DOCSLIB.ORG

81 Discrepancies Among Scopus, Web of Science, and Pubmed Coverage of Funding Information in Medical Journal Articles

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
81 Discrepancies Among Scopus, Web of Science, and Pubmed Coverage of Funding Information in Medical Journal Articles 81 SURVEYS AND STUDIES DOI: dx.doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2018.181 Discrepancies among Scopus, Web of Science, and PubMed coverage of funding information in medical journal articles Peter Kokol, PhD; Helena Blažun Vošner, PhD, PhD See end of article for authors’ affiliations. Objective: The overall aim of the present study was to compare the coverage of existing research funding information for articles indexed in Scopus, Web of Science, and PubMed databases. Methods: The numbers of articles with funding information published in 2015 were identified in the three selected databases and compared using bibliometric analysis of a sample of twenty-eight prestigious medical journals. Results: Frequency analysis of the number of articles with funding information showed statistically significant differences between Scopus, Web of Science, and PubMed databases. The largest proportion of articles with funding information was found in Web of Science (29.0%), followed by PubMed (14.6%) and Scopus (7.7%). Conclusion: The results show that coverage of funding information differs significantly among Scopus, Web of Science, and PubMed databases in a sample of the same medical journals. Moreover, we found that, currently, funding data in PubMed is more difficult to obtain and analyze compared with that in the other two databases. This article has been approved for the Medical Library Association’s Independent Reading Program <http://www.mlanet.org/page/independent-reading-program>. INTRODUCTION In previous studies, Boyack showed that articles As funding is a significant factor enabling research resulting from large grants were cited more than projects [1], research institutions compete for grants those from small grants [5], and Wang and Shapira on a routine basis [2]. Institutions with more grant found that funded publications had more impact in funding have a greater ability to hire eminent terms of journal rankings and numbers of citations researchers, provide access to advanced technology [6]. Consequently, knowledge about funding and research equipment, cooperate in major patterns found in funding statements could be of international scientific networks, gather new vital importance to researchers who are seeking knowledge at top conferences, and/or hire leading grants and others who are interested in assessing the external organizations to support the preparation of impact and outcomes of funding [7]. Funding competitive project proposals. Subsequently, such patterns can be used for strategic intelligence institutions perform better research, publish more applications, such as mapping funding landscapes high-quality publications, and attract more citations and generating funding organization portfolios [8], [3, 4]. and can be used to identify top-funded topics and jmla.mlanet.org 106 (1) January 2018 Journal of the Medical Library Association 82 Kokol and Blažun Vošner DOI: dx.doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2018.181 themes, acquire lists of funding organizations, and databases: The Lancet, Journal of American Medical locate successful grant holders for possible Association (JAMA), and British Medical Journal (BMJ). collaboration. Funding information can be obtained from Some research funding information can be various fields in the three databases. Funding obtained directly from funding agency reports or information can appear in the funding organization, databases. For example, in their analysis of the grant number, and funding acknowledgment text impact of federal life sciences funding for university fields in WoS; the funding sponsor and grant research and development programs, Blume- acronym fields of Scopus; and the grant number and Kohout, Kumar, and Sood used datasets from the publication type fields of PubMed. Preliminary US National Science Foundation and US National analysis showed that the field identifying the largest Institutes of Health to measure funding number of funded articles (FAs) in a database also expenditures [9]. However, not all such data are covers all FAs identified by the other fields in that easily accessible, if at all. Hence, Wang and Shapira database. Hence, we selected the funding proposed the possibility of analyzing funding organization field for WoS, the funding sponsor information acknowledgments found in field for Scopus, and the grant number field for bibliographical databases [10]. However, Rigby PubMed. To form a list of all possible funding warned that the uncritical use of funding organizations and sponsors, we used a wildcard information found