* Oral Presentation
* Oral Presentation
Abstract
Objectives: A wealth of information on patients’ experience of disease/treatments and health systems is captured through patient-centric interviews. If more of this information was readily available to healthcare decision-makers, there could be an opportunity to further improve the design of clinical trials (CTs), patient-support services, and to simplify the patient pathway.
Research design and methods: The projects database of a specialist healthcare market research organization, which conducts research on behalf of pharmaceutical companies, was analyzed to identify studies (January 2015–July 2016) in rare diseases/immunology. Patients were interviewed to understand the emotional/practical/financial/social impact of their disease, treatment(s), and medical-service provided.
Results: In total, 28 studies were identified encompassing 1,342 patients over 18 months; 13 and 15 studies in immunology and rare diseases, respectively (711 and 631 patients). These studies encompassed data from 14 countries across the EU/US/Asia, and demonstrated useful and consistent data on the patient experience of disease/treatments and health services. To the authors knowledge, none of these data have been published in medical journals.
Conclusions: These results indicate a strong case for the medical fraternity to further assess the benefits of market research, which often uncovers areas of disease/treatment impact not traditionally measured or accounted for in CTs. Having the opportunity to merge data gathered in CTs with the real-world impact of disease and treatment could enable physicians to be more responsive to their patients’ needs, and enable healthcare decision-makers to make better assessments as to the value of treatments approved.
Keywords:
Disclosures
All authors are employed by Cello Health.
Abstract
Objective: With requirements for data transparency becoming more extensive, this study assessed the status of responsible clinical trial (CT) data sharing by European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA) member and non-member companies.
Research design and methods: EFPIA membership was determined for the top 50 pharmaceutical companies by 2014 global sales (EvaluatePharma). Public global company websites were searched in August 2016 using the terms ‘EFPIA’, ‘data sharing’, ‘clinical trials’, and ‘transparency’. If no relevant results were obtained, websites were searched manually for statements relating to CT data sharing and EFPIA compliance.
Results: Of the top 50 companies, 27 were EFPIA members (including three affiliates). A CT data sharing policy was found on all EFPIA member and 4/23 non-member websites, with an explicit reference to EFPIA principles found for 22/27 members and 1/23 non-members. References to all five EFPIA principles were found for 15/27 members and 1/23 non-members. For EFPIA members and non-members, respectively, references to sharing CT data with researchers were found for 22/27 and 2/23 companies, making Clinical Study Report (CSR) synopses publicly available for 22/27 and 1/23, making CT results available to trial participants for 24/27 and 1/23, publicly certifying the adoption of EFPIA commitments for 26/27 and 1/23, and committing to the publication of CT data for 26/27 and 3/23.
Conclusions: The majority of pharmaceutical companies investigated have publicly committed to responsible CT data sharing. All EFPIA members have made such commitments compared with few non-members.
Keywords:
‡ Winner, 2017 European Meeting of ISMPP “Best Original Research” Poster Award
‡ Winner, 2017 European Meeting of ISMPP “Best Original Research” Poster Award
Abstract
Objective: There is growing demand for lay summaries of clinical trial results, but only very limited guidance exists for the preparation of lay summaries for peer-reviewed journals. The authors undertook a review of existing guidance for patient lay summaries in non-peer-reviewed contexts, and developed a framework for publishing such summaries in medical journals.
Research design and methods: Source material comprised publicly available guidance, PAREXEL’s existing guidance for patient summaries, and qualitative research into patient requirements for communication of clinical trial data. A committee of individuals from Clinical and Medical Communications departments developed the draft framework, which, along with a lay summary example, was reviewed by senior publication experts within PAREXEL and patients.
Results: Current guidance on lay summaries has variations in content recommendations and does not address issues around publication processes. The Patient Lay Summary Publishing Framework developed comprises guidance for the content (including pertinent aspects of trial design and results), language (company research suggests patients require digestible information in easily understood language), and format of a lay summary, and approaches for publication in medical journals. It addresses standard operating procedures, GPP adherence, and liaison between medical communications agency, trial sponsor, authors, and journal editors.
