Original Abstracts from the 2022 European Meeting of ISMPP

 

 

The accessibility of materials for patients with rare diseases

Abstract

Objective

Access to clear, accurate information helps patients make informed healthcare decisions.¹ We aimed to identify barriers to materials for patients with rare diseases.

Methods

Members of the public completed an internet search to answer 20 questions about one rare and one common pre-specified disease. They reported the location and understandability of information found. Secondly, an anonymous survey was conducted with rare disease patient representatives to explore patient experiences accessing information. Representatives were asked about general disease and treatment information, and patient material format.

Results

Three members of the public completed the internet search and representatives from ten patient groups responded to the survey. The internet search found most readily available resources were in text form (85%). Information about rare diseases was less accessible/understandable (67% of information found) compared with common diseases (97%). From the patient representative survey, 80% of respondents felt rare disease patients did not have access to information they needed. All respondents believed videos were a useful information source, followed by diagrams (70%) and animations (50%). Patient representatives reported barriers to understanding information since ‘some patients have learning difficulties… likely to have an impact on the individual’s ability to access appropriate information’. 80% of respondents reported patients actively searched for resources and found materials via social media.

Conclusion

Accessibility of patient materials is an unmet need of rare disease patients. Most readily available online resources were text-based, however, respondents believed more engaging, visual formats were beneficial. Most patients actively sought disease information, and many found resources via social media; therefore, the source of materials should be considered to increase accessibility.

Keywords:

• Patients
• access
• survey

Analysis of reach for different formats of plain language summaries

* Joint first authors

Abstract

Objective

To investigate engagement differences between different plain language summary (PLS) formats of the journal Future Oncology, using publication metrics.

Methods

We examined 213 articles with PLSs (published October 2020 – October 2021). We classified PLSs as: standalone; published alongside articles; and lay summaries within articles. The mean Altmetric attention score (AAS), and numbers of tweets and citations, were calculated for each.

Results

A majority of PLSs were published as lay summaries (96.2%), while few were published as standalone or alongside main articles. Figure 1 shows reach of different PLS formats; standalones had higher numbers of tweets and AASs compared with other formats, and numbers of citations for standalones were negligible compared with their original articles.

Figure 1. Reach across three different plain language summary formats.

Conclusions

The results show that standalone PLSs provide a greater reach of information compared with other formats. They also enable extended engagement beyond the reach of original articles through social media tools such as Twitter. Further research on different journal/therapy areas is needed.

Keywords:

• Plain language summary (PLS)
• engagement
• social media

Are pharmaceutical companies using social media to publicize journal articles? An informatics approach

Abstract

Objective

Social media, in particular Twitter, can be a useful way of increasing awareness of publications. However, pharmaceutical companies face potential regulatory barriers around social media. We sought to characterize the use of Twitter by pharmaceutical companies to publicise journal publications.

Methods

We selected 27 companies representing a mix of large and medium/small pharmaceutical companies and biotechs. Using Microsoft Academic, all publications with a publication date between 1 January 2019 and 31 December 2020 and with an author affiliated to one of these companies were identified. Tweets and Twitter accounts citing identified publications were extracted via CrossRef using the DOI. Company accounts were identified by free text search of Twitter bios, and relevant tweets extracted for further analysis.

Results

In total, 170,459 tweets referencing 29,526 publications were identified. Of these, only 176 tweets were from pharmaceutical company accounts (n = 10 companies and 14 separate accounts). Tweets related to publications were a very small part of the output of general company accounts, but two accounts were dedicated to tweeting publications. Tweets referring to journal publications typically tweeted only the article title and did not include multimedia. Most tweets focussed on original research (including clinical, preclinical, HEOR), rather than review articles. Engagement was low (mean retweets 1.4, mean favourites 4.1).

Conclusions

Use of Twitter by pharmaceutical companies to publicize publications is generally low. Where used, tweet content typically provided no commentary or insights (probably due to regulatory concerns), and engagement was poor. Two Twitter accounts dedicated to publications were identified; otherwise Tweets were ad hoc or possibly experimental in nature.

Keywords:

• Benchmarking
• engagement
• social media

Assessing the impact of Twitter on rare disease manuscript citations and Altmetric attention scores

Abstract

Objective

The dissemination of research via social media sites such as Twitter is increasingly common among research and healthcare communities^1–3. We present the results of a targeted literature search investigating the impact of Twitter coverage on the number of citations and Altmetric scores of rare disease manuscripts.

Methods

MEDLINE and Embase were searched to identify rare disease manuscripts published in March 2019. Eligible manuscripts reported results in humans and were written in English. Dissemination (number of tweets, attention score and rank) was quantified using 28SEP21–03OCT21 Altmetric data. Number of citations was recorded using Dimension citation data.

Results

Database searches yielded 133 manuscripts; 80 fulfilled the inclusion criteria, one was excluded as an outlier. Of these, 36.0% (29/80) had an associated tweet from the journal/publisher. Manuscripts with a tweet from the journal/publisher had a higher median (range) of overall tweets (12 [1–92]) and unique tweeters (10 [1–77]) compared with manuscripts without journal/publisher tweets (2 [0–55] and 2 [0–46], respectively). Higher mean (standard deviation) Altmetric scores (18.8 [27.7]) and number of citations (18.8 [19.2]) were observed for manuscripts with a journal/publisher tweet than manuscripts with no associated journal/publisher tweet (4.7 [6.5] and 10.8 [17.9], respectively). Limitations of these analyses include a small sample size and single metrics database analysis.

Conclusions

Tweets from a journal/publisher may increase the overall attention towards a manuscript (assessed by Altmetric score and number of citations). However, since the dissemination of research via social media must adhere to appropriate compliance and ethical guidelines, this may limit its use more widely.

Keywords:

• Engagement
• metrics
• social media

Assessing the patterns of journal peer review and potential impact on best practice in the medical publications industry ^¶

Abstract

Objective

Rigorous peer review encourages authors to produce a high standard of research, maintaining the credibility and originality of medical publishing¹. However, as the volume of papers submitted to journals continues to grow, outpacing the supply of experienced peer reviewers, the quality of peer review is threatened. Therefore, integrity and transparency within the review process is increasingly important². Furthermore, as highlighted by recent retractions³, peer reviewers are not always qualified to recognise and challenge statistical deficiencies. This analysis aims to evaluate the consistency of peer review and statistical guidelines available from leading medical journals.

Methods

We reviewed editorial/journal policies and Information for Authors web pages of journals with a SCImago Journal Rank >7.5.

Results

Thirty-two medical journal websites from a range of publishing houses were reviewed. Overall, 31/32 journals outlined their peer review process, with 23/26 of the journals that provided blinding information opting for blinded review. The review approach was often determined at publishing house level, rather than individual journal level. Of note, three Nature journals offered a transparent review system, publishing reviewer comments, author rebuttals and editorial decision letters¹. Specific statistical guidance or mention of statistical review was provided by just 7/32 of the journals reviewed. A third of the journals selected (11/32) cited the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines.

Conclusions

This selective web review found little consistency in the type of peer review used across journals. Few journals provided comprehensive statistical guidance, despite reports outlining the importance of using dedicated specialist statistical reviewers to drive best practice⁴.

Keywords:

• Peer review
• standards
• editors

Note

^¶Encored poster at the 18th Annual Meeting of ISMPP

An assessment to determine disclosure of ISMPP CMPP accreditation in pharmaceutical industry-sponsored medical publications ^¶

Abstract

Objective

The Certified Medical Publication Professional (CMPP) credential was created to uphold standards of ethics, transparency, and integrity in medical publications¹. Ideally, medical writers preparing industry-sponsored research articles should be CMPP qualified to ensure that any article satisfies these standards, and to reassure readers that this is so. We reviewed how frequently medical writers disclose CMPP accreditation in pharmaceutical industry-sponsored research articles.

Methods

PubMed searches were performed to identify free full text clinical research articles for 12 recently approved drugs from several different therapy areas, including oncology, endocrinology, rheumatology, and respiratory disease. To encompass different publication practice approaches, we selected drugs developed by a range of pharmaceutical companies. Publications were excluded if not sponsored by industry or without acknowledgement of medical writing or editorial assistance.

Results

In total, 101 free full text clinical study publications were identified from initial searches. Twenty publications were excluded as they did not disclose industry funding or medical writing/editorial assistance. Of 81 publications remaining, medical writing/editorial assistance was provided by a medical writer from a medical communications agency in 60 publications (74.1%) and from the pharmaceutical industry sponsor in 14 publications (17.3%). Three (3.7%) publications reported assistance from both agency and sponsor and four (4.9%) publications did not disclose the affiliation of the medical writer. In total, 44 (54.3%) publications reported the highest qualification of the medical publication professional. The CMPP qualification was reported in three publications (3.7%).

Conclusions

Disclosure of CMPP accreditation was surprisingly rare in our sample of industry-sponsored publications. This may relate to differences in publication policy across different companies.

