Poster Session Abstrcts Posters will be presented during of 2 sessions, on Mondy, September, nd Tuesdy, September 2. Authorship nd Contributorship Trends in Authorship nd Tem Science in Mjor Medicl Journls, 2005-205 Christopher C. Muth, Robert M. Golub Objective Tem science helps ddress complex reserch questions by encourging interdisciplinry nd multicenter collbortions. Recognizing the vlue of tem science but lso the importnce of cknowledging individuls contributions, journls my include incresed numbers of uthors on byline, group uthorship, nd specil designtions to indicte uthors who contributed eqully to the work when publishing reserch. This study ssessed trends in uthorship of reserch rticles published in 3 mjor medicl journls to test the hypothesis tht tem science is supported by mjor medicl journls nd hs incresed over time. Design Reserch rticles published in 2005, 200, nd 205 in the top 3 generl medicl journls (JAMA, Lncet, nd New Englnd Journl of Medicine [NEJM]) bsed on current Impct Fctor were identified using the Web of Science dtbse. Reviews nd met-nlyses were excluded. The number of uthors, presence of group uthorship, nd presence of uthors who contributed eqully (detected by mnul review of the byline for sterisks or other nottion nd mnul ssessment of the endnotes for relevnt sttements) were determined for ech rticle. Trends in these uthorship metrics were then ssessed by journl over time. Results The numbers of rticles tht met inclusion criteri were 230, 88, nd 59 in JAMA; 72, 65, nd 78 in Lncet; nd 223, 222, nd 235 in NEJM for the yers 2005, 200, nd 205, respectively. The medin number of uthors per rticle nd the proportion of rticles with uthors who contributed eqully incresed significntly over time for ll journls (Tble 20). The proportion of rticles with group uthorship incresed significntly over time for JAMA but not for Lncet or NEJM. Conclusions The number of uthors per rticle nd the proportion of rticles with uthors who contributed eqully incresed over time in 3 mjor medicl journls. Although limited to top generl medicl journls, these findings re consistent with previous studies focused on erlier periods nd specilty journls. Increses in these uthorship metrics my indicte n increse in tem science nd suggest tht mjor medicl journls reflect this trend. Tble 20. Authorship Trends by Journl Over Time Authors per Article, Medin (IQR) JAMA, Chicgo, IL, USA, christopher.muth@jmnetwork.org Conflict of Interest Disclosures: The uthors re employed t JAMA, one of the journls included in this study. There re no other conflicts of interest to report. Funding/Support: There ws no externl funding for this study. Additionl Contributions: Joseph Wislr, former employee t JAMA nd currently employed t DentQuest Institute, Willimsport, Pennsylvni, provided sttisticl consulttion. Yer 2005 200 205 Frequency of Reporting on Ptient Involvement in Reserch Studies Published in Generl Medicl Journl: A Descriptive Study Amy Price,,2 Sr Schroter, Rosmund Snow,,3 Sophie Stniszewsk, 4,5 Sm Prker, Tess Richrds P Vlue for Trend JAMA 8 (5-) 8 (6-2) (7-8) <.00 Lncet 9 (7-3) 2 (8-6) 5 (0-2) <.00 NEJM (7-5) 3 (9-20) 8 (2-26) <.00 Articles With Group Authorship, No./Totl (%) JAMA 38/230 (6.5) 40/88 (2.3) 47/59 (29.6).002 Lncet 66/72 (38.4) 67/65 (40.6) 75/78 (42.).47 NEJM 82/223 (36.8) 87/222 (39.2) 06/235 (45.).07 Articles With Authors Who Contributed Eqully, No./Totl (%) JAMA 7/230 (3.0) 3/88 (6.9) 7/59 (0.7).002 Lncet 9/72 (5.2) 6/65 (9.7) 3/78 (7.4) <.00 NEJM 22/223 (9.9) 25/222 (.3) 64/235 (27.2) <.00 Abbrevitions: IQR, interqurtile rnge; NEJM, New Englnd Journl of Medicine. Objective The requirements for plnning of public involvement in reserch ie, reserch with or by members of the public rther thn to, bout, or for them within grnt pplictions hs incresed. To dte, there is not n greed method of reporting public involvement in reserch, nd this cn mke such involvement chllenging to identify. To ddress this, The BMJ now sks submitting uthors to include dedicted section on how they involved ptients in their reserch nd, if they did not, to stte there ws no involvement. We explore the erly influence on public involvement reporting, frequency, nd prctice following the introduction of mndtory public involvement section. www. peerreviewcongress.org 53
Design We report before-nd-fter comprison of published reserch rticles to ssess whether the rte of reporting of public involvement in reserch incresed with the introduction of mndtory section for describing this involvement. Two reserchers independently extrcted dt nd reched consensus on incidences nd types of public involvement in reserch cross two 2-month smples. No study designs were excluded, becuse public involvement in reserch is possible with studies tht hve no direct contct with prticipnts, eg, systemtic reviews. Tble 2. Type of Ptient Involvement Explicitly Reported Before nd After the Introduction of Mndtory Section Involvement Type Study Design Contributions to the grnt ppliction nd/or study protocol Help setting the reserch question or commenting on its importnce Preimplnttion (n=2) No. (%) Postimplementtion (n=6) 0 3 (9) 0 4 (25) Results Between June, 203, nd My 3, 204, The BMJ published 89 reserch rticles. Two (.%) reported public involvement ctivity. From June, 205, to My 3, 206, following the introduction of the public involvement section, The BMJ published 52 reserch rticles, of which 6 (0.5%) reported public involvement. Ptients were included in multiple spects of reserch, from grnt pplictions nd study design to couthorship nd dissemintion (Tble 2). Of the 8 rticles including some informtion on public involvement, 6 (33.3%) clerly cknowledged ptients help or commented on the vlue of their contributions, nd 2 (.