Research support essentials: Journals & articles

Keywords: dissemination; publication; social media.

Objectives: To investigate the frequency and legitimacy of substantive changes to the research plans of published randomised controlled trials (RCTs) undertaken in Australia.

Design: Comparison of methodology and analysis plans for RCTs specified in protocol documents (full protocols, published protocol articles, statistical analysis plans, Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry [ANZCTR] registration entries) and described in publications of primary results.

Setting, participants: 181 RCTs registered with the ANZCTR, 1 September 2007 - 31 December 2013, for which primary results had been published.

Main outcome measure: Changes made to research plan, both overall and by specific item (primary outcome, analysis set, eligibility criteria, sample size, primary analysis method, and treatment arms included in the primary comparison in multi-arm trials); trial characteristics associated with changes.

Results: Protocol documents were available for 124 of 181 eligible RCTs (69%; 46 publicly available, 78 provided by trial groups on request). Full audit of RCTs with protocols found clear or probable changes in 111 trials (90%), for 101 of which (91%) it was unclear whether changes had been made blinded to treatment outcomes. After seeking clarification from investigators, changes to 78 trials were confirmed (63%), for 61 of which (78%) changes were made blinded to treatment outcomes. Any change was less likely for trials with publicly available protocols than for trials for which we needed to request protocols (odds ratio, 0.22; 95% CI, 0.06-0.77). Limited reviews of trials without protocols identified that changes had been made to 42 of 57 trials (74%).

Conclusion: Changes to RCT study plans in Australia are both frequent and usually made appropriately blinded to treatment outcomes. However, the documentation of changes made to RCT protocols should be formalised to improve transparency.

Letter to the Editor.

Abstract
The Australian and New Zealand College of Anaesthetists (ANZCA) recently reviewed and updated the guideline on equipment to manage a difficult airway. An ANZCA-established document development group, which included representatives from the Australasian College for Emergency Medicine and the College of Intensive Care Medicine of Australia and New Zealand, performed the review, which is based on expert consensus, an extensive literature review, and bi-nationwide consultation. The guideline (PG56(A) 2021, https://www.anzca.edu.au/getattachment/02fe1a4c-14f0-4ad1-8337-c281d26bfa17/PS56-Guideline-on-equipment-to-manage-difficult-airways) is accompanied by a detailed background paper (PG56(A)BP 2021, https://www.anzca.edu.au/getattachment/9ef4cd97-2f02-47fe-a63a-9f74fa7c68ac/PG56(A)BP-Guideline-on-equipment-to-manage-difficult-airways-Background-Paper), from which the current recommendations are reproduced on behalf of, and with the permission of, ANZCA. The updated 2021 guideline replaces the 2012 version and aims to provide an updated, objective, informed, transparent, and evidence-based review of equipment to manage difficult airways.

Traditionally, dissemination of scientific research ends at the point where a paper is published in a peer-reviewed journal. However, most clinicians and patients to whom the work is relevant will never read it. Given the enormous resources invested, this limited reach can be disappointing to authors, patients, funders, sponsors and participants. Yet there are ways to enhance reach, which begins by first recognising that the scientific process does not finish with publication.

Abstract
In the last decade Open Science principles have been successfully advocated for and are being slowly adopted in different research communities. In response to the COVID-19 pandemic many publishers and researchers have sped up their adoption of Open Science practices, sometimes embracing them fully and sometimes partially or in a sub-optimal manner. In this article, we express concerns about the violation of some of the Open Science principles and its potential impact on the quality of research output. We provide evidence of the misuses of these principles at different stages of the scientific process. We call for a wider adoption of Open Science practices in the hope that this work will encourage a broader endorsement of Open Science principles and serve as a reminder that science should always be a rigorous process, reliable and transparent, especially in the context of a pandemic where research findings are being translated into practice even more rapidly. We provide all data and scripts at https://osf.io/renxy/ .

