Original Abstracts from the 13th Annual Meeting of ISMPP

All “MeSh”ed up: the limitations of indexing in Medline and the impact on literature searches

Abstract

Objective: Discrepancies were identified in MeSH indexing leading to incomplete literature retrieved while completing a literature review for a gap analysis. We aimed to assess the frequency of missing index terms in a systematic way to improve literature search outputs.

Research design and methods: Medline MeSH heading designations were evaluated for the complete set of references cited in Cortazar et al.¹ and the 2014 FDA guidance for pCR as an endpoint². The MeSH heading “neoadjuvant” was evaluated for assignment in the reference set. The distribution of major MeSH headings for these reference sets were also assessed.

Results: A total of 25 references each from the Cortazar et al. publication and the FDA guidance were listed in Medline and were included in our analysis. Overall, we found inconsistencies in the assignment of the MeSH heading “neoadjuvant” in clinically relevant literature, with the heading omitted in 40% and 44% of the references in Cortazar et al. and the FDA guidance, respectively. In addition, we observed variability in major MeSH sub-heading designations. For example, 23/25 Cortazar et al. references were designated as “Breast Neoplasms/dt [Drug Therapy]” while 3/25 were designated as “Breast Neoplasms/th [Therapy]”.

Conclusions: Medline MeSH indexing is intended to improve biomedical literature search and retrieval. However, we conclude that due to inconsistencies observed in MeSH term assignment, biomedical literature searches completed solely with the use of MeSH search terms can preclude the retrieval of highly relevant literature. We recommend that literature searchers utilize a combination of keyword and MeSH term search strategies for more comprehensive gap analyses.

Keywords:

• Best practice
• gap analysis
• literature search

An analysis of online commentary to publications with industry and academic authors

Abstract

Objective: Forums to comment on and discuss publications online are emerging, but their nature and utility have not been evaluated. This analysis characterized commentary and discussion in PubMed Commons.

Research design: Searches were conducted in PubMed for articles with authors from pharmaceutical companies and research institutions that also had comments on PubMed Commons.

Methods: Literature searches were conducted for 15 pharmaceutical companies and 6 high-profile research institutions within the affiliation field. The prevalence of comments across affiliations was summarized, and comments were classified as discussion, curation (annotation of relevant information), criticism, or endorsement.

Results: The prevalence of comments was similar between articles with industry or research institution authors (Table 1). Curation was the most common category and was more common with industry authors. Discussion was more common with research institution authors. Some critical comments to company-authored articles (4/17) noted the funding source as a potential bias.

Conclusions: Use of PubMed Commons is low, regardless of author affiliation, and the most common comments were curation.

Keywords:

• Abstracts
• technology
• social media

Table 1 Prevalence and type of comments in PubMed Commons.

	Articles withpharmaceuticalindustry authors	Articles withhigh-profileresearch institutionauthors
Number of articles with comments	89	294
Number of comments across all articles	119	395
Number of comments per article
Mean ± SD	1.34 ± 1.95	1.34 ± 1.06
Median (range)	1 (1–19)	1 (1–12)
Discussion, n/N (%)	16/89 (18.0)	87/294 (29.6)
Curation, n/N (%)	53/89 (59.6)	115/294 (39.1)
Criticism, n/N (%)	17/89 (19.1)	74/294 (25.2)
Endorsement, n/N (%)	3/89 (3.4)	18/294 (6.1)

Analysis of responses to the data sharing proposal of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE)

Abstract

Objectives: The ICMJE recently proposed that authors be required to share deidentified individual-patient data underlying clinical trial results as a condition of publication in ICMJE member journals. This proposal was open for public comment for 12.6 weeks. We analyzed comments received by ICMJE on this proposal.

Research design and methods: Reviewers analyzed comments posted to the ICMJE website for agreement with four items of the proposal: 1) requirement to share data, 2) sharing data within 6 months, 3) including a data-sharing plan, and 4) providing credit to original source. Comments were categorized as “agree”, “agree with considerations”, or “disagree”.

Results: Among 315 responders, most (59%) were affiliated with universities/hospitals; 15% were from industry. Most were from either the United States (49%) or Europe (28%). Most responders (58%) agreed with the requirement to share patient-level data; 32% agreed with considerations, and 10% disagreed. Overall, 66% of responders agreed that data should be shared within 6 months, 9% agreed with considerations, and 25% disagreed. Only a small minority disagreed with the requirement for a data sharing plan (5%) and providing credit for shared data (7%). Most agreed (52%) or agreed with considerations (41%) that those who share data should receive credit in publications based on that data. Responders commented most frequently on enforcement, responsibility, and funding (49%). Other comments discussed general data sharing (15%); impact on research quality and speed (13%); patient privacy/expectations (10%); investigators’ roles/rights (9%); and ethical concerns (5%).

Conclusions: Most responders agreed with the ICMJE proposal; however, the degree of consensus varied between proposal items.

Keywords:

• Data sharing
• best practice
• transparency

Challenges and opportunities for improvement in publication planning: a survey of publication professionals

Abstract

Objective: Timely data sharing is critical to the ethics and scientific integrity of pharmaceutical and biotechnology company-sponsored communications. We aimed to gain an understanding of the actual behaviors and decisions underlying publication planning and to identify challenges, changes, and opportunities for improvement.

Research design and methods: A confidential survey concerning publication planning, development, data sharing, and best practices was distributed to members of publication teams (1 per team), covering multiple therapeutic areas, within Nucleus Global.

Results: Overall, 17/18 respondents (94.4%) participated in the development of a publication plan with their clients in 2016; 1 reported a client-provided publication plan. Of those who participated in publication planning, the majority (n = 13; 76.4%) reported periodic evaluations of the plans with the clients. Publication plans changed, on average, 4 times per year (range, 1–12), frequently due to delays in data availability (n = 9). Insufficient client statistical resources/delayed data delivery (n = 8) was the most commonly reported challenge to publication development. Lack of awareness of Good Publication Practice (GPP) guidelines (n = 4), difficulties in adhering to timelines (n = 4), and delayed data delivery/limited statistical resourcing (n = 4) were the most commonly reported challenges to balancing priorities with GPP, data sharing, and publications. Suggestions for improving processes included communicating GPP3 guidelines, identifying data gaps early to initiate new analyses in a timely fashion, and creating project status sheets to help with adhering to deadlines.

Conclusions: Many factors can influence the execution of a publication plan. Identifying data and statistical resource gaps early can improve publication planning/development and expedite timely data sharing.

Keywords:

• Publication planning
• best practices
• data sharing

Commitments to data sharing by pharmaceutical companies: the evolving environment^*

^* Oral Presentation

^* Oral Presentation

Abstract

Objective: With requirements for data transparency becoming more extensive, we assessed the commitment to share clinical trial (CT) data by member and non-member companies of the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA) and/or Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA).

Research design and methods: EFPIA and PhRMA membership was determined for the top 50 pharmaceutical companies by 2014 global sales (EvaluatePharma). Global company websites were initially searched using the terms “EFPIA” or “PhRMA”, “data sharing”, “clinical trials” and “transparency”. If no relevant results were obtained, websites were searched manually for statements relating to CT data sharing.