%) included ptient contributors s couthors. Ensuring the development of, or choice of, outcome mesures ws informed by ptients priorities, experience, nd preferences Study Conduct Involved in the study steering group or member of the reserch tem Recruitment nd/or implementtion of the reserch Ptient/public communiction mterils, eg, ptient informtion sheets Anlysis (50) 7 (44) (50) 6 (38) (50) 8 (50) 0 4 (25) Conclusions Public involvement in reserch is not commonplce, despite being encourged by reserch funders. This is not solely reporting issue, s the proportion of ppers reporting public involvement ws modest, even fter introducing the mndtory public involvement declrtion within the methods section of The BMJ rticles. Some uthors my hve initited their reserch prior to The BMJ mndtory public involvement reporting inititive, but some ethicl review bords nd funding gencies hve been requesting this involvement for some yers. Journls nd funders should collborte to improve guidnce on how to involve nd report ptient involvement in reserch. Reporting innovtive wys ptients re involved in reserch processes my encourge prctice in this importnt re. The BMJ, London, UK, dr.myprice@gmil.com; 2 Deprtment of Continuing Eduction, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK; 3 University of Oxford University Medicl School, Oxford, UK; 4 Ptient nd Public Involvement nd Experiences of Cre Progrm, University of Wrwick, Coventry, UK; 5 Reserch Involvement nd Enggement Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Sr Schroter, Rosmund Snow, Sm Prker, nd Tess Richrds re employed by The BMJ, which hs ptient prtnership inititive. Amy Price, Rosmund Snow, nd Tess Richrds re ptients with long-term medicl conditions nd re committed to the involvement of ptients in ll stges of the reserch process. Amy Price is reserch fellow t The BMJ. Sophie Stniszewsk hs no conflicts of interest. Funding/Support: We received no externl funding for this study. Additionl Contributions: Our powerful nd inspiring couthor, Rosmund Snow, pssed wy before this work could be published. We re thnkful for her flexibility nd stedfst ledership s we lunched this inititive. We thnk Srh Foster (intern, The BMJ) for her help with the project. Contributed to dt nlysis 0 (6) Interprettion of study findings 0 2 (3) Drfting of the Mnuscript Contributions to the editing, revising, or writing of the mnuscript Authorship for Sle: A Survey of Predtory Publishers nd Journls Prvin M. Bolshete (50) 3 (9) Ptients listed s couthors (50) (6) Dissemintion Direct involvement of ptients led by the reserch tem, including the development of mterils for dissemintion nd choosing the most pproprite method of dissemintion Indirect involvement through dissemintion to ptient chrities, orgniztions, nd groups tht my in turn involve ptients in the process Ptient representtion informing the content of dissemintion mterils on generl dvisory bord for the use of the dt used in reserch 0 3 (9) 0 3 (9) 0 3 (9) b Responses re not mutully exclusive. For exmple, if ptient ws on the steering group, this will be indicted in the relevnt box nd in the box bout implementtion of the reserch. However, not ll those involved in study conduct were mde members of steering groups. b Includes 3 rticles from the QReserch tem with identicl sttements bout some spects of public involvement in dissemintion, but this public involvement ws specific to the QReserch dtbse, not the individul published studies, nd it is not cler how much ptients were involved in the individul studies reported. Objective To study the ttitude of possible or probble predtory publishers nd journls towrds unethicl requests to dd uthors. 54 Peer Review Congress
Design Survey study of predtory publishers nd stndlone journls ( publisher tht publishes only journl) between November 205 nd December 206. Publishers nd journls were identified from Bell s list on November 5, 205. Emil inquiries were sent to publishers of biomedicl journls sking if they would dd co-uthor s nme to ny mnuscript they hd received for publiction. After the initil inquiries tht were sent to the first 200 publishers in lphbeticl order demonstrted unethicl responses, 63 dditionl emils were sent to rndomly selected publishers. We rndomly selected 75 stnd-lone journls nd sent emils to 64 ( site links were not working). Emil responses were ctegorized s ethicl or unethicl bsed on the journl s willingness to dd couthor nmes; responses generlly not expected from legitimte journl were considered unethicl. Results Of 906 publishers on Bell s list, 706 (77.9%) were screened (resons for exclusion: nonworking links [n=84] nd duplictes [n=6]), 400 (56.7%) of which published 4924 biomedicl journls. Mny publishers were locted in Indi (n=9, 29.8%) nd the United Sttes (n=94, 23.5%). Among 835 stnd-lone journls, 52 (8.2%) were biomedicl journls. The overll response rte to the emil inquiries ws 44.5% (n=7) nd 54.7% (n=35) for publishers nd stndlone journls, respectively. Nineteen publishers nd 3 stnd-lone journls greed to dd couthor nme to n rticle they received without ny specific contribution (Tble 22). Forty-four publishers nd 9 stnd-lone journls declined to dd s couthor. Overll, 63 publisher responses were unethicl, 39 were ethicl, nd 5 were neutrl; of the stnd-lone journls, 7 were unethicl, were ethicl, nd 7 were neutrl. Conclusions Hlf or more of predtory publishers nd stnd-lone journls greed to dd couthor nme without specifiction of ny contribution, violting publiction ethics nd prctice. Scientific Writing nd Epidemiology, Tt Consultncy Services, Thne, Indi, prvinbolshete@gmil.com Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Dr Bolshete is n employee of Tt Consultncy Services, Thne, Mumbi. The views presented in this bstrct re his nd not those of his current or previous employers. A Survey of Awreness of Authorship Criteri by Clinicl Investigtors nd Medicl Writers in Chin Jing-ling Bo, Xiu-yun Ho, Wei-zhu Liu, Pei-fng Wei, Yng Pn, Jun-min Wei, Young-mo Jing Objective To estimte the wreness of Chinese clinicl investigtors nd medicl writers bout the uthorship criteri defined by the Interntionl Committee of Medicl Journl Editors (ICMJE) nd the ssocition between this wreness nd the number of rticles tht re published. Tble 22. Summry of Responses Received from Predtory Publishers nd Journls Ctegories Publishers, No. (%) (N=7) Journls, No. (%) (N=35) Declined to dd s couthor 44 (37.6) 9 (25.7) No cler response 2 (7.9) 7 (20.0) Agreed to dd s couthor 9 (6.2) 3 (8.6) We will write rticle nd publish 0 (8.5) 4 (.4) Agreed to write rticle but no clrity on publiction 9 (7.7) NA Positive (but not clerly stted s yes) 4 (3.4) 2 (5.7) Write yourself 4 (3.4) 2 (5.7) Write yourself, we will publish 4 (3.4) (2.9) We will write, but cnnot gurntee publiction (0.9) NA Other (0.9) NA We will help you in writing NA 7 (20.0) Abbrevition: NA, not pplicble. Design A totl of 935 clinicl investigtors nd medicl writers in Chin were surveyed online using questionnire with 4 questions. The first question ddressed understnding of ICMJE uthorship criteri in multiple-choice formt with 5 options: the first 4 options were the 4 specific uthorship criteri defined by ICMJE, nd the fifth option ws tht ll those designted s uthors should meet ll 4 criteri for