Lost in translation: the impact of publication language on citation frequency in the scientific dental literature

Citation metrics are commonly used as a proxy for scientific merit and relevance. Papers published in English, however, may exhibit a higher citation frequency than research articles published in other languages, though this issue has not yet been investigated from a Swiss perspective where English is not the native language.

Plant immunostimulants-Scientific paradigm or myth?

In traditional medicine, numerous plant preparations are used to treat inflammation both topically and systemically. Several anti-inflammatory plant extracts and a few natural product-based monosubstances have even found their way into the clinic. Unfortunately, a number of plant secondary metabolites have been shown to trigger detrimental pro-allergic immune reactions and are therefore considered to be toxic. In the phytotherapy research literature, numerous plants are also claimed to exert immunostimulatory effects. However, while the concepts of plant-derived anti-inflammatory agents and allergens are well established, the widespread notion of immunostimulatory plant natural products and their potential therapeutic use is rather obscure, often with the idea that the product is some sort of "tonic" for the immune system without actually specifying the mechanisms. In this commentary it is argued that the paradigm of oral plant immunostimulants lacks clinical evidence and may therefore be a myth, which has originated primarily from in vitro studies with plant extracts. The fact that no conclusive data on orally administered immunostimulants can be found in the scientific literature inevitably prompts us to challenge this paradigm.

Guidance for the preparation of neurological management guidelines by EFNS scientific task forces - revised recommendations 2012

This paper is meant to provide guidance to anyone wishing to write a neurological guideline for diagnosis or treatment, and is directed at the Scientist Panels and task forces of the European Federation of Neurological Societies (EFNS). It substitutes the previous guidance paper from 2004. It contains several new aspects: the guidance is now based on a change of the grading system for evidence and for the resulting recommendations, and has adopted The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation system (GRADE). The process of grading the quality of evidence and strength of recommendations can now be improved and made more transparent. The task forces embarking on the development of a guideline must now make clearer and more transparent choices about outcomes considered most relevant when searching the literature and evaluating their findings. Thus, the outcomes chosen will be more critical, more patient-oriented and easier to translate into simple recommendations. This paper also provides updated practical recommendations for planning a guideline task force within the framework of the EFNS. Finally, this paper hopes to find the approval also by the relevant bodies of our future organization, the European Academy of Neurology.

Scientific assembly update: paediatrics in Vienna

The aim of this update is to describe, in the context of the current literature, major papers from the seven groups of the Paediatric Assembly (Respiratory Physiology; Asthma and Allergy; Cystic Fibrosis; Respiratory Infection and Immunology; Neonatology and Paediatric Intensive Care; Respiratory Epidemiology; and Bronchology) presented during the European Respiratory Society's annual meeting held in 2012 in Vienna, Austria.

Time relevance, citation of reporting guidelines, and breadth of literature search in systematic reviews in orthodontics

INTRODUCTION As the importance of systematic review (SR) conclusions relies upon the scientific rigor of methods and the currency of evidence, we aimed to investigate the currency of orthodontic SRs using as proxy the time from the initial search to publication. Additionally, SR information regarding reporting guidelines, registration, and literature searches were recorded when available. MATERIALS AND METHODS A systematic PubMed search was carried out using the Clinical Queries page to identify orthodontic SRs cited between 1 January 2008 and 7 November 2013. Data related to reporting guidelines, review registration, dates of review processing, literature search, and abstract reporting were retrieved and classified by journal type. Survival analysis was used to assess the time to reach predefined manuscript stages for orthodontic and non-orthodontic journals. RESULTS One hundred twenty seven of the originally identified 585 SRs were considered eligible. The median interval from search until publication was 13.2 months (interquartile range: IQR = 9.7 months) irrespective of the journal type. There was evidence (P = 0.05) that SRs published by non-orthodontic journals appeared in PubMed faster than in orthodontic journals (non-orthodontic: median = 6.5 months; IQR = 5.7 months; orthodontic: median = 10.2 months; IQR = 5.6 months) from submission to publication and from acceptance to publication (non-orthodontic: median = 1.5 months; IQR = 2.4 months; orthodontic: median = 6.0 months; IQR = 6.2 months; P < 0.001). More than half of these SRs did not cite adherence to any reporting guidelines, whereas all but five studies were not prospectively registered. Search of unpublished research was undertaken in approximately 21 per cent and 29 per cent of the SRs published in non-orthodontic and orthodontic periodicals, respectively. CONCLUSIONS This study indicates that SR users should be aware that median time for orthodontic SRs from search to publication is 13.2 months. SRs published in non-orthodontic journals are likely to be more current in terms of submission until time to publication and acceptance until time to publication compared with those published in orthodontic journals.

Are claims made in orthodontic journal advertisements evidence-supported?

OBJECTIVE To examine the supporting evidence of advertisements published in six leading orthodontic journals. MATERIALS AND METHODS The 2012-2013 printed issues of American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, Australian Orthodontic Journal, Journal of Orthodontics, European Journal of Orthodontics, Journal of Clinical Orthodontics, and Journal of Orofacial Orthopedics were screened for advertisements implying superior performance compared with competitor products. Advertisements were classified according to type of product, availability, and currency of supporting references. RESULTS A total of 99 unique advertisements claiming clinical benefit or superiority were identified. The overwhelming majority of the identified advertisements promoted appliance products (62.6%), orthodontic materials (14.1%), and dental operatory equipment, including imaging systems (12.1%). Advertisements were found to provide references or not regardless of the product type. Half of the advertisements referred to at least one peer-reviewed publication, whereas unpublished studies were cited by 25% of the advertisements. Most of the referenced articles were published within the past 5 years. CONCLUSIONS The scientific background of advertisements in the orthodontic literature appears limited. While surveillance of journal advertising needs to be regulated, clinicians are urged to critically appraise the claims being made in orthodontic print advertisements by consulting the associated existing evidence.