993 resultados para editorial committee
Resumo:
v. 1-12 also on microfilm (complete)
Resumo:
"Editorial committee: John Calvin Metcalf, chairman, Fiske Kimball, Bruce Williams, Robert Henning Webb, James Southall Wilson."
Resumo:
As a result of a floristic survey carried out in riparian habitats of northern Spain, new chorological data are provided for 9 alien and 6 native plant species. Some species are reported for the first time at regional scale, such as Carex strigosa, Helianthus x laetiflorus and Persicaria pensylvanica in Cantabria. Also noteworthy is the finding of naturalised populations of the North American grass Muhlenbergia schreberi at the Urumea river basin, which represents the second reference for the Iberian Peninsula.
Resumo:
"This editorial work has been ... done by Mr. and Mrs. C.S. Hartman."
Resumo:
Introduction: According to the Declaration of Helsinki and other guidelines, clinical studies should be approved by a research ethics committee and seek valid informed consent from the participants. Editors of medical journals are encouraged by the ICMJE and COPE to include requirements for these principles in the journal's instructions for authors. This study assessed the editorial policies of psychiatry journals regarding ethics review and informed consent. Methods and Findings: The information given on ethics review and informed consent and the mentioning of the ICMJE and COPE recommendations were assessed within author's instructions and online submission procedures of all 123 eligible psychiatry journals. While 54% and 58% of editorial policies required ethics review and informed consent, only 14% and 19% demanded the reporting of these issues in the manuscript. The TOP-10 psychiatry journals (ranked by impact factor) performed similarly in this regard. Conclusions: Only every second psychiatry journal adheres to the ICMJE's recommendation to inform authors about requirements for informed consent and ethics review. Furthermore, we argue that even the ICMJE's recommendations in this regard are insufficient, at least for ethically challenging clinical trials. At the same time, ideal scientific design sometimes even needs to be compromised for ethical reasons. We suggest that features of clinical studies that make them morally controversial, but not necessarily unethical, are analogous to methodological limitations and should thus be reported explicitly. Editorial policies as well as reporting guidelines such as CONSORT should be extended to support a meaningful reporting of ethical research.
Resumo:
Introduction: Reporting guidelines (e. g. CONSORT) have been developed as tools to improve quality and reduce bias in reporting research findings. Trial registration has been recommended for countering selective publication. The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) encourages the implementation of reporting guidelines and trial registration as uniform requirements (URM). For the last two decades, however, biased reporting and insufficient registration of clinical trials has been identified in several literature reviews and other investigations. No study has so far investigated the extent to which author instructions in psychiatry journals encourage following reporting guidelines and trial registration. Method: Psychiatry Journals were identified from the 2011 Journal Citation Report. Information given in the author instructions and during the submission procedure of all journals was assessed on whether major reporting guidelines, trial registration and the ICMJE's URM in general were mentioned and adherence recommended. Results: We included 123 psychiatry journals (English and German language) in our analysis. A minority recommend or require 1) following the URM (21%), 2) adherence to reporting guidelines such as CONSORT, PRISMA, STROBE (23%, 7%, 4%), or 3) registration of clinical trials (34%). The subsample of the top-10 psychiatry journals (ranked by impact factor) provided much better but still improvable rates. For example, 70% of the top-10 psychiatry journals do not ask for the specific trial registration number. Discussion: Under the assumption that better reported and better registered clinical research that does not lack substantial information will improve the understanding, credibility, and unbiased translation of clinical research findings, several stakeholders including readers (physicians, patients), authors, reviewers, and editors might benefit from improved author instructions in psychiatry journals. A first step of improvement would consist in requiring adherence to the broadly accepted reporting guidelines and to trial registration.
Resumo:
This study describes vancomycin prescribing patterns in an average complexity hospital and compare the guidelines proposed by the Hospital Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee (HICPAC). The study was conducted in a 256-bed secondary-care hospital. Data were collected of all patients given vancomycin from March 2003 to February 2004, using a standardized chart-extraction form designed. Appropriate and inappropriate use was reviewed according to the Hospital Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee (HICPAC) guidelines on prudent vancomycin use. Out of 118 prescriptions, 95 (80.5%) were considered appropriate. Out of these 95 orders, 77 (81.1%) were administered for empiric treatment of suspected Gram-positive infections, 17 (17.9%) were administered for treatment of proven Gram-positive infections (76.5% identified as Staphyloccocus aureus-like agents) and 1 (1.0%) for beta-lactam allergy. The majority of the patients (96.6%) had recently used an antimicrobial medication (3 months). The mean pre-treatment hospitalization period was 11±10 days. Out of the 118 treatments, 67 (56.8%) were for nosocomial infections. The more frequent indications for vancomycin use were pneumonia (48.3%) and primary sepsis (18.6%), accounting for more than 66% of all treatments. No restriction policy was suggested because vancomycin use was considered adequate in the majority of the treatment cases. The broad empiric use of this antimicrobial was greater than expected in the institution and its use should be revised.