uthorship. The second question sked bout who should mke the finl decision regrding uthorship nd hd 3 nswer options: first uthor, corresponding uthor, nd ll uthors. The third question sked whether the respondent hd included someone who did not contribute to the work in n rticle. The fourth question sked bout the number of ppers submitted nd published in Chinese nd Englishlnguge journls. A χ 2 test ws performed to nlyze whether there ws n ssocition between the number of rticles published nd the wreness of uthorship criteri. Results Among the 935 by clinicl investigtors nd medicl writers from throughout minlnd Chin invited to prticipte, 737 (78.8%) responded to the questionnire Of these, 726 (98.5%) provided usble responses. Regrding the first question on uthorship criteri, 23 respondents (29.3%) gve the correct nswer (the fifth option) nd n dditionl 74 respondents (24.0%) indicted ll first 4 options. Combined, 387 (53.3%) provided correct nswers confirming nunderstnding of ICMJE criteri for uthorship. Of the 339 respondents (46.7%) who did not select nswers tht demonstrted n understnding of the complete uthorship criteri, 322 (95.0%), 254 (75.0%), 5 (.5%), nd 29 (64.6%) respondents chose the first to fourth options, respectively. There were no significnt differences between the numbers of uthors who published 0 to 2 rticles nd 3 or more rticles in Chinese vs English-lnguge journls. Only 00 respondents (3.8%) chose the option tht ll the uthors should decide the order of uthors, nd there ws no difference between the 2 groups. A totl of 370 respondents (5%) indicted tht they included someone who did not contribute to their work s n www. peerreviewcongress.org 55
Tble 23. Comprison of Survey Responses by Different Published Groups Published in Chinese, No. (%) Published in English, No. (%) Options 0-2 Articles (N=95) 3 Articles (N=53) P Vlue 0-2 Articles (N=462) 3 Articles (N=264) P Vlue Answered the first question with the fifth ICMJE option 57 (29.2) 56 (29.4).00 33 (28.8) 80 (30.3).67 Responded tht ll uthors should choose the order of uthorship 35 (7.9) 65 (2.2).05 66 (4.3) 34 (2.9).66 Included n honorry uthor 82 (42.) 288 (54.2).004 234 (50.6) 36 (5.5).88 Abbrevition: ICMJE, Interntionl Committee of Medicl Journl Editors. uthor (honorry uthor); this ws reported more frequently by uthors who published 3 or more rticles vs 0 to 2 rticles in Chinese journls (54.2% vs 42.%, P = 0.004) (Tble 23). Conclusions Mny Chinese clinicl investigtors nd medicl writers re unwre of the ICMJE uthorship criteri, nd this unwreness hs no ssocition with the number of rticles tht re published. The existence of honorry uthors is common. Editors should tke responsibility for disseminting informtion regrding uthorship criteri to uthors. Editoril Office, Chronic Diseses nd Trnsltionl Medicine, Chinese Medicl Assocition, 42 Dongsi Xidjie, Beijing, bojingling@cm.org.cn Funding/Support: None reported. Survey of Authors Views on Brriers to Preprtion of Biomedicl Reserch Mnuscripts June Oshiro, Suznne L. Cubet, 2 Kelly Viol, 3 Jill M. Huber 4 Objective A considerble body of biomedicl reserch is presented s conference bstrcts but never published s full mnuscripts. We surveyed reserchers t n cdemic medicl institution, with the gols of () chrcterizing their self-identified brriers to mnuscript preprtion nd (2) determining whether these brriers chnged with incresing publiction experience. Design Select physicins nd bsic reserchers (those ttending noncompulsory workshops on publishing reserch) were surveyed with n emiled questionnire from April 2009 through November 205. All were employees of single tertiry medicl institution in the upper Midwestern United Sttes. We sked them to report the number of published ppers (couthored) in the pst 5 yers nd to indicte wht ws most difficult bout prepring mnuscript for publiction. Lck of time ws presumed mjor brrier; we thus sked them to list fctors other thn time. Two investigtors performed content nlysis of deidentified free-text responses. The men (SD) greement between coders ws 98% (2%), nd the men (SD) Scott π coefficient for interrter relibility ws 0.8 (0.26). Prticipnts responses were strtified by publishing experience level (low [0-4 ppers published in the pst 5 yers], medium [5-0 ppers], nd high [>0 ppers]). Results Of the 294 workshop prticipnts, 20 (68.4%) responded to the survey. Of these, 77 (38.3%) hd low experience, 53 (26.4%) hd medium experience, nd 7 (35.3%) hd high experience in publishing. A totl of 4 respondents (56.7%) listed multiple brriers to mnuscript preprtion (370 brrier items reported). Ten respondents (5.0%) did not indicte ny brrier. The most frequently mentioned brriers, strtified by experience level, were not significntly different cross groups (Tble 24). Although the most common concerns overll (eg, orgniztion nd wording) ppered to be unffected by uthor experience level, inexperienced reserchers cited difficulty with defining the scope of the pper more often thn highly experienced reserchers, nd with incresing experience, reserchers hd greter concerns bout responding to reviewers nd ensuring high-qulity dt presenttion. Conclusions The most commonly perceived brriers to mnuscript preprtion were not meliorted by n incresing level of experience in publishing. Inexperienced reserchers my benefit from mentoring to overcome difficulties with mnuscript development. Most reserchers, regrdless of experience level, my be more productive if they hd the ssistnce of professionl writer (not ghostwriter) or editor who cn help them drft the preliminry mnuscript nd follow the project through submission to ensure complince with the journl-specific formt nd publictionqulity figures nd tbles. Section of Scientific Publictions, Myo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA, oshiro.june@myo.edu; 2 Tlent nd Succession Mngement, Myo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA; 3 Section of Scientific Publictions, Myo Clinic, Jcksonville, FL, USA; 4 Division of Primry Cre Internl Medicine, Myo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA Reserchers Awreness nd Use of Authorship Guidelines: An Interntionl Survey Sr Schroter, Ilri Montgni, 2 Elizbeth Loder, Mtthis Eikermnn, 3 Elke Scheffner, 4 Tobis Kurth Objective To understnd the degree to which interntionl reserchers re currently wre of nd pply uthorship guidelines in prctice nd to ssess their perceptions of the firness of uthorship decisions. Design In September 206, we invited 2,646 corresponding uthors of reserch ppers submitted in 204 to ny of 8 56 Peer Review Congress