Keywords:

• Acknowledgements
• certification
• certified medical publication professional (CMPP)

Note

^¶Encored poster at the 18th Annual Meeting of ISMPP

Automation in medical writing: views and preferences of medical writers based on open poll

Abstract

Objective

Limited assessment of medical writers’ needs might result in the underutilization of automation and continued manual efforts in Medical Writing (MW). We explored the views and preferences of MW professionals for determining potential action areas for the adoption of automation in MW.

Methods

We used various digital platforms to conduct the polls which focused on three key aspects of Automation in MW: 1. Most essential trait amongst the four options (need of investment, open mindset, technology excellence, and passion) for adopting MW automation 2. Prioritization of MW tasks requiring automation and 3. Ease of automation for key MW deliverables. We created a concept map based on poll results to showcase the action areas for MW automation.

Results

In total, we received 217 poll responses. Around two-thirds of the respondents believed “open mindset” as the most essential trait for the adoption of MW automation. Considering MW automation preference, respondents chose “search and data extraction” (69%) followed by “data interpretation & drafting of results” (14%) over “creation of entire report” (9%). Most of the respondents considered “aggregated safety reports” (37%) as easiest to automate followed by “clinical study report (CSR)” (31%) and “publication writing” (11%). Surprisingly, 21% of voters also selected “no interest/knowledge regarding automation.”

Conclusions

We found the importance of an open mindset for adopting automation in MW as compared to resources or technical knowledge. Given the limited awareness about possible application areas of MW automation, authors recommend in-depth knowledge sharing and requirement gathering sessions for wider and effective adoption of automation in MW.

Keywords:

• Artificial intelligence (AI)
• medical writers/writing
• smart technology

Availability of diversity and inclusion guidelines across a selection of biomedical journals

Abstract

Objective

Given the increasing awareness of the importance of representation, and the growing responsibility for all stakeholders to be more inclusive, we aimed to review the availability of related guidelines in biomedical journals across multiple therapy areas.

Methods

PubsHub (ICON plc, Dublin, Ireland) was used to find the top 10 journals (by impact factor; search date: 1 October 2021) for six randomly selected therapy areas: oncology, neurology, haematology, respiratory care, psychology and genomics. Review-focussed and non-therapy area-specific journals were excluded. The website, author guidelines and editorial policies of all 60 journals were assessed for diversity and inclusion specifications for demographics reporting, and the selection of authors or peer reviewers. Journals declaring at least one specification relating to diversity and inclusion were considered to have such guidelines.

Results

Of the 60 journals analysed, 57% had information relating to diversity and inclusion; these journals spanned multiple publishers. Across the different therapy areas, a similar proportion of journals included guidelines on diversity and inclusion (oncology: 60%, neurology: 50%, haematology: 60%, respiratory care: 50%, psychology: 60% and genomics: 60%). Availability of diversity and inclusion guidelines appeared to be dependent primarily on the journal publisher.

Conclusions

Publishers of journals appeared to be a main driver of diversity and inclusion guideline availability. The proportion of journals with related guidelines was consistent across therapy areas. However, availability of guidelines in biomedical journals is generally low and there is a clear need for more journals/publishers to adopt such requirements.

Keywords:

• Diversity
• equity & inclusion (DE&I)
• journals
• guidelines

Barriers and solutions to working with patient authors: a survey of publication professionals

Abstract

Objective

We aimed to identify the level of experience among agency publication professionals in working with patient authors on scientific publications. We sought to gauge understanding of existing guidelines, and identify what barriers are preventing more widespread involvement of patient authors.

Methods

A confidential survey concerning recent publications practices, barriers and solutions to patient authorship was distributed to members of publication teams across a medical communications agency, covering several therapeutic areas and stages of lifecycle.

Results

In total, 34/40 respondents (85%) had not worked with a patient author within the last year. Most respondents (n = 26; 65%) either did not know (n = 12; 30%) or were unsure (n = 14; 35%) what a patient needed to do to meet International Committee of Medical Journal Editors authorship criteria. The most common barrier identified to working with patient authors was a lack of experience (24 of 40 respondents) followed by a lack of/unclear guidelines (n = 14) and being unsure of the value of working with patient authors (n = 13). Lack of time (n = 5) and belief that patient authorship was inappropriate for scientific publications (n = 4) were also identified as barriers. Suggestions for improving rates of patient authorship included improved awareness and training in both agencies and study sponsors, clearer guidelines and visible leadership on patient authorship from leading journals and external experts/study investigators.

Conclusions

Patient authorship is not yet commonplace in publication practices, and experience levels are low. Clearer guidelines, practical training and improved awareness of the value of involving patient authors are needed.

Keywords:

• Patients
• authorship
• survey

A best-practices strategy for avoiding predatory journals

Abstract

Objective

Publishing in a predatory journal undermines the quality, integrity, and reliability of published scientific research ^1–3 and harms author credibility^4–7. We sought to refine our strategy for avoiding predators with the goal of providing practical guidance.

Methods

We conducted an audit of medical journal and other sources to identify key indicators of predatory journals.

Results

While there is no single reliable list of predatory journals, “blacklists” (e.g. Beall’s List⁸, Cabells Predatory Reports⁹) and “whitelists” (e.g. Cabells Journalytics⁹, MPIP EPON¹⁰, DOAJ¹¹) can help you spot predators. Familiarity with variably strong predatory indicators (Figure) is vital: select journals that have a valid ISSN; a dedicated editorial board with clear affiliations and contact details; online availability of license, Open Access, and copyright policies; a valid Impact Factor; and PubMed/MEDLINE indexing. If an author selects a journal you consider inappropriate, provide your rationale and discuss the associated risks.

Figure 1. Indicators of predatory journals. ^aLarge Editorial Board membership, sometimes with famous names from a different field or unlikely to be associated with an obscure journal, usually with poor-quality photographs obviously scavenged from around the Web, OR Editorial Board page “Under Construction.”

Conclusion

By routinely engaging in these journal selection best practices, you will improve your chances of avoiding the predators.

Keywords:

• Journals
• medical publication profession
• publication planning

 

 

Can AI be used to improve the efficiency of citation screening?^¶

Abstract

Objective

Systematic searches are highly sensitive; thus, the screening burden is high. We developed a prototype screening tool leveraging deep learning named entity recognition. It identifies biomedical concepts to filter text and guide reviewers to relevant passages. We evaluated time spent and accuracy of the tool against manual screening in Excel.

Methods

300 abstracts were screened by 4 reviewers, 50% manually and 50% with the tool. To mitigate interpersonal variability and increase in screening speed over time, the abstracts were chosen randomly and their order switched. Screenings were timed and accuracy was scored against a double-blind screened dataset from a previous review.

Results

The median time taken to screen 300 papers manually versus the tool was 51 (IQR 44–56) versus 38 (IQR 33–47) minutes, respectively. Accuracy was similar for both approaches (83% vs 81%, respectively) (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Manual vs AI-assisted screening. AI, artificial intelligence.

Conclusions

Citation screening may be more efficient when assisted by AI. These findings support further development of the tool.

Keywords:

• Systematic review
• artificial intelligence (AI)
• natural language processing

Note

^¶Encored poster at the 18th Annual Meeting of ISMPP

Characterization of the medical publications landscape in digital health during the 2010–2020 period^§

§ Winner, Most Reflective of Meeting Theme

Abstract

Objective

The volume of digital health research is rising. Publication professionals need to understand how to successfully navigate the complexities around these datasets. Here, we explore trends in digital health publications and aid journal choice.

Methods

A PubMed search was conducted to quantify trends in publications during the 2010–2020 period containing terms pertaining to smartphones, remote monitoring, digital health, social media and telemedicine. The Anne O’Tate tool (http://arrowsmith.psych.uic.edu/cgi-bin/arrowsmith_uic/AnneOTate.cgi) was utilized to identify journals most frequently publishing about these terms in 2021.

Results

During the 2010–2020 period, 77,189 publications containing the relevant search terms were published. The number of publications increased by 629.5%, from 2,442 (2010) to 17,814 (2020). The five journals most frequently publishing about digital health include Journal of Medical Internet Research (JMIR; 827), International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health (627), JMIR mHealth and uHealth (526), PLoS One (402) and The Lancet Digital Health (343). JMIR most frequently published about telemedicine (1,087), social media (930) and digital health (914). JMIR mHealth and uHealth and Sensors most frequently published about smartphones (547) and remote monitoring (410), respectively. Furthermore, the journals can vary with respect to: metrics and reach; readership (technical, scientific); and open-access availability.

Conclusions

Compared with traditional medical journals, when selecting a journal for a digital health publication, a technical readership and specific technology and data types must be considered. Our results quantify the growth of digital health publications during the 2010–2020 period and identify relevant journals and readership for medical studies involving specific technologies.

Keywords:

• Digital
• smart technology
• journals

Note

^§Winner, Most Reflective of Meeting Theme

Congress engagement and publication planning in the digital age – a survey

Abstract

Objective

To assess the virtual and hybrid congress experience, enhanced content delivery options, and available metrics to provide perspective on current activities and inform practice.