Results: Table 1 shows the number of companies committing to data sharing generally, or to making specific reference to EFPIA/PhRMA and their five joint principles of data sharing¹.

Conclusions: The majority of the top 50 pharmaceutical companies have publicly committed to responsible CT data sharing, with higher rates of public commitment among members of EFPIA and/or PhRMA than non-members.

Keywords:

• Compliance
• disclosure
• transparency

Table

	EFPIA and/or PhRMA membership
Stated commitment to data sharing, n (%)	Member (n = 33)	Non-member (n = 17)	Overall (N = 50)
General commitment to CT data sharing	28 (84.8)	3 (17.6)	31 (62.0)
Specific reference to EFPIA and/or PhRMA	23 (69.7)	0 (0.0)	23 (46.0)
Reference to all 5 EFPIA/PhRMA principles	18 (54.5)	0 (0.0)	18 (36.0)
Reference to the individual EFPIA/PhRMA principles
1 Sharing CT data with researchers	26 (78.8)	1 (5.9)	27 (54.0)
2 Making Clinical Study Report (CSR) or CSR synopses publicly available	24 (72.7)	0 (0.0)	24 (48.0)
3 Making CT results available to trial participants	25 (75.8)	0 (0.0)	25 (50.0)
4 Publicly certifying the adoption of EFPIA/PhRMA commitments	27 (81.8)	0 (0.0)	27 (54.0)
5 Committing to the publication of CT data	27 (81.8)	2 (11.8)	29 (58.0)

Comparison of total direct costs of health economics and outcomes research (HEOR) publication services provided by HEOR research companies versus medical communication agencies

Abstract

Objective: The Health Economics and Outcomes Research (HEOR) area is experiencing a period of rapid growth, driven by the increased need to provide payers with the generation of meaningful data on a drug’s real-world effectiveness. As HEOR research vendors offer publication support services, it’s important to evaluate the writing quality, knowledge of good publications practice, and cost of services. In this study, we focused on the cost of publication services provided by HEOR vendors versus medical communications agencies (MCAs).

Research design and methods: Publication costs were extracted from executed contracts during 2016. Vendors were grouped based on the level of services provided which included writing, layout, printing, shipping and also routing of publications through Datavision, a software used to compliantly manage publication activities. Abstract and poster costs were compared across various MCAs and HEOR research vendors.

Results: For HEOR research vendors (n=10), abstract costs ranged from $1,000 to $6,500; poster costs ranged from $5,500 to $10,500, with services varying widely across vendors. Abstract costs for MCAs (n=4) ranged from nearly $3,000 to approximately $7,000 while poster costs ranged $12,600 to $15,600, however services were all inclusive for each agency. Median abstract/poster costs for HEOR vendors was $12,000 compared to median abstract/poster costs of $19,800 for MCAs.

Conclusions: While HEOR research vendors may offer publication services at lower cost, consideration of writing quality, strategic context, and other development fees should be factored in when choosing a publication support resource.

Keywords:

• CER/HEOR
• cost-efficiency
• medical communications

Congress and journal practices in a digital and patient-centric era – hasten slowly?

Abstract

Objective: The publication environment is evolving in response to new trends, such as digital delivery and patient-centricity. These trends may influence authors’ selection of congresses and journals and, thereby, affect publication planning. Our objective was to investigate the extent to which leading congresses and journals have embraced digital delivery and patient-centricity.

Research design and methods: For this prospective study (November–December, 2016), congresses and journals listed in a large database (n = 7187 congresses, n = 27,491 journals, >35 therapeutic areas) and targeted by authors of industry-funded research, were identified. Digital options for 59 congresses were investigated by contacting congress organizers. No incentive for participation was provided. Digital options for 105 journals (top 3 journals, based on impact factor; duplicates removed) were determined by website review. Patient-centricity of these congresses and journals was determined based on meeting accreditation criteria (5 criteria for congresses, 4 criteria for journals) from the international, not-for-profit, Patients Included organization (https://patientsincluded.org/).

Results: Of responding congresses (76.3%, 45/59), most embraced digital, with 75.6% (34/45) allowing QR codes, 68.9% (31/45) allowing interactive content, 66.7% (30/45) allowing iPads, and 46.7% (21/45) allowing audio. Relatively fewer journals embraced digital, with 26.7% (28/105) offering multimedia options (e.g. videos, podcasts) and 15.2% (16/105) offering iPad apps. Not one of these leading congresses or journals was accredited by Patients Included.

Conclusions: A selection of leading congresses and journals, targeted by authors of industry-funded research, have embraced digital delivery options. In contrast, none were sufficiently patient-centric, as yet, to have gained the Patients Included accreditation. In the current publication environment, adoption of digital appears to be outpacing adoption of patient centricity.

Keywords:

• Patients
• technology
• publication planning

The cost of rejection

Abstract

Objective: Fixed-priced deliverables are becoming more common in the medical writing profession. To better understand the costs of manuscript rejection, we examined trends in time spent across departments of a medical communications agency on manuscripts rejected by medical journals and subsequently resubmitted.

Research design and methods: Three publication plan accounts with activity from 1 January 2014–31 December 2016 were reviewed. Manuscripts started, rejected and resubmitted, for which our agency provided full writing support and Datavison management, were identified. Timelines and hours by department were summarized using descriptive statistics.

Results: Fifteen manuscripts were identified. Median (range) calendar days for first submissions and resubmissions were 277 (135–575) and 51 (0–114) days, respectively. Hours for first submissions and resubmissions are summarized in Table 1. For first submissions, hours were 73% scientific services, 12% editorial, 2% studio, 13% client services; while for resubmissions they were 61%, 20%, 3%, 17%, respectively.

Conclusions: For this small sample, the data suggests that time, and hence costs, spent on resubmission of rejected manuscripts varies widely; application of fixed pricing may be challenging.

Keywords:

• Timelines
• publication timing
• financial/finance

Table 1. Hours for first submissions and resubmissions.

	Scientific services	Editorial	Studio	Client services	Total
Time spent on first submission, hours
Mean (standard deviation)	178 (59)	29 (11)	6 (4)	30 (12)	243 (77)
Median (range)	165 (98–289)	28 (15–52)	6 (0–13)	25 (18–59)	231 (147–408)
Time spent on second submission, hours
Mean (standard deviation)	56 (64)	18 (14)	2 (3)	16 (13)	92 (86)
Median (range)	34 (0–248)	14 (4–56)	1 (0–8)	11 (4–44)	56 (10–347)

Data sharing and the role of the publication professional^*

^* Oral Presentation

^* Oral Presentation

Abstract

Objective: To describe data sharing requests received by our company and the role of the publication professional in assessing the risk for company-sponsored primary publications.

Methods: We endorse the principles of responsible data sharing and have implemented a program for evaluating requests for access to clinical trial data in collaboration with Duke Clinical Research Institute (DCRI) using the Supporting Open Access to Researchers (SOAR) model. Data sharing requests are reviewed by various stakeholders for feasibility, including an assessment by the publication lead. All proposals must include plans for publication. We analyzed requests for data sharing from 2014 to 2016 to determine the outcome of the request and risk to the publication plan for primary study results.