Tble 24. Most Common Brriers to Mnuscript Preprtion, Strtified by Publishing Experience Brrier Orgnizing informtion ppropritely Low (n=77) Experience Level of Respondents, No. (%) b Medium (n=53) High (n=7) P Vlue c 9 (24.7) 6 (30.2) 6 (22.5).85 Succinct, effective wording 0 (3.0) 8 (5.) 2 (6.9).64 Complince with journl-specific formt Defining scope of the pper Responding to reviewer concerns Creting publiction-qulity figures nd tbles 9 (.7) 9 (7.0) 0 (4.).8 3 (6.9) 9 (7.0) 5 (7.0).08 2 (2.6) 5 (9.4) 7 (9.9).09 0 (0) 2 (3.8) 8 (.3).002 Ten respondents did not report ny brriers (3 with low level, 3 with medium level, nd 4 with high level of experience). b A low level of experience ws defined s 0 to 4 mnuscripts published in the pst 5 yers; medium, 5 to 0 mnuscripts; nd high, more thn 0 mnuscripts. c Determined by use of the Fisher exct test; comprison of low- nd high-experience groups only. BMJ journls in rnge of specilties to complete n online survey. Results We received 3859 responses (3%). Respondents vried in terms of reserch experience nd worked in 93 countries. Of the 3859 respondents, 326 (34%) reported tht their institution hd n uthorship policy providing criteri for uthorship; 287 (74%) were very fmilir with the Interntionl Committee of Medicl Journl Editors (ICMJE) uthorship criteri; nd 3358 (87%) reported tht these criteri were beneficil when prepring mnuscripts. Furthermore, 2609 (68%) reported tht their use ws sometimes or frequently encourged in their reserch setting. However, 2859 respondents (74%) reported tht they hd been involved in study t lest once where someone ws dded s n uthor who hd not contributed substntilly (honorry uthorship), nd 305 (34%) were involved in study t lest once where someone ws not listed s n uthor but hd contributed substntilly to the study or rticle (ghost uthorship). Only 740 (9%) reported tht they hd never experienced either honorry or ghost uthorship; 5 (29%) reported tht they hd experienced both t lest once in their creers. Tble 25 lists respondents current perceived institutionl support regrding uthorship guidelines nd their experience of uthorship mispproprition by continent. While there re some differences by continent, there is no cler pttern. In regrd to the lst rticle tht respondents couthored, 287 (57%) reported tht explicit uthorship criteri hd been used to decide who should be n uthor, nd 3088 (80%) felt the decision mde ws fir. When institutions frequently encourged the use of uthorship guidelines, uthorship eligibility ws more likely to be discussed t n erly stge (87 of 40, 58%) nd ws perceived s firer (273 of 40, 90%) compred with infrequent encourgement (974 of 2449, 40% nd 89 of 2449, 74%). Conclusions These results reflect current prctice in interntionl reserch cross rnge of specilties. While 74% of these uthors re wre of guidelines, guidelines re not s frequently endorsed by institutions. Explicit encourgement of use of uthorship criteri by institutions resulted in more fvorble use of guidelines by uthor tems. The BMJ, London, UK, sschroter@bmj.com; 2 University of Bordeux, Bordeux, Frnce; 3 Criticl Cre Division, Msschusetts Generl Hospitl, Boston, MA, USA; 4 Chrité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germny Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Sr Schroter is full-time employee t BMJ. Tobis Kurth is consulting editor for BMJ. Elizbeth Loder received slry from BMJ for services s hed of reserch, pid to her employer, the Brighm nd Women s Physicin Orgniztion. Tble 25. Experience of Authorship Mispproprition nd Institutionl Support by Continent of Respondent Author s Min Institution Respondents, No. (%) Chrcteristic All, N=3859 Afric, n=79 Asi, n=652 Europe, n=2073 North Americ, n=594 South Americ, n=90 Oceni, n=243 Institutionl support Respondent s institution hs n uthorship policy 326 (34) 29 (37) 27 (42) 632 (3) 99 (34) 22 (24) 25 (5) Respondent very fmilir with ICMJE criteri 287 (74) 56 (7) 429 (66) 588 (77) 468 (79) 76 (84) 85 (76) Use of explicit uthorship guidelines frequently encourged by respondent s institution 40 (37) 40 (5) 257 (39) 76 (35) 23 (39) 37 (4) 00 (4) Authorship mispproprition Never experienced honorry uthorship 929 (24) 22 (28) 29 (34) 449 (22) 29 (22) 6 (8) 67 (28) Experienced honorry uthorship t lest once 2859 (74) 57 (72) 43 (66) 62 (78) 46 (78) 74 (82) 76 (72) Never experienced ghost uthorship 248 (64) 46 (58) 428 (66) 368 (66) 37 (63) 63 (70) 66 (68) Experienced ghost uthorship t lest once 305 (34) 32 (4) 224 (34) 699 (34) 222 (37) 27 (30) 76 (3) Experienced both honorry nd ghost uthorship 5 (29) 28 (35) 80 (28) 605 (29) 92 (32) 24 (27) 65 (27) Experienced neither honorry nor ghost uthorship 740 (9) 7 (22) 76 (27) 355 (7) 00 (7) 3 (4) 56 (23) Percentges do not ll sum to 00% owing to missing dt. www. peerreviewcongress.org 57
Interntionl Survey of Reserchers Experiences With nd Attitudes Towrd Couthorship in the Humnities nd Socil Sciences Tiffny Drke, Bruce Mcfrlne, 2 Mrk Robinson Objective To ssess current ttitudes towrd nd experiences of journl rticle couthorship by reserchers in the humnities nd socil sciences (HSS). Design An online survey ws distributed in June 206 to 980 reserchers comprising editors of Tylor & Frncis HSS journls, non Tylor & Frncis HSS editors, nd reserchers who published in Tylor & Frncis HSS journls between July nd September 204. The survey included 3 questions bout uthorship nd trining/guidnce followed by scenrio section, which presented reserchers with hypotheticl sitution to respond to from the perspective of their primry role in the publishing process. Results A totl of 894 prticipnts (0%) from 62 countries completed ll or prt of the survey. Response rtes vried by geogrphic loction: Afric nd Middle Est, %; Austrlsi, 3%; Europe, 0%; Ltin Americ, 8%; South nd Southest Asi, 0%; nd United Sttes nd Cnd, 9%. Among the 3 groups (uthors, reviewers, nd editors), respondents differed by men number of rticles published, sex, nd ge (Tble 26) A totl of 542 respondents (74%) reported tht the typicl number of uthors per rticle in their re ws 2 or more, nd 50 respondents (56%) believed the incidence of couthorship hd incresed since the beginning of their reserch creers. The most common reson given for increse of couthorship ws incresing competition nd greter performnce-bsed pressures (70%). The highest-scoring responses bout common problems ssocited with couthorship were order in which uthor nmes should be listed (52%) nd