Conclusions: The proposed framework provides structured guidance to address an identified gap relating to publishing patient lay summaries of clinical trial data in medical journals. The framework will be finalized following further consultation with medical publishing stakeholders.
Keywords:
Abstract
Objective: Many patients access medical information online, which has the potential to provide in-depth information on healthcare issues. This study aimed to evaluate quality of reporting of clinical trial data on various news websites, assessing whether citations or links to the original publication or detailed clinical trial outputs were included in news reports.
Research design and methods: UK news outlets (English only), including broadsheet papers, tabloids, and online-only sites were searched over the last 6 months (March–August 2016), for articles on clinical trials, and whether these linked to the original clinical trial report or publication was assessed. An attempt was made to cross-reference all articles from news outlets to original sources.
Results: BBC News (63%), The Telegraph (55%), Guardian (45%), and ITV News (40%) referenced the original source most frequently, with The Independent (25%) and Reuters (13%) referencing less frequently. Over the period of assessment, no evidence of The Times, Mirror, Daily Mail, or Sun ever citing the original data source was found.
Conclusions: Referencing back to original clinical study articles is not uniform among various UK news outlets and may be low or non-existent on some websites, potentially influencing Altmetric scores. Interestingly, only 13% of reports from the major international news outlet, Reuters, cited the original source, a concern as many Reuters articles are used elsewhere. This trend limits the opportunity for patients to be fully informed.
Keywords:
Abstract
Objective: Two decades on from the unveiling of medical “ghostwriting”, and a decade on from the first remedies to eradicate this through greater transparency and delineating the proper role of medical writers, the commentary generated by the recent BMJ articleCitation1 indicates that myths about ghostwriting and lack of transparency still abound. This analysis aimed to assess the progress already made in the medical literature.
Method: PubMed was searched using search terms (ghostwrit* OR (ghost AND writ*)) from January 2010–October 2016. Articles were manually assessed using their abstracts for their negative or positive disposition towards initiatives represented by post-GPP2 guidelines. The extent of evidence-based literature was also assessed.
Results: Of the 74 articles retrieved, only 12 (16.2%) were positively disposed to industry initiatives to eliminate ghost and honorary authorship and improve transparency, while 17 (22.9%) were negatively disposed, and 45 (60.8%) neutral/unable to be rated. Data from two positive publications were previously reported as ISMPP abstracts.
Conclusions: There is concern that the positive practices of publication professionals remain “hidden”, and there is an ongoing need to educate the community and for publication professionals to contribute to evidence-based publication practices. While more work is need to determine the full impact of ghostwriting on public trust in medical literature, the imperative is to assure that new initiatives post-GPP reassure the public that their trust in medical practitioners is well placed.
Reference
- Matheson A. Br Med J 2016;354:
Abstract
Objective: Data sources for observational studies are often selected on an ad-hoc basis, which can affect the quality of study outcomes. This study aimed to apply publications expertise in a transparent, structured approach to identify data sources for the APHELIA study program, characterizing the management and outcomes of patients with symptomatic peripheral artery disease (PAD) in real-world clinical practice.
Research design and methods: Systematic literature searches, supplemented with email and telephone contact with data owners, were used to identify and characterize registries and healthcare databases. Sources had to be: active; representative; accessible; they also had to record PAD severity, procedures, treatment, and outcomes (≥3 years of follow-up), either direct or via linkage; and accommodate analyses mirroring the EUCLID trial [NCT01732822].
Results: Over 2200 publications and websites were screened, with 10 registries, seven cohorts, and 47 databases identified for further evaluation. Five complementary data sources were selected: HUMEDICA (US electronic health records/claims database); THIN (UK primary care medical records); SwedVasc (all centres performing vascular procedures); Swedish PAD Prevalence Study (general PAD population); and the French Échantillon Généraliste des Bénéficiaires (sample of national health system beneficiaries). Local protocols for each data source were developed based on a globally agreed concept, and are being implementedCitation1.
Conclusions: A structured approach to identifying suitable data sources based on peer-reviewed publications can form the bedrock of subsequent communications. Publication professionals can use their expertise to help design observational studies, as well as report them.