Methods

A 15-question survey on a cross-section of international medical congresses was circulated to publication professionals working for pharmaceutical/biotechnology companies or MedComms agencies, with responses collected between July 1 and August 6, 2021.

Results

Responses were received from 223 individuals, including 98 who worked for pharmaceutical or biotechnology companies, and 120 from MedComms agencies. The majority of respondents (n = 192) had supported an international medical congress with scientific presentation development in the previous year. Accessibility of data, communication or responsiveness of the congress, and timeline to develop presentation materials were rated as “very/somewhat convenient” by 60%, 52%, and 32%, respectively. Publication enhancements were widely leveraged, particularly audio summaries, videos, and QR codes; most participants rated these as “very/somewhat effective.” Top-level metrics were made available to only 53/115 (46%) respondents; notably, most of these presentations (n = 47) received <250 total views. Only a small subset of these respondents reported access to detailed metrics on unique views, views by audience, and time spent viewing presentations, though most respondents indicated they would find these data useful (78%, 80%, and 73%, respectively). Virtual congresses had affected company publications strategy according to 44% of respondents, leading to prioritization of manuscripts for certain data, simultaneous publications, and smaller or local congresses.

Conclusions

Almost all respondents attended virtual congresses in 2021 and looking forward, most preferred a hybrid congress format. Publication planning to optimize congress presentations and related enhancements should look to incorporate these findings.

Keywords:

• Virtual conference
• enhanced content/publication extenders
• metrics

Consensus among journal guidelines and the AMWA-EMWA-ISMPP joint position statement (JPS) on citing preprints in medical publications*

* Oral Presentation

Abstract

Objective

COVID-19 has driven a surge in the use of preprints. Recently, AMWA-EMWA-ISMPP¹ issued a JPS on upholding standards when expediting medical publications, including a recommendation to cite preprints in the text of medical manuscripts (similar to a personal communication). We sought to determine the level of consensus among journal guidelines and the recommendation in the JPS.

Methods

Over September 9–15, 2021, we screened the instructions for authors (IFA) of 30 medical journals, representing various publishers, societies, and therapy areas, for guidelines on citing preprints in manuscript submissions. We also contacted the journals’ editorial office via email to query how preprint citations are handled throughout the publication process.

Results

Information on citing preprints was obtained from 21/30 (70%) journals; 11 (37%) journals included guidance in their IFA and 17 (57%) provided guidance upon email follow up. Of these 21, the majority (19 [90%]) required preprints to be cited in the bibliography; 10 (48%) provided a reference format; and two (10%) indicated that a bibliographic format was available for use with reference management software. Guidelines by 2/21 (10%) journals required preprints to be included as in-text citations in the manner of a personal communication. Following publication, 8/21 (38%) journals require that preprints are linked to the published article via a DOI.

Conclusions

One-third of journals provided no guidance on citing preprints. Consensus between journal guidelines and the recommendation of the JPS on citing preprints is low. If this recommendation is to be adopted and driven by publication professionals, dialogue with journal editors may be required.

Keywords:

• Best practice
• journals
• preprints

Note

*Oral Presentation

Current trends in pharmaceutical industry-affiliated medRxiv and bioRxiv preprints^∥,¶

‖ Winner, Most Valuable Digital Poster Format or Enhancement

Abstract

Objective

To understand and compare the use of preprint databases (recently introduced medRxiv versus pre-established bioRxiv) by pharmaceutical companies.

Research design and methods

Key data on preprints from 25 June 2019 to 04 January 2021 and 01 January 2013 to 04 January 2021 were extracted from the medRxiv and bioRxiv databases, respectively, using the medrxivr R package. Preprints with at least one author affiliated with a top 50 pharmaceutical company¹ were identified.

Results

Overall, 15,018 medRxiv and 107,489 bioRxiv preprints were analysed. For both databases, nearly 1% of preprints had ≥1 author affiliated with a pharmaceutical company; only 0.1% and 0.2% of medRxiv and bioRxiv preprints, respectively, had a pharmaceutical company employee as first/corresponding author. For medRxiv preprints, the most common topics were “infectious diseases” and “epidemiology” in all (25.7% and 21.9%, respectively) and pharma-affiliated preprints (33.9% and 11.0%, respectively); 3,616 (24.1%) total and 30 (23.6%) pharma-affiliated preprints were related to COVID. For bioRxiv preprints, “neuroscience” was the most common topic in all (17.3%) and pharma-affiliated preprints (13.4%); 1,623 (1.5%) total and 20 (2.2%) pharma-affiliated preprints were related to COVID. Most preprints had only one, unrevised, version posted. Overall, for medRxiv and bioRxiv, respectively, 19.8% and 45.0% of all preprints, and 13.4% and 44.6% of pharma-affiliated preprints were subsequently published at the time of analysis. Average time from first preprint registration to journal publication was 124 days and 188 days, respectively, for medRxiv and bioRxiv pharma-affiliated preprints.

Conclusions

Overall, only a small proportion of medRxiv and bioRxiv preprints were affiliated to pharmaceutical companies. Additionally, less than 50% of medRxiv and bioRxiv pharma-affiliated preprints were subsequently published in peer-reviewed journals.

Keywords:

• Access
• industry
• metrics

Notes

^∥Winner, Most Valuable Digital Poster Format or Enhancement ^¶Encored poster at the 18th Annual Meeting of ISMPP

Delivery of a practice-changing virtual conference with long-lasting engagement

Abstract

Objective

We describe a pharma-sponsored educational meeting for multidisciplinary stakeholders focused on a new approach to personalised care in respiratory medicine. Mid-pandemic, operational plans for a face-to-face meeting transitioned to a virtual conference. We developed a versatile programme to facilitate scientific exchange and engagement among busy respiratory practitioners.

Methods

The four-day virtual event, held in June 2021, featured pre-recorded and live interactive workshops, lectures, and panel discussions. Live sessions were recorded and subsequently made available on-demand. Pre-event, scientific background was conveyed through videos, infographics, podcasts, and publications, accommodating different learning styles. A discussion board, Q&A and polling encouraged scientific exchange. For this invitation-only event, attendees including multidisciplinary healthcare professionals and patient advocates were nominated according to pre-specified criteria and endorsed by a scientific committee. A multichannel communications plan and questionnaire were used to drive engagement and define individualised learning journeys, respectively. A post-event survey gauged uptake of learnings into clinical practice.

Results

550 delegates were nominated from 27 countries. The pre-, peri-, and post-event framework stimulated continued engagement, with >270 views of pre-event content, 89 live attendees, and hundreds of on-demand interactions continuing to date while the platform remains live. The goal of changing practice was met, as participants stated that they intended to carry learnings forward into their clinical approach.

Conclusions

The virtual format offered wider participation than in-person attendance, and flexibility to suit delegates’ schedules and timezones. The immersive content and engagement opportunities provided versatility to attract a digitally fatigued audience. Combined with a compelling programme and practice-changing concept, success was demonstrated by live attendance, ongoing engagement, and polled opinion change.

Keywords:

• Case study
• digital
• virtual conference

Development of guidelines to mitigate racial and ethnic bias in medical communications

Abstract

Objective

Language that expresses bias against racial and ethnic groups perpetuates inequalities. While there are myriad resources available to define and describe racial and ethnic identity, there is no agreement on terminology. We investigated terminology and created guidelines for use by our organization’s employees across all written communications.

Methods

Online qualitative research was conducted to identify the most appropriate terminology for a global audience. We analyzed inclusive-language recommendations from medical, governmental, cultural and educational institutions. The results were condensed into a set of guidelines. Topics included noun usage, perjorative terms and nomenclature of specific racial and ethnic groups. As part of a 2-step review process, we engaged five Patient Advisors from diverse countries, races and ethnicities. An initial independent review was followed by a video call to collect feedback.

Results

All Patient Advisors found the guidelines to be insightful, comprehensive and inclusive. They agreed there is no all-encompassing term to describe racial and ethnic groups. To maximize usability and visual impact of the guidelines, it was suggested to tabulate information, contextualize key concepts and introduce glossaries of terms, which were integrated into the revised guidelines. Each Advisor acknowledged that ongoing review of terminology involving patient communities is critical as language evolves.

Conclusions

Our guidelines provide structured, bias-free recommendations that address an identified gap in consistency of terminology around race and ethnicity. They are the first in a series of inclusive-language guidelines that cover gender identity, ability and age. The race and ethnicity guidelines are being launched across our organization, however wider adoption and implementation of consistent terminology is still required.

Keywords:

• Diversity
• equity & inclusion (DE&I)
• guidelines
• cultural differences

Do healthcare professionals really value plain language summaries?^¶

Abstract

Objective

Interest in developing plain language summaries (PLS) to make complex scientific information more accessible to lay audiences and non-specialist healthcare professionals (HCPs) is increasing. PLS may facilitate conversations between HCPs and patients to improve shared decision making. Our aim was to understand HCPs interest in, and use of, PLS as publication enhancements.