in bibliographic databases might character (*) to represent a string of characters of any lead to bias in interpreting search results [11]. For length. Two corpuses (one for FAs and one for all instance, Tang et al. noted limitations in the funding articles) from each database were created for articles information found in Web of Science (WoS) published in 2015 (Table 1). (Thomson Reuters, USA), with English language WoS and Scopus databases allowed us to articles showing greater coverage than articles in directly extract the number of all articles and other languages and engineering, as well as number of FAs for each journal using built-in biomedical articles showing greater coverage than services. However, for PubMed, we first exported social sciences and humanities articles [12]. the corpus to BibTex and then to MS Excel Of the more than 100 bibliometric databases, (Microsoft, USA), in which we performed the only WoS, Scopus (Elsevier, Netherlands), and analysis using the crosstab function. PubMed (National Library of Medicine, United We found that some BMJ journals were not States) databases provide funding information for indexed by all three databases, so these journals indexed articles. Whereas Scopus and WoS are were omitted from subsequent analyses. The general subscription databases, PubMed is a numbers of articles published in the remaining publicly accessible database covering mostly journals were compared between databases using biomedical literature. Of these, Scopus indexes the paired Student’s t-tests. Finally, we performed an largest number of publications. The overall aim of analysis of the document types of FAs. this study was to determine differences between WoS, Scopus, and PubMed databases in terms of the accessibility, scope, and volume of funding RESULTS information for indexed articles. We identified 28 journals containing 16,927 articles in Scopus, 25 journals containing 14,494 articles in METHODS WoS, and 34 journals containing 16,967 articles in PubMed. Of these articles, there were 1,306 FAs in The authors analyzed funding information for Scopus, 4,206 FAs in WoS, and 2,482 FAs in articles published in three prestigious families of PubMed. journals indexed in WoS, Scopus, and PubMed Journal of the Medical Library Association 106 (1) January 2018 jmla.mlanet.org Discrepancies among Scopus, Web of Science, and PubMed 83 DOI: dx.doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2018.181 Table 1 Search strings used to retrieve articles with funding information Database Search string Web of Science (WoS) so = (jama* or BMJ* or Lancet*) and py = 2015 and FO = (a* or b* or c* or d* or e* or f* or g* or h* or i* or j* or k* or l* or m* or n* or o* or p* or q* or r* or s* or t* or u* or v* or z* or x* or y* or w* or 1* or 2* or 3* or 4* or 5* or 6* or 7* or 8* or 9* or 0*) Scopus SRCTITLE(Lancet or BMJ or jama) and pubyear = 2015 and fund-sponsor = (a* or b* or c* or d* or e* or f* or g* or h* or i* or j* or k* or l* or m* or n* or o* or p* or q* or r* or s* or t* or u* or v* or z* or x* or y* or w* or 1* or 2* or 3* or 4* or 5* or 6* or 7* or 8* or 9* or 0*) PubMed ((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((("BMJ open"[Journal]) OR "BMJ (Clinical research ed.)"[Journal]) OR "BMJ case reports"[Journal]) OR "BMJ quality & safety"[Journal]) OR "BMJ clinical evidence"[Journal]) OR "BMJ supportive & palliative care"[Journal]) OR "BMJ quality improvement reports"[Journal]) OR "BMJ open diabetes research & care"[Journal]) OR "BMJ open respiratory research"[Journal]) OR "BMJ open sport & exercise medicine"[Journal]) OR "BMJ open gastroenterology"[Journal]) OR "BMJ innovations"[Journal]) OR "BMJ global health"[Journal]) OR "BMJ outcomes"[Journal]) OR "Lancet (London, England)"[Journal]) OR "The Lancet. Oncology"[Journal]) OR "The Lancet. Infectious diseases"[Journal]) OR "The Lancet. Neurology"[Journal]) OR "The Lancet. Respiratory medicine"[Journal]) OR "The Lancet. Diabetes & endocrinology"[Journal]) OR "The Lancet. Global health"[Journal]) OR "The Lancet. Psychiatry"[Journal]) OR "The Lancet. HIV"[Journal]) OR "The Lancet. Hematology"[Journal]) OR "The Lancet. Gastroenterology & hepatology"[Journal]) OR "JAMA"[Journal]) OR "JAMA internal medicine"[Journal]) OR "JAMA dermatology"[Journal]) OR "JAMA ophthalmology"[Journal]) OR "JAMA neurology"[Journal]) OR "JAMA surgery"[Journal]) OR "JAMA pediatrics"[Journal]) OR "JAMA otolaryngology-- head & neck surgery"[Journal]) OR "JAMA psychiatry"[Journal]) OR "JAMA oncology"[Journal]) OR "JAMA facial plastic surgery"[Journal]) OR "JAMA cardiology"[Journal]) AND ("2015"[Date - Publication] : "2015"[Date - Publication]))))) Although there were large differences among these differences were not statistically significant databases in both the number of all articles and the (p>0.05). number of FAs in individual journals, the largest The analysis of document