determining who should receive uthorship credit (43%). Respondents indicted tht the following were importnt for determining uthorship: being responsible for the conception nd/or design of project (79%); being responsible for the nlysis nd/or interprettion of dt (8%); nd drfting the pper or revising it criticlly for intellectul content (69%). Fewer respondents (8%) greed tht giving finl pprovl of the version of the pper to be published ws importnt for determining uthorship. Respondents reported relity gp, with being senior rnked member of the reserch tem submitting pper nd being the reserch supervisor of doctorl student whose pper gets published considered less importnt in n idel world vs the rel world. Only 83 respondents (25%) reported tht guidnce on uthorship ws included in the reserch ethics policy of their institution, nd 32 (8%) reported hving received trining or guidnce from their institution in respect to determining cdemic uthorship. Tble 26. Demogrphic Chrcteristics of Respondents Chrcteristics Plese select the role (uthor, etc) tht best describes you, No. (%) (n=737) No. of rticles published, men No. of mnuscripts reviewed, men First yer of editorship, medin Sex, No. (%) (n=76) Authors Authors nd Reviewers Authors, Reviewers, nd Editors rise questions bout the role institutions nd publishers could ply in providing cler ethicl guidnce nd trining for reserchers nd editors in these res. Tylor & Frncis Group, Abingdon, UK, mrk.robinson@tndf. co.uk; 2 University of Southmpton, Southmpton, UK Totl 52 (7) 243 (33) 442 (60) 737 9.5 23 72 NA 24 64 NA NA 2008 Mle 22 (46) 30 (54) 25 (60) 403 Femle 26 (54) 06 (44) 68 (39) 300 Prefer not to sy 0 4 () 6 () 0 Other 0 2 (0.8) (0.2) 3 Age, No. (%), y (n=77) 20-29 6 (3) 7 (3) 2 (0.5) 5 30-39 6 (33) 88 (36) 43 (0) 47 40-49 7 (35) 79 (33) 95 (22) 9 50-59 8 (7) 34 (4) 38 (32) 80 60-69 (2) 26 () 05 (24) 32 70 0 8 (3) 44 (0) 52 Region, No. (%) (n=737) Afric nd Middle Est (2) 20 (8) 30 (7) 5 Austrlsi 6 (2) 8 (7) 52 (2) 76 Europe 9 (37) 85 (35) 64 (37) 268 Ltin Americ (2) 8 (3) 2 (3) 2 South nd Southest Asi 4 (8) 7 (7) 25 (6) 46 United Sttes nd Cnd 6 (3) 94 (39) 45 (33) 255 Unknown 5 (0) () 4 (3) 20 Abbrevition: NA, not pplicble. Respondents did not nswer ll questions. Conflict of Interest Disclosures: As the employees of commercil publisher (Tylor & Frncis Group), Tiffny Drke nd Mrk Robinson report potentil conflict of interest where findings of the survey relte to spects of the publishing process. Conclusions With rticle couthorship incresingly common in HSS, need exists to ddress the ttendnt problems of uthorship ttribution. The results of this survey 58 Peer Review Congress
Bis in Peer Review, Reporting, nd Publiction Finncil Ties nd Discordnce Between Results nd Conclusions in Trils of Weight Loss nd Physicl Activity Apps Veronic Ynk, Snjhvi Agrwl, Rhe Red, 2 Amy Lozno Objective Some of the most highly mrketed mobile pplictions ( pps ) focus on weight loss nd physicl ctivity. The US Food nd Drug Administrtion hs declined to regulte them. It is unknown whether pp reserch studies tht receive finncil support from commercil entities re similr to studies without commercil support in the degree to which they protect ginst bis. We sought to determine whether pp studies with commercil finncil ties were more or less likely thn others to hve discordnt results nd conclusions or other chrcteristics pertinent to ssessing bis. Design We performed retrospective cohort study of English-lnguge rndomized clinicl trils of weight loss or physicl ctivity pps published through October 206. We serched PubMed, the Cochrne Dtbse, EMBASE, nd Web of Science using stndrdized pproches to identify rticles tht met initil literture serch criteri. Two reviewers blinded to uthor nme, ffilition, finncil support, nd conflict of interest disclosures performed title, bstrct, nd full-text review (s necessry) to determine finl study eligibility. For included studies, 2 blinded reviewers independently ssessed direction of study results (fvorble or not fvorble towrd study pp), direction of conclusions, nd whether tril registrtion informtion nd 7 design elements tht protect ginst bis (from Cochrne Risk of Bis tool) were present. Finncil ties were extrcted fter other ssessments were complete. Finncil ties were ctegorized s commercil (eg, ties to n pp compny) vs noncommercil (eg, ties to government or foundtion). Results nd conclusions were defined s discordnt if they disgreed in direction (results, not fvorble; conclusions, fvorble). Comprisons using Fisher exct tests nd t-tests were performed using Stt sttisticl softwre (version 4.2; SttCorp). Results Among 876 unique rticles identified on initil literture serch, 7 met inclusion criteri: 7 (4%) with commercil ties nd 0 (59%) with noncommercil ties (Tble 27). A smller percentge of commercil trils Tble 27. Chrcteristics of Rndomized Clinicl Trils of Weight Loss nd Physicl Activity Apps According to Commercil nd Noncommercil Finncil Ties Finncil Ties, Study No. Fvorble Results Fvorble Conclusions Discordnt Findings Tril Registrtion Protections Aginst Bis Commercil (n=7) NF F Yes No 0 2 NF F Yes No 0 3 NF F Yes No 2 4 NF NF No Yes 2 5 NF F Yes No 0 6 F F No No 2 7 NF F Yes No Trils, No. (%) (4) 6 (86) 5 (7) (4) Men (SD), (0.4) Noncommercil (n=0) F F No Yes 3 2 NF F Yes Yes 4 3 NF NF No Yes 5 4 F F No Yes 2 5 F F No Yes 4 6 F F No Yes 4 7 F F No Yes 3 8 NF NF No Yes 5 9 F F No Yes 6 0 NF NF No Yes 4 Trils, No. (%) 6 (60) 7 (70) (0) 0 (00) Men (SD), 4 (0.2) Abbrevitions: F, fvorble towrd study pp; NF, not fvorble. Tril registrtion indictes tht the study reports being registered in ntionl or interntionl tril registry (eg, clinicltrils.gov). Protections ginst bis ws scored (rnge, 0-7) using the Cochrne Risk of Bis tool, with higher scores indicting higher number of study design elements tht protect ginst bis. Design elements ssessed include rndom sequence genertion, lloction concelment, blinding of prticipnts nd/or personnel, blinding of outcome ssessment, completeness of outcome dt, voidnce of selective reporting, nd voidnce of other sources of bis. www. peerreviewcongress.org 59