Reference
- Sigvant B, et al. Contemporary cardiovascular risk and secondary preventive drug treatment patterns in peripheral artery disease patients undergoing revascularization. J Vasc Surg 2016;doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2016.03.429
* Oral Presentation
* Oral Presentation
Abstract
Objective: Effectiveness of communications is generally dependent on the level of impact they exert on their target audience. There are some publicly available tools that facilitate scientific communication planningCitation1–4, but none of them allows to optimize communication plans based on impact prediction. Here, an innovative empirical impact model is described that fills this gap.
Research design and methods: For the impact model development, scientific communication practices in the pharmaceutical industry were reviewed, and commonly used communication types were selected. Model parameters were assigned to each of the communication types, based on communication outreach and reinforcement potentials and on the predicted impact on the target audience’s cognitive, social, and emotional intelligence (impact areas). Algorithms defined the interplay of parameters for generating impact profiles.
Results: Twenty-two communication types were combined with 24 model parameters and three impact areas. Eight, six, and 10 parameters determined the impact on cognitive, social, and emotional intelligence, respectively. Social and emotional parameters were set as reinforcers of cognitive intelligence. Standard values for parameters were used to generate impact profiles with their characteristic impact indices on cognitive, social, emotional, and general levels. It appeared that scientific communications exert an emotional impact before affecting cognitive and social intelligence.
Conclusions: The impact model allows one to generate differential communication impact forecasts. It’s forecast accuracy remains to be refined, based on retrospective impact evaluations. The model is a unique tool to optimize scientific communication planning in healthcare.
Keywords:
* Oral Presentation
Footnote†† Encored poster at the 13th Annual Meeting of ISMPP
* Oral Presentation
† Encored poster at the 13th Annual Meeting of ISMPP
Abstract
Objective: Publication of unplanned analyses is common within the pharmaceutical industry following primary data publication. Guidelines exist on publishing planned analyses from industry-sponsored studies, including stringent guidance on the timeframe, yet guidance on publishing unplanned analyses seems sparse. To quantify this observation, a search of publishing guidelines for information on unplanned analyses was conducted.
Research design and methods: Title word searches were performed on the EQUATOR Network database of 330 reporting guidelines using the terms “ancillary”, “data-derived”, “exploratory”, “post-hoc”, and “unplanned” to identify guidance on such analyses. Further, 14 medical publishing guidelines (selected for their broad relevance) were screened for content using the same terms. Results were quantified, then content assessed for quality.
Results: None of the 330 documents in the EQUATOR Network database contained the search terms in their title. Seven of 14 (50%) documents contained ≥1 of the search terms. Five (36%) of these provided guidance to support the reporting of such analyses. However, in all cases, guidance was limited to advising that exploratory/post-hoc analyses should only be published after the primary analyses and should be clearly identified as such.
Conclusions: This pilot study confirms that, in contrast to the wealth of publication guidance on planned analyses, there is a paucity of information to support the ethical publication of unplanned analyses. These results suggest there is a rationale for the development of guidelines specifically addressing the publication of unplanned analyses.
Keywords:
* Oral Presentation
* Oral Presentation
Abstract
Objective: Abstract review committees evaluate a large number of abstracts within a short period of time. This study investigated whether any relationship exists between the number of outcomes reported in an abstract and the decision to select abstracts for oral presentations.
Research design and methods: All accepted abstracts reporting data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) at The European League Against Rheumatism Annual European Congress of Rheumatology (EULAR) 2014 and 2016 were included in this analysis. The number of outcomes reported, alongside abstract type (oral presentation, poster, abstract book) were recorded. A one-way ANOVA and a post-hoc Tukey’s test were performed to compare groups.
Results: In total, 8,363 abstracts were accepted to EULAR 2014 and 2016. Of these, 344 abstracts were identified as reporting data from RCTs: 98 (28.5%) were selected for an oral presentation, 194 (57.6%) for a poster, and 52 (15.1%) for abstract book publication. Compared with oral presentations, posters reported significantly more outcomes in the results section of the abstract (mean = 5.61 [SD = ±2.7] vs 4.47 [1.9], p = 0.002), a smaller proportion included a figure (20% vs 25%, insignificant), and a greater number included a table (49% vs 43%, insignificant). A smaller proportion of RCT abstracts selected for an oral presentation were sponsored by industry (oral: 45.9%; poster: 70.1%; abstract book: 67.4%).