types revealed that all variations among databases were seen in the FAs identified in Scopus were classified as articles. numbers of FAs. WoS identified the largest The most frequent types of FAs in WoS were articles percentage of FAs for all journals. Scopus identified (73%), editorials (12%), reviews (8%), and letters the lowest percentage of FAs for all journals, except (6%), whereas the most frequent types of FAs in BMJ Open, for which a lower percentage of FAs was PubMed were articles (75%), reviews (7%), letters identified in PubMed. The largest difference among (6%), and editorials (3%). databases was observed for the journal Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology, for which there were 0.4% of identified FAs in Scopus, 23.6% in WoS, and DISCUSSION 17.3% in PubMed.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 2021 Offerings Include
    JAMA 2021 Offerings Include: Print Edition Rate Card Effective January 1, 2021 • Patient Page Publication • Selections A supplement of curated articles on a therapeutic topic • Microsites Contact Account Manager for Information Contacts Editor Howard C. Bauchner, MD Boston University School of Medicine Insertion Order or Billing Questions Reprints Denise Steinhauser JAMA, JAMA Cardiology, JAMA Internal Medicine, (312) 464-2455 JAMA Ophthalmology, JAMA Neurology, JAMA Oncology, [email protected] JAMA Psychiatry and JAMA Network Open Marsha Fogler, Account Manager Production Questions JAMA Network Reprint Sales Michael Deegan [email protected] (312) 464-2401 USA: 1-800-482-1450 [email protected] Rest of World: 1-856-489-4446 Please include in the email the specific issue of JAMA in which your ad is running. (Note: JAMA is a weekly.) JAMA Dermatology, JAMA Otolaryngology-Head & Neck Surgery, JAMA Pediatrics, JAMA Surgery, and JAMA Network Open Display + Online Advertising Rachel Sisholtz Pharmaceutical | Device JAMA Network Reprint Sales (862) 261-9600 [email protected] Maureen Reichert USA: 1-800-482-1450 [email protected] Rest of World: 1-856-489-4446 (862) 261-9616 General Inquiries and Non-Profit Organization requests: Nancy Souza JAMA Network Reprints Communications [email protected] [email protected] (862) 261-9615 Requests from non-profit organizations, AMA members, medical Jeff Bonistalli societies, and academic institutions. Director of Advertising Pharmaceutical & Devices [email protected] Health Systems Branding | Products and Service | CME Recruitment Advertising (800) 262-2260 | (312) 464-5909 Fax [email protected] Thalia Moss [email protected] Anna Frazier Director of Advertising Health Systems & Recruitment [email protected] Domestic Subscription Rates (800) 262-2350 Online Site Licensing (312) 464-4371 Page 2 JAMA 2021 Print Edition Rate Card Rates 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Online Journals List for Moorfields Eye Hospital Staff
    Online Journals List for Moorfields Eye Hospital Staff Joint Library of Ophthalmology, Moorfields Eye Hospital & UCL Institute of Ophthalmology, 11-43 Bath Street, London EC1V 9EL Tel.: +44 (0)20 7608 6814 (MEH internal extension: 2084) E-mail: [email protected] Web: https://www.ucl.ac.uk/library/libraries-and-study-spaces/ophthalmology Moorfields Eye Hospital staff members have access to a number of ejournals via NHS Athens. To register for NHS Athens, please go to www.evidence.nhs.uk, select Journals and Databases, and then select Access journals. A complete list of ejournals available to Moorfields Eye Hospital staff members can be found at www.evidence.nhs.uk. Please select Journals and Databases and then Journals. Remember to log into Athens before accessing the ejournals, or you will not see the full list of titles available to you. Ejournals available cover most aspects of biomedicine and health. A list of eye and vision titles is provided below as a guide. Sometimes there are multiple entries for the same journal. Where this occurs the list aims to guide you to the best provider to use and provides instruction on how to reach the page successfully. Should you experience any problems please do not hesitate to contact a member of library staff who will take you through step by step. Title Holdings and (provider) Acta Ophthalmologica 1997- one year ago (Wiley Online Library free content)- look for open padlock for free access American Journal of Ophthalmology 2007- (ClinicalKey Wayfless) (earlier volumes from 1997- Hospital Premium Collection) American Journal of Ophthalmology Case Reports 2016- American Journal of Optometry August 1925-1940 (LWW Legacy Archive) click on OpenAthens Login American Journal of Optometry and Archives of American Academy of 1941- 1973 (LWW Definitive Archive) click on OpenAthens Optometry Login American Journal of Optometry and Physiological Optics 1974-1988 (LWW Definitive Archive) click on OpenAthens Login Archives of Ophthalmology 1998 - 2012 (from vol.