Description
Predatory journals, publishers and conferences are on the rise and becoming increasingly sophisticated. These practices prey on the pressure researchers feel to publish and present their work, and include pay-to-publish/present models without peer review, fake editorial boards listing respected scientists, fraudulent impact factors, journal and conference names deceptively similar to those of legitimate ones, and spam invitations to sham conferences with high registration fees.

Led by an independent working group of international experts nominated by academies around the world, this IAP study set out to improve the understanding of what constitutes predatory practices, gauge their prevalence and impact, identify their root causes and review efforts to address them. A key part of the study has been a voluntary survey of the global research community to gauge the awareness, extent and impact of predatory journals and conferences across different geographies, disciplines and career stages.

Data are increasingly used to govern science. Research evaluations that were once bespoke and performed by peers are now routine and reliant on metrics. The problem is that evaluation is now led by the data rather than by judgement. Metrics have proliferated: usually well intentioned, not always well informed, often ill applied. We risk damaging the system with the very tools designed to improve it, as evaluation is increasingly implemented by organizations without knowledge of, or advice on, good practice and interpretation.

Abstract
Objective: To identify research priorities for Anaesthesia and Perioperative Medicine.

Design: Prospective surveys and consensus meetings guided by an independent adviser.

Setting: UK.

Participants: 45 stakeholder organisations (25 professional, 20 patient/carer) affiliated as James Lind Alliance partners.

Outcomes: First 'ideas-gathering' survey: Free text research ideas and suggestions. Second 'prioritisation' survey: Shortlist of 'summary' research questions (derived from the first survey) ranked by respondents in order of priority. Final 'top ten': Agreed by consensus at a final prioritisation workshop.

Results: First survey: 1420 suggestions received from 623 respondents (49% patients/public) were refined into a shortlist of 92 'summary' questions. Second survey: 1718 respondents each nominated up to 10 questions as research priorities. Top ten: The 25 highest-ranked questions advanced to the final workshop, where 23 stakeholders (13 professional, 10 patient/carer) agreed the 10 most important questions: ▸ What can we do to stop patients developing chronic pain after surgery? ▸ How can patient care around the time of emergency surgery be improved? ▸ What long-term harm may result from anaesthesia, particularly following repeated anaesthetics?▸ What outcomes should we use to measure the 'success' of anaesthesia and perioperative care? ▸ How can we improve recovery from surgery for elderly patients? ▸ For which patients does regional anaesthesia give better outcomes than general anaesthesia? ▸ What are the effects of anaesthesia on the developing brain? ▸ Do enhanced recovery programmes improve short and long-term outcomes? ▸ How can preoperative exercise or fitness training, including physiotherapy, improve outcomes after surgery? ▸ How can we improve communication between the teams looking after patients throughout their surgical journey?

Conclusions: Almost 2000 stakeholders contributed their views regarding anaesthetic and perioperative research priorities. This is the largest example of patient and public involvement in shaping anaesthetic and perioperative research to date.

Abstract
This is the second article in a new series from the Arizona State University College of Nursing and Health Innovation's Center for the Advancement of Evidence-Based Practice. Evidence-based practice (EBP) is a problem-solving approach to the delivery of health care that integrates the best evidence from studies and patient care data with clinician expertise and patient preferences and values. When delivered in a context of caring and in a supportive organizational culture, the highest quality of care and best patient outcomes can be achieved.The purpose of this series is to give nurses the knowledge and skills they need to implement EBP consistently, one step at a time. Articles will appear every two months to allow you time to incorporate information as you work toward implementing EBP at your institution.

>> Manuscript Submission Guidelines

>> Information for Authors

>> Instructions to Authors

>> NEJM Author Center

Anesthesiology Research and Practice provides a forum for health care professionals engaged in perioperative medicine, critical care, and pain management.

The journal publishes original research articles, review articles, and clinical studies related to anesthetics administration, preoperative and postoperative considerations, perioperative care, critical care, paediatric anesthesia, obstetric anesthesia, analgesia, clinical and experimental research, administration and efficacy, as well as technology and monitoring.