reported fvorble results thn did noncommercil trils (4% vs 60%, respectively; P =.3), wheres lrger percentge reported fvorble conclusions (86% vs. 70%; P =.60). As result, commercil trils hd significntly greter discordnce between results nd conclusions thn noncommercil trils (7% vs. 0%; P =.04). They lso were less likely to report tril registrtion (4% vs 00%; P =.00) nd hd fewer design elements tht protect ginst bis (men [SD], [0.4] vs 4 [.2]; P <.00). Conclusions Rndomized clinicl trils of weight loss nd physicl ctivity pps with commercil finncil ties were more likely to hve discordnce between results nd conclusions nd less likely to meet registrtion nd design stndrds. University of Cliforni, Sn Frncisco, Sn Frncisco, CA, USA, veronic.ynk@ucsf.edu; 2 Sn Frncisco Stte University, Sn Frncisco, CA, USA Funding/Support: Dr Ynk is supported by creer development wrd from the Ntionl Institute of Dibetes nd Digestive nd Kidney Diseses (K23DK097308). Role of Funder/Sponsor: The Ntionl Institute of Dibetes nd Digestive nd Kidney Diseses hd no role in the design, performnce, or interprettion of findings of this study. Bis Arising From the Use of Ptient-Reported Outcome Mesures Joel J. Ggnier,,2 Jinyu Li, Chris Robbins Objective The objective ws to ssess the bis in outcomes effects ssocited with the use of ptient-reported outcome (PRO) mesures of vrying psychometric qulity in peerreviewed clinicl studies. Design A literture serch ws conducted using PubMed (Jnury, 20, to December 3, 206) to serch for rndomized nd observtionl studies (cohort, cse-control studies) published in the top 5 orthopedic journls (s rnked by their Impct Fctors), in humns tht used PRO mesures, for rottor cuff disese.the study design, smple size, stndrd spects of risk of bis (high or low using Cochrne Methods, such s rndomiztion methods, lloction concelment, nd blinding) for ech study type, types of PRO outcome mesures used, dt relted to the PRO mesure results in ll groups, mesures of effect (odds rtio, reltive risk, incidence risk rtio, bsolute risk reduction, men chnge, etc), nd confidence intervls or other mesures of vrince were extrcted. Continuous mesures of effect were trnsformed by dividing the effect estimte by the stndrd devition. PRO mesures were given numericl rtings of qulity bsed on systemtic review of evidence for their psychometric properties. Liner regression nlyses were performed to determine whether PRO mesure qulity ws ssocited with the mgnitude of effects nd the influence of vriety of covrites on this reltionship. Results Overll, 62 rticles were included for this study cross 5 high-impct orthopedic journls. Of the studies, 80% were observtionl nd 20% rndomized. Studies included to 7 PRO mesures. Greter thn 75% of the included studies did not justify the use of PRO nd greter thn 50% did not describe the PRO detils. Liner regression reveled tht lower-qulity PROs hd lrger estimtes of effect, nd by contrst, higher-qulity PROs hd smller estimtes of effect (n = 23; β = 0.2, 95% CI, 0.43 to 0.02; P =.03). In univrible regression nlyses, we lso found tht longer follow-up period (rnge, 0. to 96 months) predicted slightly incresed effect estimtes (n = 96; β = 0.05; 95% CI, 0.02 to 0.09; P =.002). Conclusions PRO mesures with poor or unknown psychometric properties bis (ie, inflte) the estimtes of tretment effect in clinicl reserch of rottor cuff disese. To our knowledge, this is the first empiricl evidence, to dte, tht vritions in the qulity of PRO mesures bis tretment effect estimtes. Reserchers nd clinicins using dt from PROs must be cutious to explore the qulity of tht mesure so s to not misled decision mking from bised outcomes. Deprtment of Orthopedic Surgery, University of Michign, Ann Arbor, MI, USA, jggnier@med.umich.edu; 2 Deprtment of Epidemiology, University of Michign, Ann Arbor, MI, USA Discrepncies in Risk of Bis Judgments for Rndomized Trils of Acupuncture Included in More Thn Cochrne Review Yonggng Zhng,,2 Linli Zheng, 2 Youping Li,,2 Mike Clrke,,3 nd Ling Du,2 Objective To ssess consistency in risk of bis judgments for rndomized trils of cupuncture included in more thn Cochrne Review. Design We identified rndomized trils of cupuncture tht ppered in more thn Cochrne Review nd retrieved ll risk of bis judgments for these trils. We ssessed the consistency of judgments (high risk of bis, low risk of bis, nd uncertin) for the 5 domins in the Cochrne risk of bis tool: rndom sequence genertion, lloction concelment, blinding, incomplete outcome dt, nd selective reporting. Reviews tht did not report ll 5 domins were included in the nlyses of the domins they did report. Results We identified 90 Cochrne Reviews tht included t lest rndomized tril of cupuncture, comprising totl of 692 trils. After checking the reviews, 3 trils were identified in more thn review (in totl of 28 Cochrne Reviews). Thirty trils ppered in 2 reviews nd tril ppered in 3 reviews. For ll 3 trils, we found totl of 2 judgments for the 5 domins. Overll, 50% (60 of 2) of these judgments were different (Tble 28), with most of these differences being the ctegoriztion s uncertin in 60 Peer Review Congress
Tble 28. Judgments of the Risk of Bis for 3 Rndomized Trils of Accupunture Risk of Bis Domin Totl No. of Trils Judgments Agreed, No. (%) Judgments Disgreed, No. (%) Disgreements Uncler/Low Risk High Risk/Uncler High Risk/Low Risk Rndom sequence genertion 22 5 (68) 7 (32) 7 0 0 Alloction concelment 29 5 (52) 4 (48) 0 3 Blinding 24 8 (27) 6 (63) 5 0 4 Incomplete outcome dt 24 5 (63) 9 (27) 3 5 Selective reporting 22 8 (36) 4 (64) 3 0 Blinding ws ssessed by blinding tretment provider nd blinding outcome ssessor in 3 studies, disgreements re in both 2 subdomins; therefore, the totl number of disgreements in the domin of blinding is 9. review but high or low risk in nother. Reltively good greement ws found for rndom sequence genertion (68%) nd incomplete outcome dt (63%). Five of the 9 discrepnt trils with incomplete outcome dt hd the most extreme inconsistency (ie, high risk of bis in review but low risk of bis in the other review). Agreement ws 52% for lloction concelment but only 27% for blinding nd 36% for selective reporting. Conclusions Use of cupuncture s exmple of the ssessment for bis in Cochrne trils my be limittion of this study given the concerns bout blinding in trils of cupuncture. However, this nlysis shows tht there re lrge discrepncies in risk of bis judgments between Cochrne Reviews tht ssessed the sme cupuncture rndomized tril, which my cst doubt on the much commoner sitution, when tril is ssessed once only. Further work is needed to improve the ppliction of the Cochrne risk of bis tool. The colltion of judgements for ll rndomized trils in centrl, stndrdized dtbse of risk of bis my be helpful. Journl of Evidence-Bsed Medicine, m.clrke@qub.c.uk; 2 Chinese Cochrne Centre, West Chin Hospitl of Sichun University, Chengdu, Chin; 3 Centre for