Methods

We conducted an online survey (8 weeks; Jan-March 2021) to find out what HCPs thought about publication enhancements (PLS, infographics and videos). The survey was sent to the readership of 2 journals in the United States to assess enhancements accompanying 5 chapters on type 2 diabetes co-published as a special issue to The Journal of Family Practice and Clinician Reviews.

Results

Overall, 103 HCPs responded to the survey: physicians (47%), nurse practitioners (NPs; 35%), physician assistants (PAs; 14%) and other (4%). Among those who viewed at least one of the enhancements (64%; 66/103), PLS were considered the most useful: 71% (47/66) of HCPs rated PLS as ’very/extremely useful’ vs infographics (65%) and videos (64%). This was consistent across professions (physicians 69%; NPs and PAs 70%). Nearly half of these HCPs (43%; 20/47) went on to use the PLS with their patients and one in six HCPs (8/47) referred patients/families to the online PLS.

Conclusions

In this study, HCPs considered PLS to be the most useful of the 3 publication enhancement types. Indeed, many went on to use them with their patients, demonstrating a role for PLS in improving understanding and facilitating communication between HCPs and patients.

Keywords:

• Enhanced content/publication extenders
• plain language summaries (PLS)
• healthcare professional

Note

^¶Encored poster at the 18th Annual Meeting of ISMPP

Do plain language summaries encourage readers to access your publication? A pilot study*

* Oral Presentation

Abstract

Objective

In recent years, there has been significant growth in the number of articles published with a plain language summary (PLS)¹. However, to our knowledge, there have been no studies exploring whether PLS increase the impact of published research. We investigated whether articles with PLS are accessed and downloaded more often than similar articles without PLS.

Methods

We identified open access articles with an accompanying PLS published in Adis journals between January 2018 and March 2021 (n = 50) and compared each with a similar open access article published without PLS. The criteria for similar articles were: (1) published in the same journal; (2) at a similar time; (3) within the same disease area; and (4) utilised a similar trial design. We calculated the average downloads per month for each article, and arbitrarily defined a significant difference as having 25% more average downloads per month.

Results

Overall, 60% (30/50) of articles with PLS were downloaded significantly more often than those without a PLS. In 28% (14/50) of comparisons there was no significant difference found between downloads, and 12% (6/50) had less downloads. The following therapy areas all demonstrated significantly higher average downloads per month for articles with PLS compared with articles without PLS: Infectious diseases (80%, 4/5), oncology (80%, 4/5), rheumatology (73%, 8/11) and diabetes (70%, 7/10).

Conclusions

These preliminary results suggest that articles with PLS may benefit from increased readership. However, more research is needed to confirm this link, and contextualise other factors that may influence the popularity of articles with/without PLS, such as authors, Altmetrics and publication date.

Keywords:

• Medical/scientific communications
• metrics
• plain language summaries (PLS)

Note

*Oral Presentation

The effect of accompanying publication extenders on publication metrics in sets of similar oncology papers

Abstract

Objective

Our aim was to identify sets of similar papers across oncology and analyse the effect of additional accompanying publication extenders on publication metrics.

Research design and methods

We assessed publication metrics associated with three pairs and one trio of similar papers. To be included in each set, papers must have covered either the same drug in different indications in oncology or similar competitor drugs in the same indication, covered the same phase trial and used similar analyses, and been published within six months of one another in The New England Journal of Medicine. Papers within a set were published either with or without a publication extender. Publication metrics were assessed on 8 October 2021 and included page views, citations, and Altmetrics.

Results

For each set of papers, page views were greater for papers with accompanying extenders in comparison to those without. The average monthly views were: 3,750 (graphical abstract) vs. 2,160 (no extender) for papers on apalutamide¹ and enzalutamide², respectively; 2,625 (graphical abstract) vs. 1,656 (no extender) for papers on selpercatinib in patients with non-small cell lung cancer³ and thyroid cancer⁴, respectively; 4,488 (video abstract) vs. 3,852 (no extender) vs. 1,768 (no extender) for papers on niraparib⁵, olaparib⁶ and veliparib⁷ (ovarian cancer), respectively; and 5,428 (video abstract) vs. 3,852 (no extender) for papers on olaparib in patients with prostate cancer⁸ and ovarian cancer⁶, respectively. Similar trends were observed for all other publication metrics.

Conclusions

In our small sample of four groups of similar publications, additional publication extenders were associated with greater average monthly page views and other publication metrics.

Keywords:

• Engagement
• enhanced content/publication extenders
• medical/scientific communications

Effect of simultaneous congress presentation and journal publication on media interest and article impact: a case study

Abstract

Objective

Simultaneous presentation/publication can drive media interest¹, but such interest may not translate into article views² or citations. We examined two practice-changing studies – one presented/published simultaneously (ASCO GU; e-published Feb 2021), and the other asynchronously (ESMO, Sep 2020; print published Mar 2021). Both were phase 3 trials in the same therapy area and published in NEJM.

Methods

Tweets made during congresses using official hashtags were identified using trial, presenter and/or interventions. Metrics (PlumX) and daily article views (NEJM) were obtained for 6 months after publication.

Results

Perhaps surprisingly, the simultaneous presentation had less Twitter activity than the asynchronous presentation (664 tweets plus retweets [T + RTs] versus 805), likely related to congress size and timing (last versus first day). Overall, 29% (194/664) of T + RTs mentioned NEJM. The simultaneous article, however, had 75% more total views than the asynchronous article (37,655 versus 21,571), mostly around e-publication plus another peak at print publication (Apr 2021), and 36% more T + RTs (326 versus 239). Other metrics were similar: news stories 19 (simultaneous) versus 21 (asynchronous); Mendeley saves 136 versus 126; blog posts 1 versus 0; Facebook posts 2 versus 0; citations 50 versus 52 (35 publications cited both articles). Drug approvals generated media interest, but no peaks in article views.

Conclusions

In this small case study, simultaneous presentation was associated with more article views and article-associated Twitter activity than asynchronous presentation. Media interest around drug approvals did not translate into article views. Citations at 6 months were similar, indicating that study quality/results may be the best indicator of long-term impact.

Keywords:

• Metrics
• publication planning
• social media

Enhanced content and social media activity: a case study from ASCO 2021

Abstract

Objective

Enhanced content (EC) is ideal for sharing via social media to improve access/engagement with the latest research. We assessed communication of key congress presentations with/without EC on Twitter.

Methods

Twitter activity on 4–15 June 2021 related to ‘Highlights’ of ASCO 2021 (https://ascopost.com/issues/september-10-2021-supplement-asco-highlights/highlights-from-the-2021-asco-annual-meeting/) was analysed (EC was non-mandatory material provided by authors).

Results

17 presentations generated 194 tweets (Table 1). HCPs were the most frequent tweeters (44%) and ‘presented slides’ were the most common content shared (38% of HCP tweets). One presentation included EC (PLS). Of 48 tweets about this presentation (10% from patients/PAGs), the three containing the PLS and one related to the parallel primary publication received the most likes (161, 68, 37 and 139, respectively) and re-tweets (49, 33, 19 and 56).

Table 1. Overview of findings.

Abstract #	Presentation type	Therapy area	Inclusion of EC? Y/N	Medical writing support disclosed? Y/N	Simultaneous primary publication? Y/N	Total number of tweets	Number of tweets by HCPs	Number of tweets by news groups	Number of tweets by patients/ PAGs	Number of tweets by others*
1	Plenary	Breast cancer	Y (PLS)	Y (for PLS)	Y	48	28	8	5	7
2	Plenary	Cervical cancer	N	N	N	23	12	2	1	8
3	Plenary	NPC	N	Y	N	28	11	7	0	10
4	Plenary	Prostate cancer	N	N	N	8	3	0	0	5
5	Plenary	Renal cell carcinoma	N	Y	N	30	17	7	0	6
6	Oral	Breast cancer	N	N	Y	6	3	1	0	2
7	Oral	Breast cancer	N	N	N	1	0	0	0	0
8	Oral	Breast cancer	N	Y	N	3	1	0	0	2
9	Oral	CLL	N	Y	N	3	0	1	0	2
10	Oral	CLL	N	Y	N	1	1	0	0	0
11	Oral	Melanoma	N	Y	N	4	1	0	0	3
12	Oral	Melanoma	N	Y	N	15	0	1	0	14
13	Oral	NSCLC	N	Y	N	10	5	2	0	3
14	Oral	NSCLC	N	Y	Y	5	2	0	1	2
15	Oral	NSCLC	N	Y	N	3	1	0	1	1
16	Oral	OSCC	N	Y	N	5	1	2	0	2
17	Poster	NSCLC	N	Y	N	1	0	1	0	0
Total						194	86	32	8	67

*Including posts by ASCO, pharmaceutical companies, publishers, market researchers, financial analysts and charities. Abbreviations. ASCO, American Society of Clinical Oncology; CLL, chronic lymphocytic leukaemia; HCP, healthcare professional; N, no; OSCC, oesophageal squamous-cell carcinoma; NPC, nasopharyngeal carcinoma; NSCLC, non-small-cell lung cancer; PAG, patient advisory group; PLS, plain language summary; Y, yes

Conclusions

Despite the paucity of EC in this sample, our findings suggest that EC can attract considerable attention from multiple audiences on social media. Use of EC to optimize scientific exchange remains a work in progress.