Results: A total of 36 requests for data sharing were received from 2014 to 2016. Fifteen (56%) requests were approved and 10 contracts were executed. Twenty-one requests (58%) were out of scope primarily because the study was ongoing or marketing status was not yet approved. Most approved requests (88%) for data sharing did not pose a risk for planned publications because the primary manuscript had been published or there was no plan for publication. One request was deemed at risk because the primary publication was in development at the time of request; this data sharing request was approved with timing of the resulting publication restricted to after submission of the primary publication. One publication has resulted from the data sharing request.

Conclusions: Data sharing requests should include an evaluation by the publication team to minimize risks to publication of the primary study results.

Keywords:

• Data sharing
• publication planning
• transparency

Data sharing trends and integrity in the era of open science: a qualitative analysis of journals in top-ranked therapeutic areas

Abstract

Objective: Scientific journals can play a key role in fostering data sharing (DS) – a new scientific endeavor that encourages public accessibility of patient-level data, potentially increasing transparency and integrity in clinical research^1,2. We evaluated the DS trends among journals in top-ranked therapeutic areas³.

Research design and methods: Sixty journals were randomly selected (n = 15 each from oncology, central nervous system [CNS], cardiovascular/endocrinology [CE], and respiratory; impact factor range: 2–21), and qualitatively assessed primarily for their support for patient-level DS (presence/absence and strength of instructions), and additionally for provision for supplementary data (visibility/accessibility), mandate for trial registration and use of social media. Data integrity was assessed by comparing data at two platforms: ClinicalTrials.gov and published article.

Results: Overall, 21/60 journals provided instructions for patient-level DS (oncology: 10/15; CNS: 5/15; CE: 3/15; respiratory: 3/15); only 4 journals (all oncology) mandated DS and gave clear instructions on aspects like patient confidentiality, data repositories, and data identifier(s). Most journals encouraged sharing supplementary data (56/60); few (23/56) had a direct link within the published article for easy accessibility to supplementary files. Only 50% journals mandated trial registration for submission. Reporting discrepancies were low (16%; ClinicalTrials.gov vs. matching publications).

Conclusions: Adoption of patient-level DS concept was apparently low among journals with lack of well structured DS instructions. DS is still in a nascent stage and robust journal policies and guidelines are much needed.

Keywords:

• Data sharing
• journals
• policies

Acknowledgments

We thank Vishwanath Iyer (Head – Exploratory Safety, Statistical Analytics and Clinical Analytics, Novartis, India) for supporting interpretation of the correlation analysis.

Digital advances in scientific publications: experiences and perceptions of ISMPP members

Abstract

Objective: To identify perceptions and experiences of ISMPP members regarding digital media offerings.

Research design and methods: A 15-question survey containing multiple-choice, rating, and open-response questions was distributed electronically through SurveyMonkey to 486 ISMPP members, excluding employees from the authors’ company, from 21 December 2016 through 9 January 2017.

Results: Thirty-eight responses were received (8% response rate) primarily from members employed at pharmaceutical companies (50%), medical communication agencies (29%), or publishers (16%), with specializations across 12 therapeutic areas. Respondents were experienced with digital media (e-posters, 91%; video abstracts, 53%) and most (82%) felt that use of such offerings through both congresses and journals is a beneficial means of medical communication. However, for congresses, print is still preferred over digital or interactive formats (“most preferred”: 44%, 32%, and 29%, respectively). Few (13%) agreed that they have a firm understanding of enhanced digital media offered by congresses/journals in their therapeutic area, and most would like journals/congresses to provide clearer guidelines for the process (89%) and more data demonstrating the impact of publishing with or without digital enhancements (58%). Most (63%) perceive “coordinating/logistics with authors” as an important barrier in developing digital offerings, yet most (76%) do not have training programs within their company to assist in digital development and few (6%) know of training plans for 2017.

Conclusions: This survey identifies an unmet need for more detailed guidelines and an opportunity for additional education on digital enhancements in medical communications. ISMPP members recognize the benefits of digital media; however, several barriers need to be addressed before these initiatives can be adopted as standard practice.

Keywords:

• Attitudes
• survey
• technology

Do authors fully utilize opportunities to share supplementary information at conferences?

Abstract

Objective: Many scientific conferences now offer the option of uploading electronic material to supplement abstract presentations. Typically, an electronic poster (ePoster) is uploaded and made available to conference delegates, but increasingly additional upload opportunities are offered, including slide decks, recorded narratives, and ability to contact authors directly with queries. We investigated whether authors are fully utilizing potential opportunities for data sharing using a recent congress as a case study.

Research design and methods: We analyzed online material from the American Heart Association (AHA) Scientific Sessions (New Orleans, 2016), a meeting with approximately 18,000 delegates and 4000 abstract presentations. Before the meeting, AHA requested that authors upload an ePoster in PDF or PowerPoint format; authors could also upload supplementary audio files. The uploaded files were made available to delegates via the meeting app/website and subsequently made publicly available at https://aha.scientificposters.com. We investigated how many posters were uploaded as enduring electronic resources and which formats were used.

Results: We identified 3001 abstracts that were presented as posters. Overall, 1799 (59.9%) poster presentations had an associated ePoster uploaded, 1548 (86.0%) of which were PDF copies of the presented poster and 251 (14.0%) were slide decks summarizing the poster presentation. In only 52 cases (2.9%) were recorded narratives included among the uploaded files.

Conclusions: Despite encouragement from AHA organizers, over 40% of poster presenters did not utilize the opportunity to share their data further. This represents a missed opportunity to share research with meeting attendees and a wider audience, but may also highlight potential concerns over making data available in an enduring manner before full publication.

Keywords:

• Case study
• data sharing
• posters

Effective management of multiple publication plans with overlapping timelines: a case study

Abstract

Objective: The objective of this study was to identify strategies that allow for the effective management of multiple publication plans with a similar planning schedule.

Research design and methods: For this case study, we examined the strategies and tools employed by a Director of Global Medical Affairs and Publications at a major pharmaceutical company who successfully oversees 10 Global and US publication plans. Approaches used for financial, strategic, and tactical planning were analyzed.

Results: In this case study, a team of three people managing one product with ∼36 outputs in 2012 was reduced to one publication manager by 2016, who oversaw a 10-fold increase in annual outputs (>500) with 10 Global and US publication plans across three products, five therapeutic areas, and multiple life cycles. Effective execution of the publication plans relied on planning (financial, strategic, and tactical), implementation, financial management, international stakeholder consensus, and role clarity. A financial tracker (updated monthly) facilitated annual financial planning, quarterly reviews, and overall management. Annual integrated global strategic plans were aided by gap analyses conducted monthly and yearly. Additionally, regular cross-functional monthly publication plan reviews were held with stakeholders across all regions, ensuring international stakeholder consensus on strategies, goals, and upcoming steps. These meetings also facilitated formal tactical planning meetings conducted biannually by the global and US publication teams. Finally, the implementation of publication plans was facilitated by weekly update meetings with vendors.

Conclusions: A 10-fold increase in outputs can be successfully managed by an experienced publication manager by increasing stakeholder consensus and role clarity, and by developing and implementing effective planning and project management tools.

