JAMA : the journal of the American Medical Association
-
Cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk factors are higher among ethnic minority women than among white women in the United States. However, because ethnic minority women are disproportionately poor, socioeconomic status (SES) may substantially explain these risk factor differences. ⋯ These findings provide the greatest evidence to date of higher CVD risk factors among black and Mexican American women than among white women of comparable SES. The striking differences by both ethnicity and SES underscore the critical need to improve screening, early detection, and treatment of CVD-related conditions for black and Mexican American women, as well as for women of lower SES in all ethnic groups.
-
Studies have demonstrated strong associations between the prone sleep position (on the stomach) and sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS). In 1992, the American Academy of Pediatrics recommended that infants be placed to sleep laterally (on their side) or supine (on their back) to reduce SIDS risk, and in 1994, the national public education campaign "Back to Sleep" was launched. ⋯ The prevalence of infants placed in the prone sleep position declined by 66% between 1992 and 1996. Although causality cannot be proved, SIDS rates declined approximately 38% during this period. To achieve further reduction in prone sleeping, efforts to promote the supine sleep position should be aimed at groups at high risk for prone placement.
-
Studies with positive results are more likely to be published in biomedical journals than are studies with negative results. However, many studies submitted for consideration at scientific meetings are never published in full; bias in this setting is poorly studied. ⋯ Positive-outcome bias was evident when studies were submitted for consideration and was amplified in the selection of abstracts for both presentation and publication, neither of which was strongly related to study design or quality.
-
Quality of reviewers is crucial to journal quality, but there are usually too many for editors to know them all personally. A reliable method of rating them (for education and monitoring) is needed. ⋯ Subjective editor ratings of individual reviewers were moderately reliable and correlated with reviewer ability to report manuscript flaws. Individual reviewer rate of recommendation for acceptance and decision congruence might be thought to be markers of a discriminating (ie, high-quality) reviewer, but these variables were poorly correlated with editors' ratings of review quality or the reviewer's ability to detect flaws in a fictitious manuscript. Therefore, they cannot be substituted for actual quality ratings by editors.