Keywords:

• Enhanced content/publication extenders
• social media
• case study

 

 

Enhanced support for enhanced abstracts

Abstract

Objective

Enhanced content, such as graphical abstracts and video abstracts, can complement the range of traditional options for accessing peer-reviewed publication articles. Different types of enhanced content have been associated with increased citations or article understanding^1,2. We sought to understand how medical journal author services have adapted to support the development of enhanced abstracts.

Methods

We examined author services and guidance on enhanced abstracts from 44 publishers of medical journals; 36 listed in the OpenMD search engine³ and 8 additional publishers. We defined enhanced abstracts as video abstracts (videos or animations), or graphical abstracts (infographics or graphical summaries of a full article). Support was defined as a service beyond online author guidance. Searches were completed in September 2021 and statistics are descriptive.

Results

Fifteen publishers (34%) provided support in the development of enhanced abstracts; seven for both video and graphical abstracts, five for graphical abstracts only and three for video abstracts only. Guidance on the development of enhanced abstracts was available from seven publishers (16%); two provided guidance for both video and graphical abstracts, one for graphical abstracts only, and four publishers for video abstracts only. A limitation of our study is that we do not know the extent to which different journals across a publisher’s portfolio require that enhanced abstracts are submitted.

Conclusions

Most publishers do not currently provide a service for or guidance on enhanced abstract development. An increased level of support for authors in developing enhanced abstracts may make these options more achievable for a broader range of authors, and may be beneficial in increasing readership and online attention.

Keywords:

• Enhanced content/publication extenders
• journals
• visual communication

Evolving medical communications in a virtual world

Abstract

Objective

The COVID pandemic set traditional approaches to medical communications on its head. Opportunities to share data and interact with healthcare professionals (HCPs) at international congresses evaporated and scientific exchange became virtual. These challenges required a rapid evolution from traditional communications methods to incorporate digital technologies as part of our new normal. Our objective was to increase our share of voice (SoV) across social media.

Methods

We developed Congress Communications Bundles (CCBs), a 3-prong communications strategy consisting of a virtual congress highlights debrief led by top-tier KOLs available live and on-demand; a virtual preceptorship with a small group of next-generation HCPs; and a live Instagram feed sharing meeting highlights from key thought leaders.

Results

The CCB concept significantly increased our SoV at a recent HIV meeting. The debrief garnered 505 live views and 1845 on-demand views. The virtual preceptorship was well received with 100% of participants rating interactivity as very good to exceptional; 100% responded “Yes” when asked if they had learnt anything that would impact their practice. The clear standout was the live Instagram feed with 48 posts over a 4-day congress, resulting in 1029 followers, 16,400 likes, 52,367 emails, and an average organic reach of 53% (typical organic reach is 20%). Incorporating social media as part of our medical communications strategy resulted in a significant increase in the quantity and quality of scientific interactions with HCPs greatly increasing our SoV.

Conclusions

Congress Communications Bundles are an effective tool to increase our SoV by sharing emerging scientific data in real time across multiple communications channels, allowing HCPs to choose their preferred method of communication.

Keywords:

• Social media
• digital
• COVID-19

Extending the reach of virtual scientific congress posters by publishing poster summaries^¶

* Equally contributing as first author

Abstract

Objective

Previous research revealed a decline in poster interactions during virtual congresses vs in-person¹. We evaluated whether peer-reviewed post-congress poster summaries might extend audience reach for virtual poster presentations.

Research design and methods

Pilot poster summaries were developed from pre-selected company-sponsored posters presented at 2 virtual rare-disease congresses in 2020/2021 and were subsequently published in peer-reviewed journals^2,3. Click metrics for poster summaries [n = 2] obtained from the journals, were tracked over time, and compared to individual poster clicks on congress websites hosting the pre-selected posters and on the company server site accessible via QR-code.

Results

Click metrics for both published poster summaries were substantially higher than the corresponding congress clicks, or company server QR-code clicks observed during and after the congress (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Comparison of click metrics for two published poster summaries compared with respective poster congress clicks and QR-code visits.

Conclusions

Understanding the reach of poster presentations is key to maximize scientific dissemination. Our findings, based on two summaries, suggest that published peer-reviewed poster summaries are an effective way to extend reach of posters beyond virtual congresses.

Keywords:

• Medical/scientific communications
• virtual conferences
• posters

 

 

Note

^¶Encored poster at the 18th Annual Meeting of ISMPP

Gaps and patterns in developing and communicating value evidence^¶

Abstract

Objective

Identify patterns and uncover gaps in value evidence development and communication.

Methods

A 34-question survey was emailed to the HealthEconomics.Com community of 25,000 health economics and outcomes research (HEOR)/real world evidence (RWE) stakeholders and posted to relevant LinkedIn groups. Responses were accepted from February 12, 2021 to May 29, 2021, and evaluated with univariate analysis.

Results

Of the 211 respondents, three-quarters (76%) were value evidence developers (48%) or individuals who translate value evidence into communication tools (28%). These groups were combined for reporting purposes. Other respondents communicate value evidence to customers (12.3%) or receive/review value evidence (10.9%). Most (85.5%) respondents agreed that more training opportunities around value communication would be beneficial. Substantial proportions of value evidence reviewers disagreed or were neutral when asked if value evidence tools are clear and concise (48%) or persuasive (44%). Fewer than half of developers/translators agreed that value evidence data are readily available to develop customer-facing tools. Higher proportions of communicators reported using web content (47%) and white papers (53%) to communicate evidence compared with the percentages of developers and translators who reported developing these tools (29% and 35%, respectively). Higher proportions of value evidence developers/translators reported developing manuscripts (77%) and scientific posters (76%) compared with the percentages of communicators who report using these tools (63% and 53%, respectively).

Conclusions

More training opportunities and access to data are needed in value evidence communication. Communicators use web content and white papers more often than developers/translators develop them; developers/translators create scientific tools such as manuscripts and posters more frequently than communicators use them.

Keywords:

• CER/HEOR
• medical/scientific communications
• survey

Note

^¶Encored poster at the 18th Annual Meeting of ISMPP

Health care professionals’ views on enhanced publication content: are authors doing enough?

Abstract

Objective

Enhanced publication content, such as plain language summaries (PLS) and graphical abstracts, support communication of complex information in concise, broadly accessible formats. But rates of enhanced content uptake and the extent to which healthcare professionals (HCPs) feel this content improves data interpretation, engagement and broader dissemination remains in question.

Methods

As part of an advisory board, we asked four HCPs, selected for their frequent engagement with scientific data through digital platforms, about the value of enhanced publication content and how they identify, read and share publications of interest. Additionally, we examined 291 presentations—including plenary, oral and poster presentations—at ASCO 2021 (n = 104) and ESMO 2021 (n = 187), to determine supplementary enhanced content prevalence at large oncology congresses.

Results

The HCPs unanimously agreed that visual learning is at the forefront of the data experience. They emphasised enhanced content that is short, visual and easy to share on digital platforms would maximise engagement and that graphical abstracts were more likely to be read and shared than full manuscripts. They noted difficulties in identifying key presentations at high-volume congresses; highlighting the importance of short, accessible content that clearly outlines key findings. Notably, of the presentations surveyed, only 9/104 and 3/187 from ASCO and ESMO respectively included enhanced content summaries. PLS were predominantly industry-sponsored presentations.

Conclusions

HCP interest and engagement with enhanced publication content is rising, supporting a desire for easily digestible formats that can be widely shared. However, enhanced content remains under-utilised. To optimise publication impact, we must develop visual, accessible summaries that improve data interpretation and broaden dissemination.

Keywords:

• Enhanced content/publication extenders
• plain language summaries (PLS)
• medical/scientific communications

Impact of journal article press releases on reader engagement: a case study

Abstract

Objective

Little has been published on the impact of journal article press releases on reader engagement. We explored the effect of press releases by comparing reader engagement with two similar research articles published in the same journal, one with a press release (in May 2020) the other without (in April 2021).

Methods

The case articles featured the same therapy area, comparator drug and research topic; both had digital enhancements (video and animation), journal-led social media campaigns and were published open access (OA). The 2020 article had a text-only plain language summary; the 2021 article a graphical lay summary. The study sponsor issued a press release coincident with publication for the 2020 (but not the 2021) article. Article views were analysed for the case articles and their respective journal issues 14 weeks after publication.

