2,497 publications from this institution
Is there a rationale for rationing chronic dialysis? Two points need clarificationEditor-I agree with Chandna et al that late referral is an important factor in the survival of patients receiving dialysis. 1I am unaware, however, of the source of their information that an NHS consensus statement recommends that nephrology referrals be made at a serum creatinine concentration > 135 mol/l in women and > 180 mol/l in men.The workload generated by this practice would be so enormous that British renal units under present conditions would be unable to cope.I am also concerned that of the authors' 292 patients receiving dialysis, 26 (admittedly high risk) patients spent 44% of their lives in hospital.The costs of inpatient treatment for these high risk patients would be substantially higher than the average cost of £250 a day that the authors quote.
Science has always relied on reproducibility to build confidence in experimental results. Now, the most comprehensive investigation ever done about the rate and predictors of reproducibility in social and cognitive sciences has found that regardless of the analytic method or criteria used, fewer than half of the original findings were successfully replicated. While a failure to reproduce does not necessarily mean the original report was incorrect, the results suggest that more rigorous methods are long overdue.
ABSTRACT Research policy and planning for a given country may benefit from reliable data on both its scientific workforce as well as the diaspora of scientists for countries with substantial brain drain. Here we use a systematic approach using Scopus to generate a comprehensive country-level database of all scientists in Greece. Moreover, we expand that database to include also Greek diaspora scientists. The database that we have compiled includes 63951 scientists who have published at least 5 papers indexed in Scopus. Of those, 35116 have an affiliation in Greece. We validate the sensitivity and specificity of the database against different control sets of scientists. We also analyze the scientific disciplines of these scientists according to the Science Metrix classification (174 subfield disciplines) and provide detailed data on each of the 63951 scientists using multiple citation indicators and a composite thereof. These analyses demonstrate differential concentrations in specific subfields for the local versus the diaspora cohorts, as well as an advantage of the diaspora cohort in terms of citation indicators especially among top-impact researchers. The approach that we have taken can be applied to map also the scientific workforce of other countries and nations for evaluation, planning and policy purposes.
Featured Article: Ioannidis JP. Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Med 2005;2:e124.5 The article featured here emerged as an effort to create an overarching modeling framework for proposed significant research findings and their validation, in line with accumulating empirical evidence on the replication rates of different types of research designs and settings. The main challenges behind the essay had occupied me and several other scientists over many years before its first draft was written in 2004. Some initial impetus was offered by the advent of systematic approaches to evidence, such as systematic reviews and metaanalyses. Since the early 1990s, there was growing excitement that these approaches would allow piecing together the fragments of published literature and obtain summary results with higher accuracy and less uncertainty. In theory, this could revolutionize the translation of best science into best practice (1). For example, the Cochrane Collaboration adopted this vision (2) and was populated by volunteers with the noblest intentions …
Our website uses cookies to enhance your experience. By continuing to use our site, or clicking "Continue," you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy | Continue JAMA HomeNew OnlineCurrent IssueFor Authors Publications JAMA JAMA Network Open JAMA Cardiology JAMA Dermatology JAMA Health Forum JAMA Internal Medicine JAMA Neurology JAMA Oncology JAMA Ophthalmology JAMA Otolaryngology–Head & Neck Surgery JAMA Pediatrics JAMA Psychiatry JAMA Surgery Archives of Neurology & Psychiatry (1919-1959) Podcasts Clinical Reviews Editors' Summary Medical News Author Interviews More JN Learning / CMESubscribeJobsInstitutions / LibrariansReprints & Permissions Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Accessibility Statement 2023 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved Search All JAMA JAMA Network Open JAMA Cardiology JAMA Dermatology JAMA Forum Archive JAMA Health Forum JAMA Internal Medicine JAMA Neurology JAMA Oncology JAMA Ophthalmology JAMA Otolaryngology–Head & Neck Surgery JAMA Pediatrics JAMA Psychiatry JAMA Surgery Archives of Neurology & Psychiatry Input Search Term Sign In Individual Sign In Sign inCreate an Account Access through your institution Sign In Purchase Options: Buy this article Rent this article Subscribe to the JAMA journal
To characterize the impact of major research awards on recipients' subsequent work, we studied Nobel Prize winners in Chemistry, Physiology or Medicine, and Physics and MacArthur Fellows working in scientific fields. Using a case-crossover design, we compared scientists’ citations, publications and citations-per-publication from work published in a 3-year pre-award period to their work published in a 3-year post-award period. Nobel Laureates and MacArthur Fellows received fewer citations for post- than for pre-award work. This was driven mostly by Nobel Laureates. Median decrease was 80.5 citations among Nobel Laureates ( p = 0.004) and 2 among MacArthur Fellows ( p = 0.857). Mid-career (42–57 years) and senior (greater than 57 years) researchers tended to earn fewer citations for post-award work. Early career researchers (less than 42 years, typically MacArthur Fellows) tended to earn more, but the difference was non-significant. MacArthur Fellows ( p = 0.001) but not Nobel Laureates ( p = 0.180) had significantly more post-award publications. Both populations had significantly fewer post-award citations per paper ( p = 0.043 for Nobel Laureates, 0.005 for MacArthur Fellows, and 0.0004 for combined population). If major research awards indeed fail to increase (and even decrease) recipients' impact, one may need to reassess the purposes, criteria, and impacts of awards to improve the scientific enterprise.
No abstract is provided for this article.
Abstract Remarkable progress has been made in the last decade in new methods for biologic measurements using sophisticated technologies that go beyond the established genome, proteome, and gene expression platforms. These methods and technologies create opportunities to enhance cancer epidemiologic studies. In this article, we describe several emerging technologies and evaluate their potential in epidemiologic studies. We review the background, assays, methods, and challenges and offer examples of the use of mitochondrial DNA and copy number assessments, epigenomic profiling (including methylation, histone modification, miRNAs, and chromatin condensation), metabolite profiling (metabolomics), and telomere measurements. We map the volume of literature referring to each one of these measurement tools and the extent to which efforts have been made at knowledge integration (e.g., systematic reviews and meta-analyses). We also clarify strengths and weaknesses of the existing platforms and the range of type of samples that can be tested with each of them. These measurement tools can be used in identifying at-risk populations and providing novel markers of survival and treatment response. Rigorous analytic and validation standards, transparent availability of massive data, and integration in large-scale evidence are essential in fulfilling the potential of these technologies. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 22(2); 189–200. ©2012 AACR.
Explanation of how 92 studies provided data regarding 127 analyses. (DOC 36 kb)
Making sense of rapidly evolving evidence on genetic associations is crucial to making genuine advances in human genomics and the eventual integration of this information in the practice of medicine and public health. Assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of this evidence, and hence the ability to synthesize it, has been limited by inadequate reporting of results. The STrengthening the REporting of Genetic Association studies (STREGA) initiative builds on the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement and provides additions to 12 of the 22 items on the STROBE checklist. The additions concern population stratification, genotyping errors, modeling haplotype variation, Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium, replication, selection of participants, rationale for choice of genes and variants, treatment effects in studying quantitative traits, statistical methods, relatedness, reporting of descriptive and outcome data, and the volume of data issues that are important to consider in genetic association studies. The STREGA recommendations do not prescribe or dictate how a genetic association study should be designed but seek to enhance the transparency of its reporting, regardless of choices made during design, conduct, or analysis.