    [Show full text]
  • The Journal Impact Factor Denominator Defining Citable (Counted) Items
    COMMENTARIES The Journal Impact Factor Denominator Defining Citable (Counted) Items Marie E. McVeigh, MS The items counted in the denominator of the impact fac- tor are identifiable in the Web of Science database by hav- Stephen J. Mann ing the index field document type set as “Article,” “Re- view,” or “Proceedings Paper” (a specialized subset of the VER ITS 30-YEAR HISTORY, THE JOURNAL IMPACT article document type). These document types identify the factor has been the subject of much discussion scholarly contribution of the journal to the literature and and debate.1 From its first release in 1975, bib- are counted as “citable items” in the denominator of the im- liometricians and library scientists discussed its pact factor. A journal accepted for coverage in the Thom- Ovalue and its vagaries. In the last decade, discussion has 6 son Reuters citation database is reviewed by experts who shifted to the way in which impact factor data are used. In consider the bibliographic and bibliometric characteristics an environment eager for objective measures of productiv- of all article types published by that journal (eg, items), which ity, relevance, and research value, the impact factor has been are covered by that journal in the context of other materi- applied broadly and indiscriminately.2,3 The impact factor als in the journal, the subject, and the database as a whole. has gone from being a measure of a journal’s citation influ- This journal-specific analysis identifies the journal sec- ence in the broader literature to a surrogate that assesses tions, subsections, or both that contain materials likely to the scholarly value of work published in that journal.
    [Show full text]
  • Web of Science Benefits
    Thomson.com Web of Science® What it offers. Why it matters to you. What Web of Science delivers How your work will benefit Content is the cornerstone For decades, the Thomson Scientific (formerly ISI) The result of this ongoing collection development? Excellence Editorial Development group has carefully Quality by default. without evaluated journals for potential inclusion in the excess database. Your search results will include only accurate, reliable, —— relevant data. You'll get not just more hits, but more The objective is to include only the most quality hits. You'll get the influential, relevant, and credible journal right answers, information available. If you publish — You'll easily find high impact quicker articles upon which to base your articles — increasing The criteria are detailed, unbiased, and time- the quality and credibility of your published work, tested — examining basic publishing standards, resulting in more publication in more prestigious timeliness, editorial scope and objectives, and sources. citation analyses. If you research — You'll be able to quickly identify The process is "publisher-neutral" — commercial, potential collaborators with prolific, significant citation open access, society, and university publishers are records. And tracking your own citation record will treated equally. help you demonstrate your work's impact on your field. Every publication indexed within Web of Science has passed through this rigorous evaluation If you teach — Your students will be assured of using process. the highest quality resources — finding valuable information in journals they may not have the knowledge and experience to seek on their own. It's a fact ... As of March 2006, the total number of Web of Science records is approximately 37 million.