Conclusions: These data imply that including an optimal number of outcomes in a research abstract may increase the chances of selection for an oral presentation.
Keywords:
Abstract
Objective: Open access (OA) publishing allows unrestricted access to scientific research. The aim of this study was to understand drivers of publishers’ OA licence offerings.
Research design and methods: Publishers and editors were surveyed about the OA models offered, the creative commons (CC) or publishing licences available, options around those licences, and possible future developments in OA licensing. The survey link was emailed to 26 individuals and posted on a publisher LinkedIn group (6,621 members).
Results: Of 20 responses received, 18 were evaluable and 16 were from individuals who worked for, or with, an OA publisher. Gold OA via hybrid (n = 12) or fully OA journals (n = 13) was most common, and the CC BY-non-commercial (NC) (n = 13) and CC BY (n = 8) licences were most frequently offered (multiple answers possible). Licence choices were most often driven by publisher policy (n = 14). Increasing journal readership/access (n = 10) and compliance with funder mandates (n = 9) were the top pro-OA attributes; perception of reduced journal quality (n = 9) was the top anti-OA attribute. Most (11/12) respondents were satisfied with their current OA mechanisms, and 10/12 had no plans to change anything. However, 8/12 considered a consistent licensing approach across journals may be feasible.
Conclusions: This pilot survey shows that the CC BY-NC licence is most frequently offered, and that publisher policy is the strongest driver of licence choice. Publishers are generally satisfied with their current OA offering, but may consider a more consistent approach.
Abstract
Objective: The Open Researcher and Contributor ID (ORCID) initiative is a mechanism to disambiguate author/contributor names by assigning a unique identifier to each registered contributor. An observational study of ORCID requirements was conducted for manuscript submissions to ascertain how widely ORCID was used, and to explore whether agency process updates may be necessary.
Research design and methods: The agency editorial team monitored manuscript submissions/resubmissions from January 1, 2016 to July 31, 2016. Data were collected on ORCID requirements for submission, and journal characteristics (publisher, association with a society, open access status). For submissions where ORCIDs were required, editors recorded whether authors already had an ORCID.
Results: Details were collected from 51 submissions to 46 journals published by 22 publishers. For 14 journals (30.4%), ORCID was not mentioned, in 31 (67.4%), ORCID linking was optional and only 2* (4.3%) journals mandated ORCID details for submission (* one of which changed policy between the original submission and resubmission). Neither association with a society nor open access status seemed to be associated with ORCID adoption. Of the 10 authors who were required to supply ORCIDs for manuscript submission, only three (30%) already had an account.
Conclusions: The requirement for author ORCID accounts seems not yet to have penetrated deeply amongst this sample of 46 journals. However, agencies should consider how to manage ORCID requirements as the initiative expands into the academic and research communities with whom the authors work.
Keywords:
Abstract
Objective: The Center for Evidence-Based Medicine Outcome Monitoring (COMPare) project is evaluating the outcome reporting of randomized controlled trials. COMPare researchers have compared publications in the top five medical journals with the corresponding protocol or registry entryCitation1. In this sub-analysis of the publicly available data, the relationship between outcome reporting, funding source, and medical writing support was examined.
Research design and methods: For each publication evaluated in COMPare, the funding source (industry/part-industry or non-industry) and whether there was medical writing support were obtained. Outcome reporting was compared between the groups using Chi2 or Fisher Exact tests for binary variables, and student t-test with Satterthwaithe correction for quantitative variables.
Results: Study funding was industry/part-industry (n = 34, 50.7%), non-industry (n = 32, 47.8%), and not stated (n = 1, 1.5%). Medical writing support was provided in 17 studies (all industry funded). Mean pre-specified outcomes reported were 66.5% vs 64.0% for industry/part-industry funded and non-industry funded publications (p = NS). Industry/part-industry and non-industry publications reported similar numbers of non-pre-specified outcomes (mean = 4.3 vs 6.6; p = NS). Industry-funded articles with medical writing support were less likely to include non-pre-specified outcomes (mean = 2.2) than those written without this support and sponsored by industry (n = 17, mean = 6.5; p = 0.028) or non-industry organizations (n = 32, mean =6.6; p < 0.01).
