retrospective cohort of RCTs based on archived protocols approved by 6 research ethics committees in Switzerland, Germany, and Canada between 2000 and 2003. We recorded trial characteristics and planned recruitment from included protocols. Last follow-up of RCTs was April 27, 2013. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Completion status, reported reasons for discontinuation, and publication status of RCTs as determined by correspondence with the research ethics committees, literature searches, and investigator surveys. RESULTS: After a median follow-up of 11.6 years (range, 8.8-12.6 years), 253 of 1017 included RCTs were discontinued (24.9% [95% CI, 22.3%-27.6%]). Only 96 of 253 discontinuations (37.9% [95% CI, 32.0%-44.3%]) were reported to ethics committees. The most frequent reason for discontinuation was poor recruitment (101/1017; 9.9% [95% CI, 8.2%-12.0%]). In multivariable analysis, industry sponsorship vs investigator sponsorship (8.4% vs 26.5%; odds ratio [OR], 0.25 [95% CI, 0.15-0.43]; P < .001) and a larger planned sample size in increments of 100 (-0.7%; OR, 0.96 [95% CI, 0.92-1.00]; P = .04) were associated with lower rates of discontinuation due to poor recruitment. Discontinued trials were more likely to remain unpublished than completed trials (55.1% vs 33.6%; OR, 3.19 [95% CI, 2.29-4.43]; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this sample of trials based on RCT protocols from 6 research ethics committees, discontinuation was common, with poor recruitment being the most frequently reported reason. Greater efforts are needed to ensure the reporting of trial discontinuation to research ethics committees and the publication of results of discontinued trials.

Editorial research and the publication process in biomedicine and health: Report from the Esteve Foundation Discussion Group, December 2012.

Despite the fact that there are more than twenty thousand biomedical journals in the world, research into the work of editors and publication process in biomedical and health care journals is rare. In December 2012, the Esteve Foundation, a non-profit scientific institution that fosters progress in pharmacotherapy by means of scientific communication and discussion organized a discussion group of 7 editors and/or experts in peer review biomedical publishing. They presented findings of past editorial research, discussed the lack of competitive funding schemes and specialized journals for dissemination of editorial research, and reported on the great diversity of misconduct and conflict of interest policies, as well as adherence to reporting guidelines. Furthermore, they reported on the reluctance of editors to investigate allegations of misconduct or increase the level of data sharing in health research. In the end, they concluded that if editors are to remain gatekeepers of scientific knowledge they should reaffirm their focus on the integrity of the scientific record and completeness of the data they publish. Additionally, more research should be undertaken to understand why many journals are not adhering to editorial standards, and what obstacles editors face when engaging in editorial research.

Fate of clinical research studies after ethical approval--follow-up of study protocols until publication.

BACKGROUND: Many clinical studies are ultimately not fully published in peer-reviewed journals. Underreporting of clinical research is wasteful and can result in biased estimates of treatment effect or harm, leading to recommendations that are inappropriate or even dangerous. METHODS: We assembled a cohort of clinical studies approved 2000-2002 by the Research Ethics Committee of the University of Freiburg, Germany. Published full articles were searched in electronic databases and investigators contacted. Data on study characteristics were extracted from protocols and corresponding publications. We characterized the cohort, quantified its publication outcome and compared protocols and publications for selected aspects. RESULTS: Of 917 approved studies, 807 were started and 110 were not, either locally or as a whole. Of the started studies, 576 (71%) were completed according to protocol, 128 (16%) discontinued and 42 (5%) are still ongoing; for 61 (8%) there was no information about their course. We identified 782 full publications corresponding to 419 of the 807 initiated studies; the publication proportion was 52% (95% CI: 0.48-0.55). Study design was not significantly associated with subsequent publication. Multicentre status, international collaboration, large sample size and commercial or non-commercial funding were positively associated with subsequent publication. Commercial funding was mentioned in 203 (48%) protocols and in 205 (49%) of the publications. In most published studies (339; 81%) this information corresponded between protocol and publication. Most studies were published in English (367; 88%); some in German (25; 6%) or both languages (27; 6%). The local investigators were listed as (co-)authors in the publications corresponding to 259 (62%) studies. CONCLUSION: Half of the clinical research conducted at a large German university medical centre remains unpublished; future research is built on an incomplete database. Research resources are likely wasted as neither health care professionals nor patients nor policy makers can use the results when making decisions.