    [Show full text]
  • Babes and Boobs? Analysis of JAMA Cover Art Jocalyn P Clark
    Papers BMJ: first published as 10.1136/bmj.319.7225.1603 on 18 December 1999. Downloaded from Babes and boobs? Analysis of JAMA cover art Jocalyn P Clark Abstract Of the 15 covers depicting women, 12 included Department of babies and six showed nudity. In contrast, only one Public Health Objective To determine the representation of the Sciences, University male image included a child and none contained of Toronto, Toronto, sexes in JAMA cover art. nudity. In the cover depicting a man with a child, the Canada M5S 1A8 doctoral candidate Design Review of 50 consecutive issues. man is not the child’s father but its doctor. Babes and Setting JAMA, March 1997-March 1998. boobs were featured in 12 of the 50 covers. Correspondence to: Main outcome measures Numbers and nature of J P Clark, Centre for Research in covers portraying men and women. Women’s Health, Results Of the 50 covers, 34 depicted humans. 15 Conclusions Toronto, Canada depicted women, 13 men, and 6 were of mixed or M5G 1N8 Visual imagery associated with medical journals shapes [email protected] indeterminate sex. 11 pictures of women included a our understanding of health and the human body. child and five included nudity. One cover showed a Images of babes and boobs in cover art emphasise BMJ 1999;319:1603–5 man with a child (not as a father) and none depicted women’s sexual and domestic roles, representing nudity. Men were depicted exclusively in authoritative women in traditional and stereotypical ways that under- roles. mine contemporary beliefs in the equality, autonomy, Conclusions Much of the cover art gives strong and status of women.34 These representations do not messages about sexual stereotypes that are reflect women’s contributions to the domains of science, inappropriate in modern society.
    [Show full text]
  • Affidavit of Stephen Barrett, M.D
    IN THE IOWA DISTRICT COURT FOR POLK COUNTY ________________________________________________________________ _ STATE OF IOWA ex rel. ) THOMAS J. MILLER, ) ATTORNEY GENERAL OF IOWA, ) EQUITY NO. CE-39318 99AG25112 ) ) Plaintiff , ) ) vs. ) AFFIDAVIT OF DR. ) STEPHEN BARRETT NEW WOMYN, INC. and ) DAN KAISER, ) ) Defendants. ) ________________________________________________________________ _ 1. I, Dr. Stephen Barrett of Allentown, Pennsylvania, being first duly sworn on oath, depose and state as follows: 2. I submit this declaration as an expert in the fields of quackery, “alternative medicine,” health fraud, peer review, and the analysis of unusual health claims. I intend this declaration to serve as expert testimony on the matters set forth herein. All opinions rendered herein are my professional and expert opinion, as consistent with my special knowledge, skill, training, education, and experience. 3. I have been asked by Investigator Barbara Blake of the Consumer Protection Division of the Iowa Department of Justice to review Paragraph 9 (a)-(d) of the Petition and Application to Enforce Civil Investigative Demand filed in the above-captioned matter. I have been asked to assume that the alleged representations as set forth below were made for a device called - 1 - "Stimulations VII" that was to be used by persons to enhance breast size. I have been further asked to express an opinion regarding the amount of substantiation experts in the field would agree is reasonable for the types of claims set forth below. 4. The claims set forth in the Petition are: (a). That Stimulations VII will permanently grow breast tissue; (b.) That Stimulations VII will cause breast enlargement of 2, 3 or even 4 cup sizes; (c.) That Stimulations VII has been scientifically proven safe and effective for breast enlargement; (d.) That Stimulations VII will regrow breasts that have been removed via mastectomy.
    [Show full text]
  • Trends and Topics in Eye Disease Research in Pubmed from 2010 to 2014 Christophe Boudry, Eric Denion, Bruno Mortemousque, Frédéric Mouriaux
    Trends and topics in eye disease research in PubMed from 2010 to 2014 Christophe Boudry, Eric Denion, Bruno Mortemousque, Frédéric Mouriaux To cite this version: Christophe Boudry, Eric Denion, Bruno Mortemousque, Frédéric Mouriaux. Trends and topics in eye disease research in PubMed from 2010 to 2014. PeerJ, PeerJ, 2016, 4, pp.e1557. 10.7717/peerj.1557. hal-01254661 HAL Id: hal-01254661 https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01254661 Submitted on 14 Jan 2016 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution| 4.0 International License Trends and topics in eye disease research in PubMed from 2010 to 2014 Christophe Boudry1,2,3, Eric Denion4, Bruno Mortemousque5,6 and Fre´deric Mouriaux5,6 1 Me´dia normandie, Normandie Universite´, Universite´ de Caen Normandie, Caen, France 2 URFIST/Ecole Nationale des Chartes, Paris, France 3 Laboratoire “Dispositifs d’Information et de Communication a` l’E` re Nume´rique,” Conservatoire National des Arts et Me´tiers, Paris, France 4 Service d’Ophtalmologie, CHU Coˆte de Nacre, Caen, France 5 Service d’Ophtalmologie, CHU Rennes, Universite´ Rennes 1, Rennes, France 6 Faculte´ de Me´decine, Rennes, France ABSTRACT Background: The purpose of this study is to provide a report on scientific production during the period 2010–2014 in order to identify the major topics as well as the predominant actors (journals, countries, continents) involved in the field of eye disease.