Keywords:

• Publication planning
• tools
• timelines

The evolving use of Publication Steering Committees (PSCs)

Abstract

Objective: To understand the longitudinal differences in PSC utilization over time and to identify critical success factors and challenges related to PSC establishment post GPP-3 guideline publication¹.

Research design and methods: In January 2016 a survey on the utilization of PSCs was distributed to ∼1400 ISMPP members, with 117 respondents (8%). This survey mirrored one conducted in January 2013 with 146 ISMPP respondents (11%)². Data was categorically collected and summarized.

Results: The distribution of respondents in 2013 and 2016 surveys were similar, with 40% having an agency background, 24% having a pharmaceutical background, and 36% having both, in the 2016 survey. Overall, 40% and 22% of respondents indicated an increase or decrease, respectively, in PSC utilization between 2013 and 2016. The weighting of PSC utilization in phase 3 clinical programs vs. other types of clinical programs increased over time (74% vs. 64%). On average, there were 3–5 internal and external members on each PSC, respectively, with a trend towards more external members. The role of the pharmaceutical company publications lead participation on the committee has also increased over time (98% vs 85%). Only 14% of respondents observed an impact of GPP-3 on PSCs while 50% anticipated a possible future impact. The most frequently reported challenges regarding PSC development included selection of PSC members, internal policies, and chair selection. The most frequently cited success factors included establishment of roles/responsibilities, engagement, and reaching consensus.

Conclusions: Between 2013–2016, utilization of PSCs has increased with increased pharmaceutical company publication lead participation.

Keywords:

• publication planning
• collaborations
• partnerships

Field-Weighted Citation Index (FWCI) and Mendeley provide informative metrics for evaluating publication uptake

Abstract

Objective: Article level metrics (ALMs) quantify the reach and impact of publications¹ and may include citations, alternative metrics (e.g. FWCI)², and online mentions (e.g. Mendeley). We wanted to determine which metrics were most informative for evaluating impact of biomedical publications in the scientific community.

Research design and methods: We analyzed the bibliographic and ALM data obtained using SCOPUS¹ for industry-sponsored publications for two drugs. Impact factor (IF) of publishing journals, FWCI, number of citations, Mendeley readers, Tweets and Facebook mentions were recorded for each.

Results: Drugs A and B had ∼70% of articles published in journals with IF <3.5, and >70% had a FWCI >1. Mendeley showed the highest level of online mentions (86–89%), followed by Twitter (13–18%) and Facebook (3–4%) (Table 1).

Conclusions: Impact of biomedical publications is better described by FWCI that adjusts for discipline and time-related differences, than IF. In this analysis, Mendeley appears the most informative metric over time for evaluating online uptake of biomedical publications.

Keywords:

• Metrics
• tools
• medical publication profession

Table 1. Analysis of article level metrics data of biomedical publications for drugs A and B.

	Total number of articles(published between yrs.)	Totalcitations	Citations/articlea	% Articles published in journals with IF <3.5	% Articles with FWCI >1b	Mendeleyc, % articles with mentions	Twitter, % of articles with mentions	Facebook, % of articles with mentions
Year metric available						2007	2006	2004
Drug A (approved 2008)	113 (2007–2015)	2196	19.4 (n = 113)	70% (n = 95)	77% (n = 95)	86% (n = 113) 87% (n = 61; pre-2012) 85% (n = 52; 2012 & later)	13% (n = 113) 0% (n = 61; pre-2012) 25% (n = 52; 2012 & later)	4% (n = 113) 0% (n = 61; pre-2012) 8% (n = 52; 2012 & later)
Drug B (approved 2004)	384 (2001–2016)	16,715	43.5 (n = 384)	69% (n = 316)	72% (n = 316)	89% (n = 384) 69% (n = 95; pre-2012) 96% (n = 289; 2012 & later)	18% (n = 384) 40% (n = 95; pre-2012) 11% (n = 289; 2012 & later)	3% (n = 384) 7% (n = 95; pre-2012) 1% (n = 289; 2012 & later)

^a Includes articles with 0 citations.

^b FWCI >1 indicates that an article is cited more frequently than the average number of citations received for similar articles over a similar period (3 years) following publication.

^c Mendeley, an online reference management tool, is used typically by academicians, and the number of readers that bookmark an article is recorded for metrics.

Impact of integrated publication planning and execution on efficiency and output in China^*

^* Oral Presentation

^* Oral Presentation

Abstract

Objective: To assess the impact of developing a partnership and globally integrated publication plan between the United States and China on the ability to efficiently deliver high quality publications.

Research design and methods: Publication professionals from a large pharmaceutical company headquartered in the United States partnered with colleagues in China based on therapeutic area. Several discovery sessions were held to review ongoing local and global plans, unmet needs, regulatory needs, and current operations. An integrated publication plan was developed and execution began in January 2016. Assessments were conducted in January 2017 to measure the impact of this partnership. Comparisons were made between 2015 and 2016 to assess: timeline from conception to initiation of a publication, potential of publications to meet pre-identified unmet need, introduction of new publication types, and acceptance rate.

Results: The time between global congress disposition and encore alignment was decreased. There was an increase in the number of local publications and encores of global data relevant to areas of unmet need. A local author delivered a video poster presentation available as a quick response code on the physical poster as a new publication type. When comparing 2015 and 2016, overall congress acceptance rate increased from 61% to 80%, the number of manuscripts submitted increased 60% and the number of manuscript published increased fivefold.

Conclusions: Collaboration among stakeholders and development of integrated publication plans led to decreased timelines, increased ability to meet unmet needs, innovative solutions, and improved acceptance rates. In addition, China stakeholders gained awareness of global plans and the importance of GPP. US stakeholders learned about the local regulatory landscape and best practices for working globally.

Keywords:

• Best practice
• cultural differences
• collaborations

The impact of review articles: a citation analysis

Abstract

Objective: Publications of evidence-based medicine have a hierarchical system, categorized by levels of evidence, with randomized controlled trials viewed as having the highest level of evidence¹. The number of times an article is cited by others provides an assessment for the impact of a publication. The average citation of articles in scientific journals in 2010 was 0.4, while older articles published in 2000 had an average of 19.9 citations². Systematic reviews require time-consuming literature review to produce an encompassing report; however, the value of such articles is not well understood. This analysis explored the value of review articles to better inform publication planning.

Research design and methods: A Medline search was conducted for “albumin-bound paclitaxel” and “pancreatic neoplasms” with relevant permutations also included in the search strategy. The search was limited to review articles published from 2013 to current (July 2016). Non-nab-paclitaxel or foreign language articles were excluded. Each review article identified from Medline was searched in Google Scholar for a citation count.

Results: Fifty-seven of 59 review articles had available citation counts. Only 5% of the review articles were never cited, 28% were cited 1–5 times, and most articles (67%) had been cited ≥6 times, with 23% cited over 20 times. Only 5/59 review articles were sponsored by the manufacturer. Of those that were not sponsored by the manufacturer, the majority (91%) used text, graph, and/or tables rather than just a citation to disseminate specific efficacy data.

Conclusions: This citation analysis provided evidence that review articles are well cited publications and may be valuable components of a publication plan to disseminate information.