Results

Mean article views were similar for the 2020 and 2021 journal issues (709 [31 articles]; 683 [52 articles], respectively). OA articles were viewed more than non-OA articles (mean: 807 vs 105 [2020]; 915 vs 176 [2021]). Among OA articles, those with digital features were viewed more than those without (mean: 1621 vs 815 [2020, n = 2]; 1139.5 vs 617.7 [2021, n = 4]). Both case articles received above-average views within their respective issues, but the 2020 article received almost twice as many views as the 2021 article (2618 vs 1461 views).

Conclusions

Within-issue analyses found that publishing OA and with digital enhancements increased article views. For the case articles, issuing a press release was associated with a near-doubling in views; potential confounders included differences in authorship and publication dates.

Keywords:

• Open access
• benchmarking
• enhanced content/publication extenders

Inconsistent and misleading preprint citation persists despite recent guidance

Abstract

Objective

Preprint articles are an important way to rapidly disseminate data. However, preprints are not vetted by peer-review and many are never fully published¹. To ensure the integrity of scientific publications, leading professional organisations published a joint position statement in March 2021 recommending that preprints be cited in-text rather than in the bibliography². Our objectives were to examine how authors and journals citied preprints since this statement was published.

Methods

We searched PubMed Central for peer-reviewed articles published between 01.04.2021 and 30.06.2021 citing preprints in the abstract, body and/or bibliography. Retrieved articles were screened and articles not citing preprints, duplicate articles and those not written in English were excluded. Article type, and preprint citation location, in-text identifiability and server name were recorded. Analyses do not consider articles that only cited preprint versions of the peer-reviewed article itself.

Results

Of a total of 173,281 articles published between 01.04.2021 and 30.06.2021, 1,001 met our inclusion criteria. Full preprint citations mainly appeared in the bibliography (89% of articles) and rarely in the main text (7%) or both locations (4%). Overall, only 26% of articles consistently disclosed citations as preprints in-text. Most included articles were original research, and the most cited preprint server was medRxiv. Of the 14 journals that published ≥10 articles citing preprints, 57% had some guidance on preprint citation, but none matched joint position statement best practice.

Conclusions

Although citation of preprints in peer-reviewed articles is relatively rare, it is inconsistent, often unclear, and not in line with recent guidance. Journals could support preprint transparency by aligning author guidelines with joint position statement recommendations.

Keywords:

• Best practice
• preprints
• journals

Infographics in medical communication: trends of artwork use in peer-reviewed manuscripts

Abstract

Objective: Infographics have the potential to improve access to information in medical communications¹. Attention to visual communication is increasing, changing the way to develop medical papers. We reviewed publications for which our agency provided editorial and medical writing support over the last year and two years ago to assess the trend in use of infographics and compared it to articles published in four journals.

Methods: We have reviewed all manuscripts published between 1-Sept-2018 and 8-Sept-2019 and between 1-Sept-2020 and 8-Sept-2021, for which our agency provided support. Total number of manuscripts, number of manuscripts having at least one infographic, and total number of infographics were recorded for both periods. We reviewed all available research and review papers from four journals in the fields of infectious diseases and vaccinology published during the same periods and recorded the same outcomes.

Results: Over the 2018–2019 and 2020–2021 periods, 74 and 76 manuscripts for which we provided support were published, respectively. Among manuscripts published in 2018–2019 and in 2020–2021, 17 (23.0%) and 27 (35.5%) included at least one infographic, respectively. In the pooled sample of papers published in four journals over the 2018–2019 period (n = 928), 69 (7.4%) manuscripts included a total of 82 infographics. Among all papers published two years later in the same journals (n = 868), 100 (11.5%) articles included a total of 136 infographics.

Conclusions: Our internal observation about infographic use is in agreement with trends in all selected journals. Comparison between papers published two years ago and over the last year shows an increase in embedded infographics, emphasizing the acknowledged importance of visual communication.

Keywords:

• Medical/scientific communications
• visual communication
• medical publication profession

Intelligent literature monitoring with integrated artificial intelligence: transforming literature search and publication planning in real-time workflows^¶

Abstract

Objective

Intelligent Literature Monitoring (ILM) leverages Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Natural Language Processing (NLP) to augment and run continuous literature monitoring around defined therapeutic areas. This enables insight extraction from publication databases and automatic deployment of insights into a centralized and customized database. We aimed to demonstrate the benefits of transforming literature monitoring from a manual report-based process into an intuitive, semi-automated, AI-driven process.

Methods

We assessed two different approaches to continuous literature monitoring: (1) manual search and output, (2) semi-automated search, with AI integration and digital output, applied across search scenarios producing high (>250) and low (<100) volumes of results. We compared each approach for man hours, versatility/utility of outputs and depth of insights.

Results

The ILM approach with integrated AI was the most favorable option for search strings with high volumes of search results (e.g. “oncology” or “COVID”). Compared with manually searching and reviewing literature, this method resulted in a time reduction of 88–92%, along with 99.9% sensitivity and 95% specificity. For low-volume search results, (e.g. rare diseases) a digital tool improved accessibility, distribution, communication, archiving, and sorting/filtering.

Conclusions

In areas like COVID that can produce vast amounts of results from modest search strings, the ILM approach with integrated AI and NLP accelerates the current time-sensitive and episodic manual review process without compromising precision. Furthermore, it increases efficiency and productivity in search results, and provides a deeper understanding of the current complex, scientific content in near real-time. Digital platforms can compile and store results in a more versatile way, increasing functionality and creating efficiencies.

Keywords:

• Artificial intelligence (AI)
• literature search
• natural language processing (NLP)

Note

^¶Encored poster at the 18th Annual Meeting of ISMPP

Journal rankings and open access options

Abstract

Objective

To determine if there is any relationship between Open Access (OA) options and position in Journal Rankings.

Research design and Methods

SCImago journal & country rank was the source of the information. We studied 809 journals from 3 different therapeutic areas: Cardiology (342), Internal Medicine (127) and Oncology (340). We classified the journals into Open Access only (with mandatory APC fee) or Subscription/Hybrid (where some articles are OA).

Results

Only 31% of the journals that we studied were full OA, with no significant differences between therapeutic areas (cardiology 31%, internal medicine 30%, oncology 32%). Almost 60% of OA journals are ranked Q3/Q4. That finding is similar in cardiology (65%) and internal medicine (61%) but it is lower in oncology (53%). In the Subscription/Hybrid category, 56% of the journals are in Q1/Q2, without significant differences between therapeutic areas (Table 1).

Table 1. Results of the search in SCImago journal & country rank.

	Ranking	Cardiology	Internal medicine	Oncology	Total
Total	All quartiles	342	127	340	809
OA	All quartiles	105 (31%)	38 (30%)	110 (32%)	253 (31%)
	Q1	14 (13%)	5 (13%)	24 (22%)	43 (17%)
	Q2	23 (22%)	10 (26%)	27 (25%)	60 (24%)
	Q3	34 (32%)	12 (32%)	32 (29%)	78 (31%)
	Q4	34 (32%)	11 (29%)	27 (25%)	72 (28%)
Subscription/Hybrid	All quartiles	237 (69%)	89 (70%)	230 (68%)	556 (69%)
	Q1	72 (30%)	27 (30%)	61 (27%)	160 (29%)
	Q2	62 (26%)	23 (26%)	59 (26%)	144 (26%)
	Q3	52 (22%)	19 (21%)	53 (23%)	124 (22%)
	Q4	51 (22%)	20 (23%)	57 (25%)	128 (23%)

Conclusions

OA journals are growing but purely OA journals are still well behind subscription and hybrid journals. Most OA journals are in Q3/Q4 in the SCImago Ranking and most of subscription and hybrid journals are in Q1/Q2.

Keywords:

• Open access
• journals
• metrics

 

 

Measuring open access in pharmaceutical company-supported articles – an improved and semi-automated method^‡,¶

ǂ Winner, Best Original Research

Abstract

Objective

Previously we described an informatics approach to assess open access (OA) rates for pharmaceutical industry-sponsored publications¹. To improve differentiation between manuscripts and published congress publications, we developed an updated methodology using a combination of publicly available databases to replace Microsoft Academic (closing December 2021).

Methods

Publications from a total of 24 pharmaceutical companies were analyzed: the top 20 companies by revenue (as of September 2021)² plus the 4 Open Pharma participant companies outside the top 20³. We used lens.org to identify publications with authors affiliated to each company, tagged with Medicine ‘Field of study’, and published in 2019 or 2020⁴. We included only publications tagged as ‘article’ by Embase⁵. OA status was evaluated through Unpaywall⁶. We also ran the 2019 analysis using the original methodology.

Results

For 2019, the revised method returned fewer articles (5,246) than the original (6,900), with overall OA rate 74%, an increase from 69%. Article-level analysis revealed the automated process was largely accurate and we identified reasons for incorrect classification. The 2020 OA rate using the revised method was 75%. Excluding companies with <10 articles, the range of company OA rates was 48–95% in 2019 and 50–90% in 2020. Open Pharma participants had higher OA rates than non-participants, and their OA rates increased from 2019 to 2020 by 1.7 percentage points, compared with 0.2 percentage points for non-participants.