Conclusions: There remains a need to improve the reporting of RCT outcomes. In this small sample, the quality of trial reporting was independent of the funding source.
Keywords:
Reference
- Goldacre B, Drysdale H, Powell-Smith A, et al. The COMPare trials project. 2016. www.COMPare-trials.org
Abstract
Objectives: A specialty division of a pharmaceutical company launched a “Voice-of-the-Patient” initiative aiming at engaging employees to think/act as patients, and raising awareness on their work’s impact on patients. Within this framework, the publications-team piloted a patient-highlight section (PHS) in peer-reviewed publications, elaborating on the clinical research relevance.
Research design and methods: A literature search on highlighted sections in peer-reviewed journals, and an assessment of their understandability for the HealthCare Professionals (HCP), were conducted. The publication team was trained on editorial skills needed for PHS, which were systematically added to manuscripts of the pilot project since September 2015.
Results: HCPs involved in the authorship were interested in the initiative and shared their insights in the PHS, with company editorial support. HCP’s feedback was positive, supporting this transparent and patient-oriented initiative. Of the 11 submitted publications, one journal (which accepted the manuscript for publication) was in disfavor of including the highlighted section. The main reason for rejection of PHS by journals was limited word count. This initiative changed the involved publications manager’s mindset, making them more empathetic with patient needs. Limitations included difficulty in maintaining accuracy while making the content more accessible.
Conclusions: Feedback from authors and company multidisciplinary-teams was highly positive, as was that from the journals. The initiative will be expanded across the therapy area’s peer-reviewed publications.
§ Winner, 2017 European Meeting of ISMPP “Most Reflective of Meeting Theme” Poster Award
§ Winner, 2017 European Meeting of ISMPP “Most Reflective of Meeting Theme” Poster Award
Abstract
Objective: Journals can increase public understanding of the articles they publish through the use of summaries specifically targeted at a lay audience. The objective of this review is to understand the current availability, characteristics, and requirements of lay summaries in journals.
Research design and methods: Journals publishing lay summaries were identified through website searches of the 31 publishers of the 100 most impactful medical journals (measured by citations/article), using relevant terms (including “lay summary”, “editor’s summary”, “synopsis”). The instructions for authors of identified journals were reviewed to understand the origin, purpose, and requirements for the lay summary.
Results: Publishers’ websites, representing ∼7,630 journals, were searched, and 67 (< 1%) journals which published lay summaries alongside the main abstracts were identified. Of these, the majority (61%) required an author-composed summary to be submitted alongside the manuscript (optional in two journals). The summaries were mainly unstructured, with word limits between 75–500 words, and were aimed at the wider scientific community and the general public. Twenty-four journals published summaries written or commissioned by the editors, which were available for all research articles (20 journals) or selected research articles only (four journals).
Conclusions: Relatively few journals currently publish summaries for lay readers. Over half of those identified were written by authors/writers as part of the manuscript submission. There is currently little consistency or guidance from journals as to the structure and content of lay summaries.
Abstract
Objective: Publishing proceedings from sponsored satellite symposia is complex and the subject of much debate. The objective of this study was to highlight inconsistencies associated with supplement publishing.
Methodology: Over the last 3 years, the authors have published ∼50 symposium-derived manuscripts (supplements and reviews) and, herein, some of the experiences related to these activities are described.
Results: Many journals do not appear to use consistent rules or editorial practices pertaining to the publication of symposium-derived manuscripts. Thus, challenges facing potential authors can include:
Editors changing their mind regarding a possible supplement without going to peer-review;
Journal responses that range from unwavering support to outright rejection of a potential supplement;
Black and white differences regarding possible publication of a symposium as a single article;
Lack of consistency in the peer-review process; and
Submission of individual articles to peer review without indicating that they are part of a supplement, resulting in reviewer requests for information that has already been covered in other supplement sections.