Keywords:

• Systematic review
• citation analysis
• publication planning

Implementation of an authorship algorithm for industry-sponsored clinical trials at Celgene: a case study

Abstract

Objective: In 2014, we presented an algorithm to provide medical publication professionals with an objective methodology for selecting potential authors from a pool of clinical trial investigators¹. The algorithm employed three factors to determine eligibility for authorship: 1) recruitment effort, 2) data quality, and 3) steering committee (SC) participation. We now report data from the outcome of our first use of the algorithm, following completion of a clinical trial sponsored by Celgene Corporation, Summit, NJ, USA.

Research design and methods: We compared the number of investigators deemed eligible and byline placement between non-use and use of the algorithm.

Results: Authors were selected from a phase II clinical study conducted by 88 investigators in 11 countries. A total of 15 investigators and three company employees were invited for authorship. Employing the algorithm resulted in several changes to the byline: 1) two more investigators qualified for invitation; 2) a non-recruiting study co-chair and a low-recruiting SC member qualified; 3) two SC members were elevated in byline. Notably, 4 of 15 (27%) investigators were impacted via the algorithm, with 2 of 15 (13%) authors included using the algorithms vs. not using.

Conclusions: In this case study, implementation of an authorship algorithm resulted in meaningful differences in which more trial investigators were ultimately invited to participate as authors. This suggests that the author algorithm may support data driven decisions, to allow the most appropriate contributors potentially serving as authors of medical publications.

Keywords:

• Authorship
• industry
• best practice

The importance of patient-targeted publication summaries: results from a large patient survey^*

^* Oral Presentation

^* Oral Presentation

Abstract

Objective: To investigate the importance and usefulness of patient-targeted publication summaries of peer-reviewed publications for patients with atopic dermatitis/eczema and their caregivers.

Research design and methods: 100 patients and 50 caregivers of patients with atopic dermatitis/eczema were recruited from a national US database via an independent third party. Eligible participants completed an online survey to report their behaviors and opinions regarding medical publications and patient-targeted publication summaries (patient summaries). This analysis focused on their attitudes to patient summaries.

Results: A total of 150 respondents completed the survey (mean age 46 years; college [35%] or graduate school [33%] educated). As a source of information, respondents found patient summaries to be at least somewhat important (58%) and trustworthy (71%). Respondents thought that patient summaries were easy to read (81%) and understand (72%). They indicated that patient summaries were/would be useful in helping patients interpret key findings of medical research publications (82%) and that relevance to patients was sufficiently highlighted (77%). Respondents indicated that they would be likely to discuss patient summaries with their healthcare providers (90%) and would find them helpful when discussing treatment options (81%). Our findings are specific to generally well-educated patients and caregivers of patients with atopic dermatitis/eczema. Therefore data for other therapy areas and education levels should be collected separately.

Conclusions: Patient summaries can empower patients and facilitate conversations between patients and healthcare providers. Therefore, stakeholders in publications should consider providing patient summaries, either in the medical journal itself or through other channels.

Keywords:

• Patients
• survey
• attitudes

Integrating measures of journal impact provides additional insights in scientific literature gap analyses

Abstract

Objective: Determine the effect of conventional and newer measures of journal impact on literature analyses.

Methods: Key scientific statements related to spasticity for various drugs were identified and tracked from a literature search through Medline. Statements were counted, sorted by drug, and analyzed by unweighted total volume (V) and volume weighted by journals’ JCR (V^JCRI) or most-cited journals’ index in our search (V^MCJI).

Results: By applying weighted factors (V^JCRI or V^MCJI) to the unweighted (V), we observed altered signal landscapes regarding patient benefit, with different statement rankings and intra-statement proportions per drug (Figure 1).

Conclusions: Applying measures of journal impact to the scientific statement count, as opposed to measuring simple volume, elevates statements that may be particularly meaningful to the target audience. This may provide additional insights into each drug’s scientific statements in a literature gap analysis, leading to more effective assessment of the communication platform and publication planning strategy. Further analyses comparing other journal impact measures, including Eigen factor or KOL journal preferences, may provide additional information.

Keywords:

• Publication planning
• literature search
• gap analysis

short-legendFigure 1.

Involvement of medical writers in the development of health economic and outcomes research publications in inflammatory bowel disease – a systematic literature review

Abstract

Objective: FFew studies have assessed the reporting of professional medical writers (MWs) in the development of health economic and outcomes research (HEOR) publications. We investigated trends in the involvement of MWs, pharma and data vendors in HEOR publications for inflammatory bowel disease (IBD).

Research design and methods: Systematic literature review of Medline and Embase to capture all real-world evidence (RWE), patient-reported outcomes (PROs), epidemiology and economic modeling publications related to IBD from January 2011–September 2016.

Results: A total of 254 publications were included (66 [26%] RWE; 98 [39%] PROs; 45 [18%] epidemiology; 45 [18%] economic modeling). The annual number of HEOR publications almost doubled over 6 years (2011, n = 28; 2016, n = 51); 173 (68%) were published in journals with an impact factor ≥2 and 51 (20%) were in open-access journals. Most studies were published in medical journals, with only 16 (6%) in HEOR-specific journals. The majority of publications (219/254, 86%) listed only clinical/academic authors; pharma authored 25 (10%). MW support was declared in 18 papers, mostly funded by pharma (15/18, 83%). Author disclosures of financial interest were included in most publications involving MWs (16/18, 89%) but less commonly in papers not supported by MWs (55/254, 23%). Only 6% of all publications reported research/publication guidelines, such as ISPOR guidelines.

Conclusion: Most HEOR publications in IBD are published in medical journals and do not report the involvement of pharma or MWs. Few HEOR publications report the use of research/publication guidelines. Involvement of MWs increases the likelihood of author disclosures in HEOR publications. This analysis was limited by sample size.

Keywords:

• Systematic review
• medical writers/writing
• CER/HEOR

Involving patients as reviewers during publication development?

Abstract

Objective: To investigate whether patients would be interested in becoming reviewers of medical publications.

Research design and methods: A total of 100 patients with atopic dermatitis/eczema were recruited from a national US database via an independent third party. Eligible patients completed an online survey to report their behaviors and opinions regarding medical publications. This analysis focused on the interest and possible implications of becoming patient reviewers of medical publications.

Results: A total of 100 patients completed the survey (71% had completed college/graduate school). Almost all (98%) indicated that they supported patient review of medical publications: 37% of responders supported the idea but would not necessarily consider themselves as reviewers; 11% considered themselves expert patients and would gladly become patient reviewers; 20% believed that having atopic dermatitis/eczema would be the only qualification they would need to become a patient reviewer; and 30% would be willing to become reviewers of medical articles if training was provided. Only 23% of patients found medical research articles easy to understand; 29% were very confident of their ability to understand the information. 63% of patients reported that they would trust medical information more if it was reviewed by other patients prior to publication.

Conclusions: Based on our data, patients would trust medical publications more if they had been reviewed by other patients. Publication planners should consider patients as reviewers during the publication development process. The interest and possible implications of patient reviewers in other therapy areas and at different educational levels should also be explored.

Keywords:

• Patients
• survey
• collaboration

Journal word count specifications – a comparison of actual word counts versus submission guidelines

Abstract

Objective: Clinical journals typically impose limits on article word count in their publications; however, it is unclear how strict these guidelines actually are. This analysis was conducted to compare word counts of published articles with corresponding journal specifications.