Conclusions

The revised method improved accuracy of OA rates by excluding published conference abstracts wrongly tagged using the original method. Analyses using this method could help institutions working towards greater openness in their peer-reviewed publications.

Keywords:

• Open access
• original research
• literature search

Notes

^‡Winner, Best Original Research ^¶Encored poster at the 18th Annual Meeting of ISMPP

Medical writing career awareness and the way forward: an online survey^¶

Abstract

Objective

To identify the awareness of medical writing professionals (MWP) regarding the medical writing field (MWF), associated growth opportunities, and the way forward.

Methods

An anonymous survey comprising 12 multiple-choice/open-ended questions was administered to MWP globally from 13 August 2021 to 6 September 2021.

Results

MWP (n = 185) across 17 countries, India (93), UK (29), EU (24), Japan (11), US (9), Canada (6), and others (13), responded to the survey. Respondents were highly qualified with 87% having an MS/PhD/equivalent degree and MWF experience of 0–5 (26%), >5–10 (29%), >10–15 (24%), and >15 years (21%). Respondents were employed as medical writers or in MWF-associated functions across pharmaceutical industries (67%), medical writing (MW) agencies (57%), or as consultants (21%) in different domains (Regulatory/Scientific/Medico-Marketing/HEOR). They scored professional growth opportunities as high (58%), medium (34%), and low (8%). Top reasons for liking MWF were skill utilization (79%), creative thinking (75%), contribution to patients’ lives (72%), and work flexibility (67%). A majority (76%) of them were not aware of MWF during their graduation/post-graduation with 53% learning about MWF through their friends/colleagues and 7% through campus recruitment; only 9% underwent professional training before entering MWF. Similar trends emerged among countries where MWF is well established (UK, EU, and US) and is upcoming (India, Japan). To increase MWF awareness, 86% indicated that MW should be introduced at the university level. Other suggestions included workshops by pharmaceutical companies/MW agencies, job fairs, and MW courses.

Conclusion

Although MWF offers good skill utilization and professional growth opportunities globally, awareness at an earlier time point could be useful.

Keywords:

• Medical/scientific communications
• medical writers/writing
• survey

Note

^¶Encored poster at the 18th Annual Meeting of ISMPP

Perspectives on journal selection criteria from researchers working in a medium-sized biotech company

Abstract

Objective

This survey aimed to determine the most important factors for journal selection and which publication enhancements were considered to have most value from the perspective of researchers working in preclinical and early-phase programmes in a biotech company. This activity was part of a broader company programme to understand publication decisions and inform stakeholder education around good publication practice.

Methods

A questionnaire was circulated to colleagues from early-development programmes who had been invited to publications strategy and planning workshops. Respondents were asked to rank, in order of importance, ten factors (1 being most important) they consider when selecting a journal for publication of their research, and to rank manuscript and poster publication enhancements by added value.

Results

Responses were received from 31 team members. Factors viewed as of key importance/value (ranked 1 or 2) for journal selection were: journal impact factor, n = 17; immediate access (no paywall), n = 9; open access (barrier-free), n = 8; rapid online access, n = 7; Citescore, n = 4; Altmetrics tracked, n = 3; citation indices reported, n = 3; social media presence, n = 2; patient involvement, n = 1; option to include enhancements, n = 0. Manuscript enhancements scored as follows: visual abstracts, n = 21; plain language summaries, n = 14; supplementary materials, n = 12; videos, n = 6; podcasts, n = 3. Poster enhancements scored as follows: Quick Response (QR) codes, n = 20; video summaries, n = 14; interactive features, n = 11; plain language summaries, n = 7; audio abstracts, n = 2.

Conclusions

Company researchers involved in early drug development regarded impact factor as the most important consideration during journal selection, followed by immediate and open access. Visual abstracts and QR codes were ranked as the most important manuscript and poster enhancements, respectively.

Keywords:

• attitudes
• enhanced content/publication extenders
• journals

Plain language summaries at congresses: a pharma perspective

Abstract

Objective

Patients are vital partners in medical research and may attend medical conferences. Plain language summaries (PLS) make scientific research more accessible for congress attendees. There are no society endorsed or universally adopted industry guidelines for PLS; approaches to creation and dissemination vary¹. We share our experience of developing PLS for congress publications within a pharmaceutical company.

Methods

The Oncology Global Publications Team was surveyed to collect information regarding PLS presented in 2021, including development, format, audience, sharing and metrics.

Results

Forty PLS were presented between January and September 2021, accompanying 34 posters and 6 oral presentations. PLS included clinical efficacy/safety data (19/40), study design (8/40), translational research (6/40), real-world evidence (3/40), and Payer analyses (2/40). PLS were accessed via QR code (25/40), or integrated into the poster (15/40). PLS were infographic, text or side-by-side technical/plain language. Most (37/40) were intended for multiple audiences, including non-specialist or time poor healthcare professionals; (30/40) identified patients/patient advocates as a target audience. Two PLS were reviewed (under contract) or authored by patients. Across all PLS common challenges were identified, including defining audiences, identification of/contracting patient reviewers, compliance uncertainties, and limited experience of medical writers, authors and reviewers. Although measuring PLS impact was difficult, QR code-linked downloads were frequent and social media sentiment was positive.

Conclusions

Our experience mirrors that of other pharmaceutical companies² and the ISMPP PLS perspective working group³. We continue to refine internal policies, engaging partners with expertise in compliance and transparency, patient groups and healthcare professionals, to maximise the value and accessibility of future PLS. Industry guidelines may increase confidence in PLS preparation.

Keywords:

• Plain language summaries (PLS)
• guidelines
• compliance

Preferences of payer audiences for retaining ‘purity of evidence’ in a digitally evolving environment

Abstract

Objective

The COVID-19 pandemic has shifted audiences to using digital technology at a faster pace than anticipated. Whilst this shift of medical communications with HCPs and patients was easier to embrace because of prior years of digital utilisation, we have seen a slower adoption and acceptance of digital technologies by payer audiences. We conducted a survey study to investigate how the pandemic has impacted the preferences of payer audiences when receiving evidence, and whether the previous desire for publications is still a key driver of decisions.

Methods

An online survey of 20 payer decision makers.

Results

The study found that 50% of payers were comfortable using digital channels and that social media usage increased due to fewer face-to-face interactions. Clinical trial evidence is the most frequently disseminated data provided to payers. Over 50% of payers reported receiving evidence in traditional and digital formats, with a preference for traditional publications. Podcasts and short videos communicating burden were also considered effective and informative for payer decision making. Payers were also comfortable using social media, with LinkedIn being the main channel. Payers stated clinical trials and disease awareness data will be the top two highest ranked topics of interest going forward. Evidence should be provided in traditional publication resources alongside the digital platform via a multichannel approach.

Conclusions

This study suggests that payers are familiar with many tools/platforms but prefer receiving clinical study information in publication formats. Payers are also open to receiving disease area and background information in digital formats, via podcasts and white papers, and appear more comfortable receiving this following the pandemic.

Keywords:

• Digital
• social media
• survey

Prevalence and characteristics of plain language summaries indexed in PubMed

Abstract

Objective

The Open Pharma recommendations for plain language summaries (PLS) for peer-reviewed journal articles propose a text format that facilitates indexing in directories, such as PubMed¹. We evaluated PLS prevalence and characteristics among PubMed-listed articles.

Methods

We searched PubMed-listed publications (January 1, 1781–August 20, 2021) for text-only PLS indexed with an XML < plain-language-summary > tag. Identified records were de-duplicated and screened programmatically for eligibility. PLS prevalence was compared with a PubMed search engine query. PLS articles were categorized by journal, publication year and publication type tags.

Results

Of 32,939,900 unique PubMed-listed records, 2,050 publications had XML < plain-language-summary > tags, of which 2,010 had text-only PLS (26 video and 14 technical abstracts were excluded), a prevalence of 61.0/1,000,000 articles. A PubMed search engine query identified 17.4/1,000,000 articles. Most PLSs (98.9%) were published in the past 3 years (9.3% in 2019; 38.2% in 2020; 51.3% in 2021). In total, 91 journals published text-based, PubMed-indexed PLS. Ten journals contributed 73.5% of PLS publications; the most frequent source was eLife (32.9% of all PLS). Of indexed PLSs, 96.8% were simply tagged as ‘journal article’, 10.5% had clinical trial tags, 4.9% a review and 2.4% a systematic review tag.

Conclusions

A minority of PubMed-listed articles featured an indexed PLS. Of those with a PLS, most were published between 2019–2021. XML tags were >3.5-fold more effective at identifying PLS than interrogating the PubMed search engine. Collaborative efforts are required to standardize the implementation and indexing of PLS by journals to help align PLS practices and improve discoverability.