    [Show full text]
  • Thank You to JAMA Peer Reviewers, Authors, and Readers Phil B
    Opinion Editorials represent the opinions of the authors and JAMA EDITORIAL and not those of the American Medical Association. Thank You to JAMA Peer Reviewers, Authors, and Readers Phil B. Fontanarosa, MD, MBA; Howard Bauchner, MD In this issue of JAMA, we are pleased to publish the names of the Table. JAMA Statistics for 2013 3960 peer reviewers of JAMA manuscripts in 2013.1 We extend our sincere thanks to these reviewers for their thoughtful, insightful, Manuscript Data No. Major manuscripts received 6937 and scholarly evaluation of manuscripts. Even though the peer Research manuscripts received 4731 review process continues to undergo evaluation and evolution,2 Acceptance rate (overall), % 9 we find the comments and suggestions from JAMA peer review- Acceptance rate (research), % 4 ers an indispensable aspect of the scientific publication process. Manuscripts sent for external review, % 30 We also extend our sincere thanks to all authors who sub- Peer reviewers 3960 mitted manuscripts for consideration for publication in JAMA. Peer reviewer turnaround, median, d 13 In 2013, the 6937 total manuscripts and 4731 research papers Receipt to rejection, median, da 6 a submitted, as well as the 78 randomized clinical trials, Receipt to acceptance, median, d 27 Acceptance to publication, median, da 32 124 Editorials, and 192 View- Receipt to publication, median, da 77 points published in JAMA, Related article 742 Clinical trials published 78 represent all-time highs Impact factor (2012 data) 30 (Table and eTable in the Information Dissemination
    [Show full text]
  • National Citation Patterns of NEJM, the Lancet, JAMA and the BMJ in the Lay Press: a Quantitative Content Analysis
    Open Access Research BMJ Open: first published as 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-018705 on 12 November 2017. Downloaded from National citation patterns of NEJM, The Lancet, JAMA and The BMJ in the lay press: a quantitative content analysis Gonzalo Casino,1 Roser Rius,2 Erik Cobo2 To cite: Casino G, Rius R, ABSTRACT Strengths and limitations of this study Cobo E. National citation Objectives To analyse the total number of newspaper patterns of NEJM, The Lancet, articles citing the four leading general medical journals ► This is the first study that analyses the citations of JAMA and The BMJ in the and to describe national citation patterns. lay press: a quantitative the four leading general medical journals in the lay Design Quantitative content analysis. content analysis. BMJ Open press. Setting/sample Full text of 22 general newspapers in 2017;0:e018705. doi:10.1136/ ► This study shows the existence of a national factor 14 countries over the period 2008–2015, collected from bmjopen-2017-018705 in science communication that needs to be further LexisNexis. The 14 countries have been categorised into monitored and analysed. ► Prepublication history for four regions: the USA, the UK, Western World (European ► Citation and correspondence analyses offer a new this paper is available online. countries other than the UK, and Australia, New Zealand To view these files, please visit way to quantify and monitor the media impact of and Canada) and Rest of the World (other countries). the journal online (http:// dx. doi. scientific journals. Main outcome measure Press citations of four medical org/ 10. 1136/ bmjopen- 2017- ► This study is observational and descriptive; thus, it journals (two American: NEJM and JAMA; and two British: 018705).