Research design and methods: We identified the top five clinical journals (based on impact factor) in four therapeutic areas (TAs): diabetes, oncology, neurology, and general medicine. Open access articles from 2016 were identified for each TA and mean word counts for abstracts and main text of articles were tabulated and compared against corresponding journal specifications.

Results: Between 35 and 46 articles were identified for each TA. Compared with journal-specific limits, mean word counts were up to 78% higher for abstracts and 27% higher for main text across all TAs (Figure 1).

Conclusions: Despite word count limitations imposed by clinical journals, most allow for divergence above these limits, particularly in the case of abstracts. A better understanding of what journals will permit may provide benefit in terms of time, resources, and costs involved in the development of publications.

Keywords:

• Abstracts
• guidelines
• journals

Figure 1. Mean difference (%) above or below corresponding journal word limit for abstracts and main text by TA.

Medical communications exposure and education among medical, nursing, and pharmacy students

Abstract

Objective: Perception of the medical publication profession can be influenced by healthcare professionals’ exposure to best practices in medical communications. We aimed to characterize this exposure from school curricula in students within healthcare professions, since understanding early exposure may be of interest.

Research design and methods: The top 25 ranked US medical research (MD), doctor of nursing practice (DNP), and doctor of pharmacy (PharmD) schools were selected from the US News & World Report 2017 rankings. Curricula descriptions and syllabi were analyzed to determine the amount (number of courses) and extent (main focus of course vs. component) of exposure students receive in medical communications.

Results: Of programs with published curricula (27/27 MD, 18/25 DNP, and 21/29 PharmD), we identified 66 (30 MD, 18 DNP, 18 PharmD) possibly related medical communications courses from 27 MD, 18 DNP, and 14 PharmD programs. Twenty-eight courses (11, 14, and 3, respectively) were required and 38 (19, 4, and 15) were electives. Only 11 (1, 6, and 4; each from different programs) had medical communications as a main focus, while 42 (29, 3, and 10) contained some related component. Insufficient information was available for 13 courses.

Conclusions: Most top healthcare graduate programs in medicine, nursing, and pharmacy offer a medical communications-related course; however, it remains unclear whether the courses reflect best practices. Medical students appear to have the least exposure to medical communications-focused courses.

Keywords:

• Education
• medical communications
• medical publication profession

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Maryah Haidery for contributions during research design and Diana Talag of MedVal Scientific Information Services/PharmaWrite for editorial assistance. This research was funded by MedVal Scientific Information Services LLC, Princeton, NJ, USA.

Metrics of success for medical publication plans: results of a global survey

Abstract

Objective: Medical publication plans (plans) are a mainstay of our profession; yet, measures of success are not clearly defined. This survey will identify metrics that help to quantify success of a plan.

Methods: This online survey, developed using Survey Monkey, was distributed globally to publication professionals in pharmaceutical, biotech, and medical device companies (industry) and medical communication/publication agencies (agency). Distribution included posting on seven publication-focused LinkedIn sites and emailing to ISMPP members, and was available 11 October–17 November 2016.

Results: There were 365 responses (∼25% calculated response rate); 93 respondents left the survey after selecting company type, leaving 272 (74%; 49% industry, 51% agency) available for analysis. Geographic distribution was similar for industry and agency, with most respondents based in the US. The majority of industry had between 6 and 10 years’ experience in publication planning, while agency reported >15. The majority of industry and agency both reported that plans usually begin when a product is in phase 2, and are assessed for success annually. Both industry and agency reported number of actual vs. planned publications and submission according to timelines to be more important measures of success compared with publication in first-choice journal and execution within budget. Both sets of respondents reported that publication in high-impact/high-tier journals is also considered an important metric; 60% noted that they do not use social media as an indicator of success.

Conclusion: The majority of publication professional respondents defined success of their plans by conventional measures, i.e. number of publications, tier of journal, and adherence to timelines. Interestingly, use of social media tools did not rank as high as might be expected.

Keywords:

• Benchmarking
• metrics
• publication planning

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank Maryah Haidery for contributions during research design and Diana Talag of MedVal Scientific Information Services/PharmaWrite for editorial assistance.

Monitoring the social-media footprint of newly published articles to assess short-term impact

Abstract

Objective: To assess the impact and reach of a series of newly published articles via their social-media footprint.

Research design and methods: The social-media footprint for Shire-sponsored articles was monitored weekly for 8 weeks following online publication and monthly thereafter. Data included the Altmetric score (a measure of social-media attention), ResearchGate reads, and journal-provided download information. Last observation carried forward methodology was used for articles with less than 6 months’ monitoring.

Results: A total of 36 articles published from July to December 2016 were monitored. No correlation was observed between the Altmetric score and journal impact factor (n = 29 articles), journal-provided download (n = 13), or ResearchGate reads (n = 36). Articles published with open access had a higher mean Altmetric score (18.2, n = 29) than those with restricted access (1.1, n = 7). Most social-media activity occurred within the first week from online publication (the mean Altmetric score was 12.6 at week 1 and 14.9 at month 6). Of 30 articles with ≥1 social-media mention, 40.0% were promoted on a social-media platform by the publisher. Accounting for mentions by the publisher, the number of mentions per article was greater for articles with publisher mentions (11.1) than without (4.9). Mapping Twitter activity around one sample article¹ with an Altmetric score of 214 revealed 67 individual tweeters (12 of whom were practitioners, science communicators and scientists), with a potential reach of 197,304 followers.

Conclusions: These findings, based on a small sample of scientific publications, illustrate how reach via social media may be estimated. The attention articles receive may be enhanced by publication in journals supporting social-media interaction and with open access.

Keywords:

• Metrics
• social media
• tools

Open access status and number of citations in the peer-reviewed hemophilia literature

Abstract

Objective: Purchasing open access (OA) status for accepted publications can be costly but may increase readership and improve visibility of the published manuscript. This study aimed to compare citation rates between OA and subscription-based access (SBA) journal articles in the field of hemophilia.

Research design and methods: Numbers of citations through December 2016 were obtained through Scopus. Search criteria included: “hemophilia” or “haemophilia” in the abstract, title, or key words; published within 2014; English language; journal publication. OA status was determined for all publications cited two or more times.

Results: A total of 889 articles were identified and published within 159 distinct journals; most were research articles (61%), 19% were reviews, and 20% were other article categories. There were 470 articles which were cited two or more times; of these, roughly equal numbers were OA (n = 238) and SBA (n = 232). Median (IQR) number of citations was higher for OA versus SBA articles (5 [3, 10] vs. 4 [3, 7]; P = 0.0275). Of the 100 most highly cited articles, 63 were OA. After excluding all author self-citations, 211 OA and 210 SBA articles were cited at least two times, and median (IQR) numbers of citations remained higher for OA versus SBA articles (5 [3, 9] vs. 4 [2, 6]; P = 0.0216).

Conclusions: In the context of hemophilia, OA status of journal articles published within 2014 was associated with a higher number of citations. Reasons may include a potential self-selection bias towards making higher-quality data OA, a potential funding bias towards more impactful studies, and/or the advantage of OA articles being freely available.

