Bringing results to fruition through publication: An analysis of a peer-reviewed, open access and context-focused journal's editorial practice

When it comes to helping to shape sustainable development, research is most useful when it bridges the science–implementation/management gap and when it brings development specialists and researchers into a dialogue (Hurni et al. 2004); can a peer-reviewed journal contribute to this aim? In the classical system for validation and dissemination of scientific knowledge, journals focus on knowledge exchange within the academic community and do not specifically address a ‘life-world audience’. Within a North-South context, another knowledge divide is added: the peer review process excludes a large proportion of scientists from the South from participating in the production of scientific knowledge (Karlsson et al. 2007). Mountain Research and Development (MRD) is a journal whose mission is based on an editorial strategy to build the bridge between research and development and ensure that authors from the global South have access to knowledge production, ultimately with a view to supporting sustainable development in mountains. In doing so, MRD faces a number of challenges that we would like to discuss with the td-net community, after having presented our experience and strategy as editors of this journal. MRD was launched in 1981 by mountain researchers who wanted mountains to be included in the 1992 Rio process. In the late 1990s, MRD realized that the journal needed to go beyond addressing only the scientific community. It therefore launched a new section addressing a broader audience in 2000, with the aim of disseminating insights into, and recommendations for, the implementation of sustainable development in mountains. In 2006, we conducted a survey among MRD’s authors, reviewers, and readers (Wymann et al. 2007): respondents confirmed that MRD had succeeded in bridging the gap between research and development. But we realized that MRD could become an even more efficient tool for sustainability if development knowledge were validated: in 2009, we began submitting ‘development’ papers (‘transformation knowledge’) to external peer review of a kind different from the scientific-only peer review (for ‘systems knowledge’). At the same time, the journal became open access in order to increase the permeability between science and society, and ensure greater access for readers and authors in the South. We are currently rethinking our review process for development papers, with a view to creating more space for communication between science and society, and enhancing the co-production of knowledge (Roux 2008). Hopefully, these efforts will also contribute to the urgent debate on the ‘publication culture’ needed in transdisciplinary research (Kueffer et al. 2007).

The effectiveness of ERC advanced life support (ALS) provider courses for the retention of ALS knowledge

Out-of-hospital emergency physicians in Austria need mandatory emergency physician training, followed by biennial refresher courses. Currently, both standardized ERC advanced life support (ALS) provider courses and conventional refresher courses are offered. This study aimed to compare the retention of ALS-knowledge of out-of-hospital emergency physicians depending on whether they had or had not participated in an ERC-ALS provider course since 2005.

The prognostic utility of the SYNTAX score on 1-year outcomes after revascularization with zotarolimus- and everolimus-eluting stents: a substudy of the RESOLUTE All Comers Trial

This study assessed the ability of the SYNTAX score (SXscore) to stratify risk in patients treated with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) using zotarolimus-eluting or everolimus-eluting stents.

NPY receptors in human cancer: a review of current knowledge

Many peptide hormone receptors are over-expressed in human cancer, permitting an in vivo targeting of tumors for diagnostic and therapeutic purposes. NPY receptors are novel and promising candidates in this field. Using in vitro receptor autoradiography, Y1 and Y2 receptors have been found to be expressed in breast carcinomas, adrenal gland and related tumors, renal cell carcinomas, and ovarian cancers in both tumor cells and tumor-associated blood vessels. Pathophysiologically, tumoral NPY receptors may be activated by endogenous NPY released from intratumoral nerve fibers or tumor cells themselves, and mediate NPY effects on tumor cell proliferation and tumoral blood supply. Clinically, tumoral NPY receptors may be targeted with NPY analogs coupled with adequate radionuclides or cytotoxic agents for a scintigraphic tumor imaging and/or tumor therapy.

Uterine fibroid embolization: the utility of aortography in detecting ovarian artery collateral supply

PURPOSE: To retrospectively determine the sensitivity of ovarian artery (OA) visualization at aortography performed after uterine fibroid embolization (UFE) and, using OA arteriography as the reference standard, compare the extent of arterial flow to the uterus at aortography with selective ovarian arteriography, to establish the utility of aortography and ovarian arteriography in the routine practice of UFE. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study received institutional review board approval with waiver of informed consent and was HIPAA compliant. Retrospective review of 1129 consecutive UFE patients (1072 with aortograms, 57 excluded; mean age, 44 years; range, 21-60 years) was performed to identify all visible OAs. Visible OAs were independently graded by two interventional radiologists according to extent of pelvic arterial flow. If selective arteriography was performed, a second grade was assigned based on assessment of the selective study. Descriptive and summary statistics were used for assessment by the senior observer, and interobserver variability was determined. RESULTS: Of 1072 UFE patients, 184 (17.2%) had at least one visible OA. Ten (0.8%) patients were identified at aortography with collateral OA supply to more than 10% of the uterus. In total, 251 OAs were visualized, and 157 of these were further evaluated with selective study. Sixty-two (5.8%) patients were identified at selective arteriography as having collateral OA supply. The sensitivity of aortography was approximately 18%. Interobserver concordance was high (kappa values of 0.81 and 0.90 for aortography and selective study, respectively), but not perfect. CONCLUSION: Aortography rarely helps identify patients with substantial residual OA supply to the uterus and is a poor predictor of the extent of that supply, and thus may be of limited utility in routine UFE.

Prosthetic treatment planning on the basis of scientific evidence

The objective of this report is to summarize the results on survival and complication rates of different designs of fixed dental prostheses (FDP) published in a series of systematic reviews. Moreover, the various parameters for survival and risk assessment are to be used in attempt to perform treatment planning on the basis of scientific evidence. Three electronic searches complemented by manual searching were conducted to identify prospective and retrospective cohort studies on FDP and implant-supported single crowns (SC) with a mean follow-up time of at least 5 years. Patients had to have been examined clinically at the follow-up visit. Failure and complication rates were analyzed using random-effects Poisson regression models to obtain summary estimates of 5- and 10-year survival proportions. Meta-analysis of the studies included indicated an estimated 5-year survival of conventional tooth-supported FDP of 93.8%, cantilever FDP of 91.4%, solely implant-supported FDP of 95.2%, combined tooth-implant-supported FDP of 95.5% and implant-supported SC of 94.5% as well as resin-bonded bridges 87.7%. Moreover, after 10 years of function the estimated survival decreased to 89.2% for conventional FDP, to 80.3% for cantilever FDP, to 86.7% for implant-supported FDP, to 77.8% for combined tooth-implant-supported FDP, to 89.4% for implant-supported SC and to 65% for resin-bonded bridges. When planning prosthetic rehabilitations, conventional end-abutment tooth-supported FDP, solely implant-supported FDP or implant-supported SC should be the first treatment option. Only as a second option, because of reasons such as financial aspects patient-centered preferences or anatomical structures cantilever tooth-supported FDP, combined tooth-implant-supported FDP or resin-bonded bridges should be chosen.