    [Show full text]
  • Pharmacologic Treatments for Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19): a Review
    Clinical Review & Education JAMA | Review Pharmacologic Treatments for Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) A Review James M. Sanders, PhD, PharmD; Marguerite L. Monogue, PharmD; Tomasz Z. Jodlowski, PharmD; James B. Cutrell, MD Viewpoint pages 1769, and IMPORTANCE The pandemic of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by the novel 1767 severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) presents an unprecedented Related article page 1839 challenge to identify effective drugs for prevention and treatment. Given the rapid pace of CME Quiz at scientific discovery and clinical data generated by the large number of people rapidly infected jamacmelookup.com by SARS-CoV-2, clinicians need accurate evidence regarding effective medical treatments for this infection. OBSERVATIONS No proven effective therapies for this virus currently exist. The rapidly Author Affiliations: Department of expanding knowledge regarding SARS-CoV-2 virology provides a significant number of Pharmacy, University of Texas potential drug targets. The most promising therapy is remdesivir. Remdesivir has potent in Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas vitro activity against SARS-CoV-2, but it is not US Food and Drug Administration approved (Sanders, Monogue); Division of Infectious Diseases and Geographic and currently is being tested in ongoing randomized trials. Oseltamivir has not been shown to Medicine, Department of Medicine, have efficacy, and corticosteroids are currently not recommended. Current clinical evidence University of Texas Southwestern does not support stopping angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor Medical Center, Dallas (Sanders, Monogue, Cutrell); Pharmacy Service, blockers in patients with COVID-19. VA North Texas Health Care System, Dallas (Jodlowski). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE The COVID-19 pandemic represents the greatest global public health crisis of this generation and, potentially, since the pandemic Corresponding Author: James B.
    [Show full text]
  • Omega-3 Supplements May Interact with Drugs That Affect Blood Clotting
    U.S. Department of Health & Human Services National Institutes of Health Omega-3 Supplements © Zoonar/Thinkstock Omega-3 fatty acids (omega-3s) are a group of polyunsaturated fatty acids that are important for a number of functions in the body. Some types of omega-3s are found in foods such as fatty fish and shellfish. Another type is found in some vegetable oils. Omega-3s are also available as dietary supplements. This fact sheet provides basic information about omega-3s—with a focus on dietary supplements, summarizes scientific research on effectiveness and safety, and suggests sources for additional information. Key Facts — There has been a substantial amount of research on supplements of omega-3s, particularly the types of omega-3s found in seafood and fish oil, and heart disease. The findings of individual studies have been inconsistent. In 2012, two combined analyses of the results of these studies did not find convincing evidence that these omega-3s protect against heart disease. — There is some evidence that omega-3s of the types found in seafood and fish oil may be modestly helpful in relieving symptoms in rheumatoid arthritis. For most other conditions for which omega-3s have been studied, definitive conclusions cannot yet be reached, or studies have not shown omega-3s to be beneficial. — Omega-3 supplements may interact with drugs that affect blood clotting. — It is uncertain whether people with fish or shellfish allergies can safely consume fish oil supplements. — Fish liver oils (which are not the same as fish oils) contain vitamins A and D as well as omega-3 fatty acids; these vitamins can be toxic in high doses.
    [Show full text]
  • JAMA Oncology—The Year in Review, 2019 Mary L
    Opinion EDITORIAL JAMA Oncology—The Year in Review, 2019 Mary L. (Nora) Disis, MD JAMA Oncology had a very active year in 2019. The journal’s receive the JAMA Oncology electronic table of contents by impact factor of 22.4 places it as one of the highest-ranking email, you can sign up at http://www.jamaoncology.com.We oncology journals. I thank our authors, peer reviewers, and are proud to continue offering the most innovative, provoca- readers for the significant contributions made to the journal tive, and timely research for scientists, clinicians, and train- this past year. The editorial ees in the field of oncology worldwide. I encourage readers Related article board, our JAMA Oncology to stay involved with the journal by submitting Letters to the editors, and I are honored to Editor and offering recommendations for new topics that have the opportunity to serve the oncology community by you would like to see covered in future issues. Your sugges- offering original, innovative, and timely scientific content tions make this interdisciplinary oncology journal dynamic that has a direct impact on researchers, clinicians, and the and current. patients we serve. We have truly enjoyed being involved in JAMA Oncology’s Choosing manuscripts for the journal was rewarding continued success this year and look forward to the year ahead. but challenging. We received a total of 2980 manuscript sub- We could not have done it without you. I invite all of our missions in 2019. These submissions to JAMA Oncology readers to follow us on Twitter @JAMAOnc or friend JAMA included 1743 Original Investigations, 66 Clinical Trial Oncology on Facebook.
    [Show full text]