Keywords:

• Open access
• journals
• metrics

Patient and disease registry publications: an online survey of medical publication professionals

Abstract

Objective: To understand the details, potential challenges and value of publications based on disease, safety or treatment registry data

Research design and methods: A 23-question online survey was sent to medical publication professionals (MPPs) and responses were collected from October to December 2016. Respondents were not required to answer all questions and only data from those with registry experience was analyzed.

Results: A total of 266 surveys were completed with 136 MPPs (51%) having ≥1 registry experience (MPPREs). The average duration of registries was 7 years (range 1–25 years), with the majority active at the time of survey completion (57/94; 61%); >1000 people in size (57/100; 57%); company-sponsored (75/93; 81%); a result of a post-marketing commitments (42/76; 55%); produced publications (84/92; 91%); and ultimately resulted in an average of 11 publications (range 0–100). Steering Committee oversight of publication planning (64/83; 77%) and generation (66/83; 80%) was common and typically involved group meetings to foster discussion and debate (60/66; 91%). The main goals/benefits of registry publications cited were to disseminate real-world treatment data, provide information on (rare) diseases, confirm safety and effectiveness of treatments, and educate physicians on products. Challenges highlighted included data quality/completeness, author management, definition of clear scope, long development timelines and convincing journals of the value of such publications.

Conclusions: This survey provides insights into the registry data experience of MPPs responding and suggests that MPPs involved in registry publications are producing high numbers of important real-world data publications that may play a significant role in contributing to the body of knowledge on a disease, patient group or a therapy.

Keywords:

• Publication planning
• real world data
• survey

Patient centricity in medical publications: a unique patient case report

Abstract

Objective: The purpose of medical publications is to translate data in a meaningful way to provide its clear communication to advance the knowledge of healthcare providers, payers, and, increasingly, patients¹. However, the value of drug treatment options reported within medical communications is poorly defined². As patient perspective has been identified as being of central importance in defining the value of drug treatment², we analyzed one patient’s (author) perspective (diagnosed with stage IV anaplastic lymphoma kinase [ALK]+non − small-cell lung cancer in 2011) in assessing the value of drug treatments reported in medical publications.

Research design and methods: We mapped patient experience against key publication activity of three lines of exposed ALK + targeted therapies and, for each targeted therapy, identified patient perceptions and aligned them to publication communication points. Shown in Figure 1 are representative examples.

Results: Our results show potential association between patient experiences and publication communication points.

Conclusions: Although anecdotal, this unique case report suggests that patient-centric value is being captured in medical publications.

Keywords:

• Patient experience
• medical publications
• value

short-legendFigure 1.

Professional medical writing support (PMWS) and the reporting quality of randomized controlled trial (RCT) abstracts among high-impact general medical journals

Abstract

Objective: PMWS is associated with increased adherence to Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) in articles reporting RCTs¹. We set out to determine whether PMWS was also associated with improved adherence to CONSORT for Abstracts.

Research design and methods: Using data from a previously published cross-sectional study of 463 articles reporting RCTs, published between 2011 and 2014 in five top medical journals², we determined the association between PMWS and CONSORT for Abstracts items using a Wilcoxon rank-sum test.

Results: The mean proportion of adherence to CONSORT for Abstracts items reported was similar with and without PMWS (64.3% vs. 66.5%, respectively; P = 0.3044). PMWS was associated with lower adherence to reporting study setting and higher adherence to disclosing harms/side effects and funding source (Figure 1).

Conclusions: Although PMWS was not associated with increased overall adherence to CONSORT for Abstracts, important aspects were improved with PMWS, including reporting of adverse events and funding source. This study identifies areas to consider for improvement.

Keywords:

• Medical writers/writing
• guidelines
• abstracts

short-legendFigure 1.

Publication-derived digital features: reaping the FRUITS of publication labor?

Abstract

Objective: In an era of multimedia and information overload, a publication-derived digital feature summarizing key information (derivative e-feature) may help maximize publication impact by facilitating information consumption. This study collected multi-perspective information on optional derivative e-features (e.g. slides, podcasts, videos) aimed at informing industry decision-making.

Research design and methods: Derivative e-features available on 1 December 2016 were analyzed at journals most frequently published in by pharmaceutical companies leading in diabetes and oncology. Descriptive information collected on derivative e-features was FRequency of Use, Impact, Time/cost, and compliance Steps (FRUITS).

Results: Optional derivative e-features were offered by 40% of diabetes (4/10) and 30% of oncology (3/10) journals. In our sample within those journals, authors of 3% of total publications with industry involvement (1 podcast/36) and 1% without (1 podcast/163) had opted for a derivative e-feature. For reference and using similar sampling, 22% of publications in N Engl J Med – a journal with advanced digital features – had derivative e-features. Individual metrics for derivative e-features were limited: number of clicks was often not available and publication sharing not separately traceable to the publication or its e-feature. No publishers’ costs to authors were associated with these derivative e-features, and additional time/cost depended on the e-feature type. Industry-compliance considerations were mostly covered by sponsorship disclosure and sometimes peer review.

Conclusions: In our small sample of journals, adoption of derivative e-features by journals and industry in diabetes and oncology remains in the early phases. Derivative e-features have the potential – consistent with multi-channel principles of adult learning – to increase publication impact, but further metrics are needed to quantify the most fruitful derivative e-features.

Keywords:

• Benchmarking
• journals
• technology

Publication trends for case series and case reports in oncology

Abstract

Objective: This analysis was conducted to understand recent publication trends in oncology case reports/series.

Research design and methods: A literature search was conducted to identify recently published (1 January 2011 to 28 December 2016) oncology articles using case study, case report, or case series in the title. Anne O’Tate (http://arrowsmith.psych.uic.edu/cgi-bin/arrowsmith_uic/AnneOTate.cgi) was used to examine trends in frequency, top journals, topical focus, and author data (number, region).

Results: During the time frame for this analysis, 5151 oncology articles met the search criteria (∼7% of the total volume when not restricted to oncology). There was an increase of ∼70% in oncology case report/series publication volume during this period compared with an increase of ∼30% for all case report/series. Across 1321 journals that published case reports/series in oncology, the top five journals were Oncol Lett (n = 313), J Med Case Rep (n = 231), Gan To Kagaku Ryoho (n = 163), Int J Surg Case Rep (n = 141), and World J Surg Oncol (n = 103). The most common medical subject headings (MeSH) terms fell under the topic areas of tumor type (28.7%), diagnostic methods (14.8%), outcomes (12.8%), patient populations (6.6%), and chemotherapy (6.2%). Less than 10% of these articles had one (n = 110) or two (n = 356) authors, and 22.3% included >7 authors. In contrast, when including nononcology articles, only 13.7% included >7 authors. Authors on case reports/series were more likely to be from the Asia Pacific (6132/13,901; 44.1%) and European (4279/13,901; 30.8%) regions; <25% of authors (n = 2344) were from the Americas.

Conclusions: Case reports/series remain important communication vehicles in oncology, particularly for regions outside the United States. Surprisingly, ∼23% of oncology case series/reports included more than seven authors, ∼10 percentage points higher than for all case series/reports in the literature.