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.

A systematic review of existing data on long-term lithium therapy: neuroprotective or neurotoxic?

Lithium is an efficacious agent for the treatment of bipolar disorder, but it is unclear to what extent its long-term use may result in neuroprotective or toxic consequences. Medline was searched with the combination of the word 'Lithium' plus key words that referred to every possible effect on the central nervous system. The papers were further classified into those supporting a neuroprotective effect, those in favour of a neurotoxic effect and those that were neutral. The papers were classified into research in humans, animal and in-vitro research, case reports, and review/opinion articles. Finally, the Natural Standard evidence-based validated grading rationale was used to validate the data. The Medline search returned 970 papers up to February 2006. Inspection of the abstracts supplied 214 papers for further reviewing. Eighty-nine papers supported the neuroprotective effect (6 human research, 58 animal/in vitro, 0 case reports, 25 review/opinion articles). A total of 116 papers supported the neurotoxic effect (17 human research, 23 animal/in vitro, 60 case reports, 16 review/opinion articles). Nine papers supported no hypothesis (5 human research, 3 animal/in vitro, 0 case reports, 1 review/opinion articles). Overall, the grading suggests that the data concerning the effect of lithium therapy is that of level C, that is 'unclear or conflicting scientific evidence' since there is conflicting evidence from uncontrolled non-randomized studies accompanied by conflicting evidence from animal and basic science studies. Although more papers are in favour of the toxic effect, the great difference in the type of papers that support either hypothesis, along with publication bias and methodological issues make conclusions difficult. Lithium remains the 'gold standard' for the prophylaxis of bipolar illness, however, our review suggests that there is a rare possibility of a neurotoxic effect in real-life clinical practice even in closely monitored patients with 'therapeutic' lithium plasma levels. It is desirable to keep lithium blood levels as low as feasible with prophylaxis.

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.

Completion and Publication Rates of Randomized Controlled Trials in Surgery: An Empirical Study.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the prevalence of discontinuation and nonpublication of surgical versus medical randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and to explore risk factors for discontinuation and nonpublication of surgical RCTs. BACKGROUND: Trial discontinuation has significant scientific, ethical, and economic implications. To date, the prevalence of discontinuation of surgical RCTs is unknown. METHODS: All RCT protocols approved between 2000 and 2003 by 6 ethics committees in Canada, Germany, and Switzerland were screened. Baseline characteristics were collected and, if published, full reports retrieved. Risk factors for early discontinuation for slow recruitment and nonpublication were explored using multivariable logistic regression analyses. RESULTS: In total, 863 RCT protocols involving adult patients were identified, 127 in surgery (15%) and 736 in medicine (85%). Surgical trials were discontinued for any reason more often than medical trials [43% vs 27%, risk difference 16% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 5%-26%); P = 0.001] and more often discontinued for slow recruitment [18% vs 11%, risk difference 8% (95% CI: 0.1%-16%); P = 0.020]. The percentage of trials not published as full journal article was similar in surgical and medical trials (44% vs 40%, risk difference 4% (95% CI: -5% to 14%); P = 0.373). Discontinuation of surgical trials was a strong risk factor for nonpublication (odds ratio = 4.18, 95% CI: 1.45-12.06; P = 0.008). CONCLUSIONS: Discontinuation and nonpublication rates were substantial in surgical RCTs and trial discontinuation was strongly associated with nonpublication. These findings need to be taken into account when interpreting surgical literature. Surgical trialists should consider feasibility studies before embarking on full-scale trials.

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.