Public Helth, Queen s University Belfst, Belfst, UK Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Dr Li is member of the Peer Review Congress Advisory Bord but ws not involved in the review or decision of this bstrct. Funding: None reported. Gender Bis in Funding of Proposls Submitted to the Swiss Ntionl Science Foundtion Frnçois Delvy, Anne Jorstd, Mtthis Egger Objective The Swiss Ntionl Science Foundtion is the lrgest public reserch funder in Switzerlnd. Its Reserch Council ssesses proposls nd mkes funding decisions. Proposls cn be subject to budget cuts. Our objective ws to investigte whether success rtes nd cuts in budgets differed between mle nd femle pplicnts. Design We nlyzed the decisions for proposls submitted from 204 to 206. We computed verge success rtes nd funding levels (yerly pproved mount of funding divided by yerly requested mount of funding) by gender nd domin of reserch: Humnities nd Socil Sciences (HSS), Mthemtics, Nturl nd Engineering Sciences (MNES); nd Biology nd Medicine (BioMed). Funded projects received men nnul support of 40,000 CHF (~44,000 USD). We performed 2 regression nlyses to djust for potentil confounders, including submission yer nd chrcteristics of the pplicnts (ffilition, discipline, ge, ntionlity, first-time pplicnts): logistic regression for success on ll proposls (n=5687) nd liner regression for funding level on pproved proposls (n=2824). Results The verge success rte of femle pplicnts ws similr to mle pplicnts in HSS, but 7.8% lower in MNES nd 3.5% lower in BioMed (Figure 8). In the multivrible logistic regression model the odds of pprovl continued to be lower for proposls submitted by women in MNES (odds rtio compred with men, 0.72 [95% CI, 0.54-0.96]); but not for HSS (95% CI, 0.77-.5) nd BioMed (95% CI, 0.77-.25). Furthermore, the budgets of proposls from femle pplicnts were cut more substntilly thn the budgets of mle pplicnts. Funding levels were 2.7% lower in HSS, 5.7% lower in MNES, nd 3.2% lower in BioMed in femle compred with mle pplicnts. In the multivrible liner regression model, the funding level ws 2.5% (95% CI, 0.3%-4.6%), 6.0% (95% CI, 2.3%-9.7%), nd 3.6% (95% CI, 0.9%-6.0%) lower for femle compred with mle pplicnts in domins HSS, MNES, nd BioMed, respectively. Conclusions Proposls from femle pplicnts hd lower success rtes in MNES, BioMed, nd differences persisted in models djusted for potentil confounding fctors in MNES. Furthermore, budget cuts were more substntil for femle thn for mle pplicnts in ll domins, nd differences gin Figure 8. Success Rte nd Funding Level by Reserch Domin nd Gender Success Rte, % 60 40 20 0 HSS MNES BioMed Funding level, % 00 75 50 25 0 HSS MNES Femle Mle BioMed HSS Indictes humnities nd socil sciences; MNES, mthemtics, nturl nd engineering sciences; BioMed, biology nd medicine. www. peerreviewcongress.org 6
persisted in djusted nlyses. These results re comptible with gender bis but cnnot prove the existence of such bis. Swiss Ntionl Science Foundtion, Bern, Switzerlnd, frncois. delvy@snf.ch Prevlence of High or Uncler Risk of Bis Assessments in Dignostic Accurcy Studies Included in Cochrne Reviews Nicol Di Girolmo, Reint Meursinge Reynders, 2 Alexndr Winter 3,4 Objective The vlidity of systemtic reviews of dignostic ccurcy is dependent on the extent of bis in included primry studies. The objective of this study ws to ssess the risk of bis in primry studies of dignostic ccurcy included in Cochrne reviews ccording to the Qulity Assessment for Studies of Dignostic Accurcy 2 (QUADAS-2) tool. Design All systemtic reviews of dignostic ccurcy published in the Cochrne dtbse in 206 tht used the QUADAS-2 qulity ssessment tool nd tht reported results with the risk of bis figure were eligible. The primry outcome ws the prevlence of high or uncler risk-of-bis scores for the 4 QUADAS-2 domins ptient selection, index test, reference stndrd, nd flow nd timing mong the primry studies in these dignostic ccurcy reviews. Two investigtors selected the eligible reviews nd ssessed the risk of bis scores for primry studies. Disgreements were resolved by consensus. Results Of 46 eligible systemtic reviews, 35 were included, 6 were excluded becuse they did not use the QUADAS-2 tool, 4 were excluded becuse they lcked the risk-of-bis figure, nd review ws duplicte. A totl of 045 primry studies with 433 bis ssessments were identified; 044 reported risk of bis for ptient selection, 002 for index test, 044 for reference stndrd, nd 043 for flow nd timing. A totl of 239 of 433 domins (56%) were ssessed s hving high or uncler risk of bis, with 84 (44%) hving low risk of bis. For ll domins except flow nd timing, the mjority of outcomes were scored s hving high or uncler risk of bis. Conclusions Primry studies in systemtic reviews of dignostic ccurcy re often rted s hving high or uncler risk of bis by QUADAS-2 criteri. Inclusion of such studies in systemtic reviews nd met-nlyses my jeoprdize finl results nd interprettion. This study is limited by the lck of ccounting for clustering of risk-of-bis ssessments within primry studies evluted in systemtic reviews nd for the exclusion of non-cochrne reviews, which my limit the generlizbility of the findings. Although further investigtion is indicted to evlute whether dditionl trining of systemtic reviewers would decrese the prevlence of high nd uncler risk of bis, the findings point to need to improve the conduct nd reporting of dignostic ccurcy studies. EBMVet, Cremon, Itly, nicoldiggi@gmil.com; 2 Deprtment of Orl nd Mxillofcil Surgery, Acdemic Medicl Center, University of Amsterdm, Amsterdm, the Netherlnds; 3 Journl of the Americn Veterinry Medicl Assocition, Schumburg, IL, USA; 4 Americn Veterinry Medicl Assocition, Schumburg, IL, USA Funding/Support: This study ws self-funded. Assessment of Agreement Between Reviewers in the Open Postpubliction Peer Review Process of F000Reserch Tigo Brros, Liz Allen Objective F000Reserch opertes n uthor-driven, open, nd postpubliction peer review model. The identity of the reviewer nd the peer review report including its recommendtion re mde public immeditely fter submission by the reviewer. This study imed to identify ny potentil influence of the first published peer review on the recommendtion of the second reviewer, s mesured by the greement between the 2 recommendtions nd the time between them. Design Bringing together dtset of rticles published between July 202 nd Februry 207 nd ssocited open peer review reports, we nlyzed the greement mong reviewers depending on the