Keywords:

• Benchmarking
• case study
• literature search

Acknowledgments

Editorial assistance was provided by Diane Neer, MedThink SciCom.

Strategies for selecting appropriate journals for narrative review articles

Abstract

Objective: We wanted to understand approaches to choosing a target journal for industry-sponsored narrative reviews and optimizing the likelihood of acceptance at first submission.

Research design and methods: We designed a survey to ascertain factors that influenced target journal choice for accepted narrative reviews initiated since January, 2014. Access to the survey was distributed via a link emailed to medical writers and publications managers or posted on our company (AlphaBioCom) and ISMPP LinkedIn pages. Up to 100 individuals could respond.

Results: When this abstract was written, there were 19 respondents; 73.7% had written ≤5 accepted narrative reviews. Most respondents (68.4%) provided authors with a list of potential target journals for ≥75% of their manuscripts. For approximately half of the reviews, presubmission inquiries were sent to target journals; 73.7% of respondents believed a positive response to a presubmission inquiry increased the likelihood of acceptance. The top 2 decision drivers for choosing a target journal were target audience (94.5%) and rejection rate (68.4%). A high impact factor/high tier was identified as a decision driver by 42.1% of respondents. When authors chose high-tier journals, 83.3% of respondents suggested a lower-tier journal to improve the likelihood of acceptance, but <25% of authors reconsidered their journal choice. Importantly, 58.8% of respondents stated that when their narrative reviews were submitted to a high-tier journal, <25% were accepted for publication. Of reviews initially rejected by a high-tier journal, ≥75% were then accepted by a lower-tier journal per 64.7% of respondents.

Conclusions: Based on the response to our survey, the rate of acceptance of narrative reviews at first submission may be improved by sending presubmission inquiries to potential target journals to gauge interest and by setting realistic author expectations regarding which journals are likely to accept the manuscript.

Successful execution of publication planning with an academic research organization

Abstract

Objective: Enlisting a prestigious academic research organization to run a large phase 3 study provides both benefits and challenges to the study sponsor’s publication team. Here, we describe the experience between Daiichi Sankyo Inc. (DSI) and the TIMI Study Group (TIMI) in their collaborative efforts to publish data from the ENGAGE AF-TIMI 48 trial¹.

Research design and methods: The number of publication activities for the four non-vitamin-K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs; dabigatran, rivaroxaban, apixaban, and edoxaban) was evaluated annually from date of primary data release. Edoxaban publication activity at year 1 was compared with the other NOACs. Collaborative interactions between DSI and TIMI were evaluated and amended.

Results: Annual publication activities (published manuscripts and abstracts to major cardiovascular congresses) at year 1 were 2, 7, 4, and 6, for dabigatran, rivaroxaban, apixaban, and edoxaban, respectively. To improve the publication rate for edoxaban, fourth to market and 2 years behind the other NOACs, after year 1, the following changes were made to the DSI/TIMI interactions: enhanced publications trackers with ranked priorities of analyses and Gantt chart; consistent monthly joint Publications Committee meetings; centralized operational leads at TIMI and DSI. This resulted in an 83% increase in edoxaban publication activities from year 1 to year 2, and a 155% increase in activities from year 2 to year 3 (a 367% increase between year 1 and year 3).

Conclusions: Adjustments to strategic planning and operational processes between a study sponsor and an academic research organization can lead to improved collaborative publication planning and timeliness of publications.

Trends in audiovisual data dissemination formats by medical journals

Abstract

Objective: Publication formats of scientific research articles have undergone a paradigm shift with the introduction of various audiovisual data dissemination alternatives. These tools offer greater visibility to research, aid authors in simplifying complex scientific concepts, and help readers to quickly determine the relevance of research. This study aimed to identify trends in alternative data dissemination formats in medical journals.

Methodology: We analyzed websites of the top 30 cardiology, respiratory, and oncology journals, ranked by impact factors (IFs) from PubsHub database, for trends in the use of alternative data dissemination formats. Use of Altmetrics was also evaluated.

Results: Alternate data dissemination formats were used by 67% respiratory, 40% oncology and 37% cardiology journals (Table 1). More journals offered audio versus video formats. Alternative formats appeared more prevalent in journals with IF 5-10 than in journals with IF <5 or >10. Altmetrics were used by 77% cardiology, 67% oncology, and 57% respiratory journals.

Conclusion: Several mid-level IF medical journals offered alternative data dissemination formats, with audio formats being most popular.

Keywords:

• Metrics
• smart technology
• social media

Table 1. Trends across journals for alternative data dissemination formats.

	Journals (N = 90)
	Cardiology (n = 30)	Respiratory (n = 30)	Oncology (n = 30)
Journals offering alternative formats of data dissemination, n (%)	11 (36.7)	20(66.7)	12 (40)
Geographical location of journals offering alternate data dissemination formats
US, n (%)	8 (72.7)	10 (50)	5 (41.7)
Ex-US, n (%)	3 (27.3)	10 (50)	7 (58.3)
Impact factor of journals that offered alternative forms of data dissemination
<5	0^§	11 (55)	0^§
5–10	8 (72.7)	7(35)	8 (66.7)
>10	3 (27.3)	2(10)	4 (33.3)
Alternative formats available, n (%)*
Graphical abstracts	3 (27.3)	4(20)	5 (41. 7)
Audio formats^†	7 (63.6)	11 (55)	5 (41.7)
Video formats^‡	2 (18.2)	7(35)	6 (50)

* Some journals offer multiple alternative forms of data dissemination

† Audio formats include audio slides, audio summaries, and podcasts.

‡ Video formats include video interviews, video summaries, and video abstracts.

§ No journals in the top 30 with IF <5.

Trends in digital access to congress presentations: what can we learn from 4 years of download data?

Abstract

Objective: To assess delegate access via quick response (QR) codes to digital copies of congress presentations.

Research design and methods: Since 2012, paper handouts of Shire-sponsored posters have been replaced by digital copies made available to congress delegates, primarily via QR codes. For congresses that took place between 1 January 2012 and 29 November 2016, the number of visits to the poster landing page (visits), and the total number of poster views via the landing page, by email, and by short message service (SMS) (views), were extracted from the Shire Congress Posters platform. Viewing methods were not mutually exclusive.

Results: In total, 962 posters presented at 176 congresses resulted in 7846 visits. The mean number of visits per presentation was 8.2 (range, 0–137), and the mean total number of views per presentation was 7.2 (4.5 via the landing page; 2.6 by email; 0.1 by SMS). The mean total visits and views per presentation were higher for international congresses (10.5 and 9.4, respectively; n=657 presentations) than national congresses (3.1 and 2.5, respectively; n=305). The top 10 congresses ranked by mean total number of views per presentation were all international (range, 17.0–38.3), with ISMPP US ranked first. Among medical congresses, total visits and views by all modes increased between 2012 and 2013, but have not increased subsequently.

Conclusions: Almost 8000 visits to this digital platform provide a valuable surrogate measure of interest in congress presentations. Presentations at international congresses generated more interest than those at national congresses. Access to congress presentations using QR codes increased to 2013, but not subsequently.

Keywords:

• Metrics
• posters
• data sharing

Notes

^* Oral Presentation

^* Oral Presentation

^* Oral Presentation

^* Oral Presentation