Current medical research and opinion
-
Review
Sting operations in biomedical publishing violate truthfulness and undermine trust in research.
Biomedical research cannot function without the trust of peers and society. The truthfulness of claims made by knowledge-producing agents, such as authors of research, is a prerequisite for their trustworthiness, and violations of truthfulness are rightly seen as a threat to the existence and validity of such research. While most reflection on the lack of truthfulness has focused on fake research, little attention has been paid to how sting operations and hoaxes arguably pose an equally great risk to the ethical integrity of publishing. ⋯ From a deontological perspective, we also argue that the reliance on anonymity in sting operations makes them just as bad, if not worse, than fake research. We advocate for critical scholarship as an alternative to hoaxes and sting operations to expose fake research, in order to promote truthfulness rather than violate it. Finally, we argue that journalists reporting on sting operations should insist less on their entertainment and sensationalist value, and focus more on their unethical nature.
-
The number of systematic reviews is increasing rapidly. Several methodologies exist for systematic reviews. Cochrane Reviews follow distinct methods to ensure they provide the most reliable and robust evidence, ideally based on rigorous evaluations of randomized controlled trials and other high-quality studies. We aimed to examine the difference in citation patterns of Cochrane Reviews and other systematic reviews. ⋯ In recent years, Cochrane Reviews and other systematic reviews had similar citation patterns, but other systematic reviews received more citations from 1993 to 2007. Other systematic reviews were more often never cited than Cochrane Reviews, and potentially wasted. The time window in which systematic reviews received citations has been progressively decreasing, possibly indicating a trend toward quicker recognition and uptake of these reviews within the academic community. Cochrane reviews aim to provide robust evidence, but this is not reflected in the citation metrics compared to other systematic reviews.
-
To estimate the cost and healthcare resource utilization (HRU) associated with the prevalence of comorbidities in people living with HIV (PLWH) in a Spanish cohort over ten years. ⋯ Comorbidities raised the total healthcare costs for PLWH, with a greater impact on those with multiple comorbidities compared to those with few or none. Both clinical and economic decision-makers must consider and assess the cost of comorbidities when evaluating HIV treatment guidelines or recommendations.
-
Loss of sense of smell is a cardinal symptom of chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP) and significantly impacts health-related quality-of-life. Dupilumab significantly improved smell outcomes (loss of smell [LoS] score; University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test [UPSIT]) versus placebo in the phase 3 SINUS-24/-52 studies (clinicaltrials.gov, NCT02898454/NCT02912468) in patients with severe CRSwNP. This post hoc analysis investigated the effect of dupilumab on olfaction using UPSIT smell impairment categories. ⋯ Most patients with severe CRSwNP had anosmia at baseline. Dupilumab treatment significantly improved smell versus placebo, with 14.9% achieving normosmia by week 24. There was a trend for better clinical outcomes in patients with greater smell improvement.
-
To evaluate efficacy and safety of lebrikizumab combined with topical corticosteroids (TCS) in Japanese patients with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis (AD). ⋯ Consistent with global data, lebrikizumab demonstrated clinical improvements with a positive benefit-risk profile in Japanese adults and adolescents with moderate-to-severe AD through 16 weeks.