time between reports. Only rticles presenting originl reserch or methods were included. Articles where the time gp between the 2 reviewer reports ws longer thn yer (365 dys) were excluded. The recommendtions ( pproved, pproved with reservtions, or not pproved ) of the first 2 reviewers were recorded, s well s the published dte of the reports. Cohen κ ws used to mesure interrter relibility, nd its chnge with time between reports ws used to ssess potentil bis. In the bsence of survey dt on whether the second reviewer hd red previous report before submitting their recommendtion, reports published within the sme dy re considered the control group. Results The nlyzed dtset contined,33 rticles nd 2,266 reviewer reports, ie the first 2 reviewer reports of ech rticle. The medin (interqurtile rnge) time between the first 2 peer reviews ws 8 (6-52) dys. In ggregte, the brekdown of the peer review decision ( pproved, pproved with reservtions, or not pproved ) cross the dtset ws virtully identicl between the 2 reviewers (724 [63.9%], 355 [3.3%], nd 54 decisions [4.8%] vs 705 [62.2%], 372 [32.8%], nd 56 [4.9%] decisions, respectively). However, compring the recommendtions mde for ech rticle individully, the Cohen κ ws 0.330 (compred with 0.282 for the control group), indicting only fir greement between the reviewers. Moreover, the Cohen κ chnged 62 Peer Review Congress
minimlly with the length of time between the peer review publiction dtes (Tble 29). Conclusions Our nlysis of the F000Reserch open peer reviews found tht the greement between reviewers did not chnge substntilly with the time gp between peer reviews. The second reviewer does not seem to be systemticlly influenced by the bility to see the recommendtion of n erlier reviewer. This is n importnt finding nd something to continue to monitor s the momentum nd cceptnce of open peer review models, nd open science more brodly, continues to grow. F000, London, UK, tigo.brros@f000.com Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Dr Brros is the Product Strtegy Mnger of F000, nd Dr Allen is the Director of Strtegic Inititives of F000. An Updte on Reporting Bis in the Antidepressnt Literture: An FDA-Controlled Exmintion of Drug Efficcy Erick H. Turner,,2,3 Sepideh Alvi, 2 Andre Ciprini, 4 Toshi Furukw, 5 Ily Ivlev, Ryn McKenn, 3 Yusuke Ogw 5 Objective We previously investigted the influence of reporting bis on the pprent proportion of sttisticlly significnt trils nd effect size estimtes for ntidepressnt medictions pproved through 2004. We updte those findings here for medictions pproved since 2004. Design We identified ntidepressnts pproved by the US Food nd Drug Administrtion (FDA) since 2004. We downloded corresponding medicl nd sttisticl reviews from Drugs@FDA, identified phse 2 nd 3 double-blind plcebo-controlled efficcy trils, extrcted summry sttistics on ech tril s primry outcome, nd extrcted the FDA s judgment s to whether ech tril provided evidence of efficcy (sttisticl superiority to plcebo on the primry outcome). For ech FDA-registered tril, we serched the published literture for corresponding journl publictions, extrcted from the results sections summry sttistics on the effect size for the stted primry outcome nd whether the publiction conveyed tht the drug ws effective, nd compred tril outcome dt from the FDA vs journl publictions. We conducted 2 met-nlyses using the Tble 29. Cohen κ nd Dys Between Peer Reviews for 33 Articles Dys between peer reviews Articles, No. Cohen κ 0 (published simultneously) 54 0.282 to 5 205 0.36 6 to 2 207 0.352 3 to 27 28 0.340 28 to 64 229 0.32 65 to 365 220 0.302 published literture nd using FDA dt nd compred the resulting effect size (stndrdized men difference (SMD) vlues using met-regression. We repeted the met-nlysis comprison combining newer- nd older-cohort dtsets. We contrsted the extent of effect size infltion (bis) in the old vs new cohorts. Results Four ntidepressnt drugs were pproved by the FDA since 2004: desvenlfxine, levomilnciprn, vilzodone, nd vortioxetine. As with older ntidepressnts, 50% of the FDA trils (n = 5) evluting the newer drugs showed sttisticlly significnt difference (Tble 30). Reporting bis inflted the proportion of pprently positive trils (+2%), but less compred with the older cohort (+43%). Within the nonsignificnt trils, the percentge published trnsprently (tril published nd in greement with FDA) incresed significntly from 8.3% (older drugs) to 40% (newer drugs) (P =.0). Nevertheless, when nonsignificnt nd significnt trils were combined, the rte of trnsprent publiction ws significntly greter for significnt compred with nonsignificnt trils (P = 5 0 9 ). In met-nlyses, the boost in SMD due to reporting bis diminished from 0.0 (older drugs) to 0.05 (newer drugs). Differences between FDA- nd journl-bsed effect size vlues using met-regression were sttisticlly significnt for the older drugs (P =.00), not sttisticlly significnt for newer drugs (P =.25), but sttisticlly significnt when older nd newer drugs were combined (P =.003). Conclusions Reporting bis continues in the ntidepressnt clinicl tril literture but findings with newer drugs compred with older drugs suggest decrese in mgnitude of reporting bis due to more trnsprent disclosure of nonsttisticlly significnt clinicl tril results. Oregon Helth & Science University, Portlnd, OR, USA, eturnermd@gmil.com; 2 VA Portlnd Helth Cre System, Portlnd, OR, USA; 3 Scientific Resource Center, Agency for Helth Reserch Qulity, Portlnd, OR, USA; 4 University of Oxford, Oxford, UK; 5 Kyoto University Grdute School of Medicine, Kyoto, Jpn Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Erick H. Turner receives protected time for reserch through Kyoto University Grdute School of Medicine. Andre Ciprini hs served s n expert witness for ptent litigtion cse bout quetipine extended relese. Toshi Furukw hs received lecture fees from Eli Lilly, Jnssen, Meiji, MSD, Otsuk, Pfizer nd Tnbe-Mitsubishi nd consultncy fees from Sekisui Chemicls; he hs received roylties from Igku-Shoin nd Nihon Bunk Kgku-sh publishers; nd he hs received reserch support from Mochid nd Tnbe-Mitsubishi. Prevlence of Comprtive Effectiveness Trils of Surgicl vs Medicl Interventions Anïs Rmeu, Anirudh Srswthul, 2 Ewoud Schuit, 3 John P. A. Ionnidis 4 Objective Surgicl nd medicl (drug) tretment options exist for mny conditions. Prctitioners from different specilties often perform or prescribe these interventions, nd it is unknown how often the options re directly www. peerreviewcongress.org 63