Conclusions: Publication of symposia proceedings can contribute to the scientific literature, particularly when the foundation of the evidence is KOL experience. Journals should follow consistent rules when processing supplements and adopt more flexibility when handling supplements vs traditional publications. A few simple changes could improve the peer-review process and the overall perception of supplements.
Keywords:
* Oral Presentation
* Oral Presentation
Abstract
Objective: Scientific internships can provide the first step to becoming a medical publication professional, and can play a vital role in supporting the development of medical publicationsCitation1. This study sought to understand the attributes of a successful scientific internship at a medical communications agency, and to provide evidence-based recommendations to agencies considering an internship program.
Research design and methods: Data were collected from applications made to this company’s paid internship program since its inception (July 1, 2012) until the present (October 1, 2016).
Results: Since the program’s inception, 58 interns were hired. Of these, 12% are ongoing in the internship program, 24% continued onto permanent roles within the company, 24% returned to further studies, and 40% sought other employment. In 2015, 484 applications were made for the scientific internship role, of whom eight (1.7%) were successful. While some successful applicants were postgraduates (25%), the majority (75%) held an undergraduate qualification, therefore interns were given a thorough induction and training program, as well as close line management and regular appraisals. According to a 2016 survey, 9/9 interns felt the program provided a good understanding of the variety of work within medical communications, with 78% working on a project from inception to completion.
Conclusions: Scientific internships can be a vital entry route into a career in medical publishing. Interns can also provide valuable support to medical communications agencies and, hence, can play a key role in the development of medical publications.
Reference
- Nixon D, Pearson S. Successful internships: A company perspective. Med Writ 2016;25:–72
Abstract
Objectives: Manuscript rejections resulting from inappropriate target journal selection delay public disclosure of clinical trial findings and put an additional burden on authors, editors, and reviewers. The team’s publication database was used to develop a toolkit to support authors in objectively selecting suitable target journals.
Research design and methods: Sixty-three manuscripts were selected, disclosing company-sponsored clinical trial data submitted to journals with a wide range of impact factors. Manuscripts were scored (1–5) on trial outcome, novelty, and public health impact, based on pre-specified scoring criteria. These scores were weighted to determine the relative importance of each, and a cumulative manuscript score was calculated.
Results: When novelty and public health impact scores were weighted twice as heavily as trial outcome, the correlation between manuscript score and journal impact factor explained 83% of variance for accepted submissions. No correlation was found for rejected submissions. For submissions to higher impact factor journals (IF >7), manuscript scores of rejected submissions were clearly below the predicted acceptance-curve, whereas for submissions to lower impact factor journals this was less apparent.
Conclusions: This study shows that an “objective” manuscript score can be calculated to obtain an appropriate impact factor range from which to select a target journal for submission of clinical trial data. Combined with other journal characteristics and the intended target audience, the toolkit can help authors target an appropriate journal. The prospective impact of this toolkit will continue to be evaluated.
† Encored poster at the 13th Annual Meeting of ISMPP
† Encored poster at the 13th Annual Meeting of ISMPP
Abstract
Objective: Digital publishing platforms have the potential to facilitate efficient and transparent dissemination of academic medical research. This study assessed their suitability for publishing research funded by the pharmaceutical industry.
Research design and methods: Platforms publishing medical research were identified through web searches (Google), interviews with publishing professionals, and the authors’ personal libraries (all conducted August–September 2016). The most novel English language platforms were shortlisted and assessed by 14 criteria defined by author consensus to highlight emerging trends in digital publishing. Data were collected from platform websites, PubMed, the Directory of Open Access Journals, Journal Selector (Sylogent, Newtown, PA) and email enquiry.
Results: Of the 11 platforms assessed, six were indexed in PubMed (Cureus, eLife, F1000, PeerJ, and Royal Society Open Science), and six were not (Europe PMC, Peerage of Science, PeerJ Preprints, ResearchGate, Science Matters, and Winnower). The rate of publication in these platforms has grown rapidly. Of those platforms indexed on PubMed, the overall number of articles published increased from 98 in 2012 to 2,579 in 2015. Many of these platforms were newly established, nine of 11 having been set up since 2010. All platforms met 5–12 criteria; no platform met all 14 criteria.
Conclusions: The volume of medical research published through digital platforms has risen sharply. Collaboration between digital publishers and pharmaceutical companies is needed to ensure that these platforms reach their full potential.
Keywords:
Abstract
Objective: Medical journals often cite “low priority” and “inappropriate for the readership” as reasons for rejecting articles describing real-world evidence (RWE). Tools to help authors make better journal choices are lacking. With the aim of increasing acceptance rates for RWE studies, the authors developed a systematic approach to select journals with an interest in cardiology RWE.
Research design and methods: A PubMed search strategy was developed to identify articles describing RWE in acute coronary syndrome (RWE + ACS), published in 2015. The validity of the strategy was confirmed by capture of positive-control articles from the publication plan, and relevance was confirmed by review of abstracts. Journals publishing the highest proportion of RWE + ACS articles were assessed for scope and publication metrics. Editors-in-chief were interviewed to gain insights into factors that influence acceptance decisions.
Results: The search identified articles describing RWE + ACS in 696 journals. Review of abstracts in J Am Cardiol (n = 105) and Heart (n = 27) demonstrated 71% and 63% accuracy in identifying relevant articles, respectively. The 16 journals with the highest proportion of RWE + ACS articles (60–86% of ACS journal content) were evaluated. Five editors shared their views: attitudes towards RWE were positive, with methodological rigor identified as critical for acceptance, but misunderstanding of RWE was identified as a barrier to acceptance.
Conclusions: This evidence-based approach to journal selection may inform better decision-making, thereby increasing speed and reducing cost in medical publishing.
Abstract
Objective: While rudimentary metrics are commonly captured, there is little meaningful interrogation of how audiences interact with specific content within publications. To address this, user behaviour within scientific posters and manuscripts was evaluated, and digital opportunities provided by congresses and publishers was assessed.
Research design and methods: The authors developed a custom web-based poster platform offering improved user experience, optimized online viewing, and detailed metrics collection. Access was via poster QR codes at two international congresses. Behavior was assessed through navigation metrics. Digital poster and metrics provision were assessed across a wide selection of international congresses, chosen according to highest attendee number (Congress Authority). A pilot study was performed of publisher services and reader behavior within manuscripts; a full study is ongoing.
Results: In total, 1,099 unique users accessed 24 web-based posters. Average viewing time was 194 s. The number of users per poster did not correlate with viewing time, nor presentation of primary, secondary, and post-hoc analyses; 64% exited without interacting beyond the landing page (introduction). For those continuing to further sections, the breakdown of access was: methods, 34%; results, 58%; conclusions, 55%; references, 17%. Digital poster provision was assessed at 27 congresses across nine therapy areas. PDF files were commonly mandatory, but no touchscreen posters, web-based poster platforms, nor in-depth collection of reader-behavior metrics were supported.
Conclusions: By using digital tools, one can capture valuable insight on audience behavior to inform future publication activities. Congresses do not yet provide robust infrastructure to achieve this.
Keywords:
Abstract
Objective: With the increased smartphone penetration, it is now possible to supplement the traditional printed poster with digital augmented reality (AR) content. This study provides an overview of issues that should be considered by medical publication professionals when implementing smartphone-based AR during the poster development process.
Research design and methods: This study considered features and accessibility for smartphone app-based AR. Three similar companies were identified as the first Google hits for the search term “augmented reality”. Approximate price quotation for unlimited business use, development services, and lead time were sought via direct sales agent contact; additional information was gathered from company websites.
Results: See .
Conclusions: AR offers the novel opportunity to interact with print media; however, cost and time concerns must be considered by the medical publication professional before embarking on development of an AR experience.
Keywords:
Correction Statement
This article was originally published with an affiliation error, which has now been corrected in the online version. Please see Correction (http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03007995.2019.1651116)
Notes
* Oral Presentation
‡ Winner, 2017 European Meeting of ISMPP “Best Original Research” Poster Award
* Oral Presentation
* Oral Presentation
† Encored poster at the 13th Annual Meeting of ISMPP
* Oral Presentation
§ Winner, 2017 European Meeting of ISMPP “Most Reflective of Meeting Theme” Poster Award
* Oral Presentation
† Encored poster at the 13th Annual Meeting of ISMPP