Keywords:

• Enhanced content/publication extenders
• literature search
• plain language summaries (PLS)

Probing the obsolescence of web references in the recent peer-reviewed medical literature*

* Oral Presentation

Abstract

Objective

Web resources are widely accepted as references in peer-reviewed publications. However, material hosted on internet is subject to change or deletion. We explored the obsolescence of web references in the recent peer-reviewed medical literature to probe the extent of such information loss.

Methods

We glanced at six journals in the fields of vaccinology and infectious diseases for open and free access articles published in 2018, and reviewed all references listed within. Total number of references, web references, and obsolete URLs were recorded by publication. Results were computed by journal, by type of manuscript, and overall.

Results

A total of 1,699 publications were screened, among which 992 (58.4%) included at least one web reference. Among 71,154 references, 4,110 (5.8%) were URLs, of which 1,141 (27.8%) were not accessible. When considering each journal separately, percentage of papers with at least one web reference ranged between 39.2% and 78.7%. The proportion of web references ranged from 2.6% to 10.0%. However, percentages of obsolete URLs were similar across all six journals, ranging from 26.1% to 29.1%. When comparing review papers (n = 237) and research articles (n = 1,462), 74.3% and 55.8% included at least one web reference, respectively. However, proportions of web references that were obsolete were similar (27.9% vs. 27.7%).

Conclusions

Papers published three years ago have a substantial fraction of obsolete web references. When citing online sources, particular attention should be paid to their durability. It is important for authors and medical communication professionals to be aware of the risk inherent to web references and reflect on how to manage it.

Keywords:

• Best practice
• medical writers/writing
• journals

Note

*Oral Presentation

Reform and features of scientific posters at oncology and rare disease congresses

Abstract

Objective

Reformed layouts and enhanced features may increase understanding of scientific posters^1–3. After assessing poster reform at oncology congresses in 2020⁴, we sought to assess reform at a major rare disease congress and whether practices are changing at oncology congresses.

Methods

All posters in selected sessions at European Conference on Rare Diseases (ECRD) 2020; American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) 2020 and 2021; and European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO) 2020 and 2021 were assessed for reform and features. Only ASCO meetings provided reformed poster templates.

Results

ECRD posters were more likely to feature infographic styles than ASCO/ESMO posters, but less likely to include QR codes or to mention industry sponsorship or medical writing support (Table). ECRD posters were more likely to feature reformed layouts than ESMO posters, but less likely than ASCO posters.

Table Use of reformed poster layouts, enhanced features and support.

Congress:	ASCO		ESMO			ECRD
Year:	2020*	2021^†	2020*	2021^†		2020^‡
Posters, n (%):	N = 162	N = 162	N = 176	N = 167		N = 133^§
Posters available to view online	154 (95)	151 (93)	142 (81)	163 (98)		133 (100)
	n = 154	n = 151	n = 142	n = 163		n = 133
Industry sponsorship	77 (50)	87 (58)	75 (53)	92 (56)		20 (15)
Medical writing support	45 (29)	33 (22)	39 (27)	41 (25)		7 (5)
	n = 154	n = 151	n = 142	n = 163		n = 133
With a reformed layout^¶	76 (49)	76 (50)	12 (8)	37 (23)		51 (38)
	n = 76	n = 76	n = 12	n = 37		n = 51
With prominent conclusions	70 (92)	69 (91)	12 (100)	22 (59)		11 (22)
With a prominent figure	22 (29)	5 (6)	0	9 (24)		29 (57)
With a prominent table	2 (3)	1 (1)	1 (8)	2 (5)		4 (8)
	n = 15	n = 10	n = 2	n = 12		n = 10
With a prominent study design**	10 (67)	2 (20)	0	10 (83)		7 (70)
	n = 154	n = 151	n = 142	n = 163		n = 133
In an infographic style^††	8 (5)	9 (6)	9 (6)	10 (6)		32 (24)
With a QR code	59 (38)	39 (26)	40 (28)	44 (27)		9 (7)
	n = 55^‡‡	n = 39	n = 40	n = 44		n = 9
Linking to the poster	53 (96)	35 (90)	36 (90)	38 (86)		2 (22)
Linking to a supplement	6 (11)	4 (10)	3 (8)	7 (16)		4 (44)
Linking to a PLS	7 (13)	6 (15)	6 (15)	9 (20)		0 (0)
Linking to a video	3 (5)	5 (13)	3 (8)	2 (5)		0 (0)
Linking to other materials^§§	6 (11)	16 (41)	9 (23)	12 (27)		7 (78)
	n = 154	n = 151	n = 142	n = 163		n = 133
Accompanied by narration	77 (50)	71 (47)	NA	28 (17)		NA
With a Twitter/Instagram handle	6 (4)	2 (1)	2 (1)	4 (2)		12 (9)

*Poster sessions were chosen to cover a range of therapy areas (ASCO: ‘Gynaecological Cancers’ and ‘Genitourinary Cancer—Prostate, Testicular, and Penile’ sessions; ESMO: ‘Gynaecological Cancers’ and ‘Genitourinary Tumours, Prostate’ sessions); ^†the same poster sessions were selected in 2021 as for 2020; ^‡poster numbers 1–168 (themes 1–4) were chosen to provide a similar sample size to the selected oncology poster sessions (any posters considered to be advertisements were excluded); ^§abstracts were not available on congress website (posters only); ^¶defined based on: having a prominent (central, left or top) conclusion or figure; use of size or colour to emphasise key messages; deviation from a traditional left-to-right poster layout; **trial-in-progress posters only; ^††defined as use of data visualisation and/or icons throughout main poster content (irrespective of reformed layout); ^‡‡QR codes that could not be accessed to verify content were excluded; ^§§other categories with n ≥ 5 overall were: slides (n = 17), study registries (n = 7). NA, not applicable (not an option for presenters); PLS, plain-language summary; QR, quick response.

Conclusions

Notable differences in poster format, features and support were observed between oncology and rare disease congresses; provision of reformed templates continues to influence poster layouts.

Keywords:

• Posters
• engagement
• visual communication

 

 

Reviewing scientific publications to protect the privacy of clinical study participants^¶

Abstract

Objective

The probability of re-identifying individuals increases when data in scientific publications can be linked to other subject information available in the public domain, potentially jeopardizing study participant privacy. We implemented a process for analyzing this potential data re-identification risk for publications.

Methods

Publications were reviewed and assessed for patient privacy if they contained: study participant/personnel direct (e.g. subject ID, initials) or indirect identifiers (e.g. sex, age, geographic indicators); or focused on rare disease studies; or included sample treatment groups with <12 study participants. The goal was risk-minimization via generalized presentation of identifier-relevant information. We performed additional risk calculations of study participant/personnel exposure to present meaningful but de-identified information.

Results

Initial risk was estimated by assessing the potential for subject re-identification of exposed versus available individuals (risk ratio). A risk ratio above a threshold value of 0.09 indicated the need to modify potentially sensitive information. Previous data from manuscripts assessed between September 2019 and September 2020 indicated a need for risk minimization in 6/86 manuscripts¹. This new analysis of publications developed between January 2019 and July 2021 revealed the need for risk minimization in 58/275 manuscripts, 1/110 abstracts, 5/87 posters, and 3/58 oral presentations. Direct identifiers were removed in 11% of publications where changes were requested, indirect identifiers modified in 34%, and the standard data sharing statement modified in 55%.

Conclusions

Additional safeguard processes are recommended for scientific publications to ensure that adequate data privacy standards are upheld. Our risk-minimization using de-identification of clinical trial data presented in scientific publications, and controlled data sharing conditions, increases privacy protection of study participants.

Keywords:

• Compliance
• patients
• transparency

Note

^¶Encored poster at the 18th Annual Meeting of ISMPP

Seek and you will [potentially] find: the impact of plain language summary accessibility on engagement and wider dissemination

Abstract

Background

Plain-language summaries (PLSs) can potentially help individuals with limited expert knowledge understand new scientific developments; however, to be effective communication tools they need to be easily accessible. The objective of this study was to assess the impact of PLS accessibility on dissemination.

Methods

Journals publishing PLSs (n = 5) were analyzed over 1 year (July 2020—June 2021) using a social media, blog, and news monitoring platform (Meltwater, California, USA). Instances of PLS sharing was detected using a Boolean search string that identified any mention of the journal and any term relating to PLS (“journalname”_AND_[“patient summar*”_OR_patientsummar*_OR_“Lay summary”_OR_“lay summaries”_OR_“plain language summaries”_OR_“plain language summary]). Search result validity was confirmed manually.

Results

Journals utilizing user-friendly accessible platforms to share PLSs recorded the highest number of PLS shares (Figure 1). The impact factor of the journal did not correlate with the number of PLS shares.

Figure 1. Comparison demonstrating the impact of utilizing a user friendly (defined as clearly signposted, actively promoted by the journal, and accessible via the front page of the journal website; example journal shown has an impact factor of 8.14) (A) and a less user-friendly method (example shown has an impact factor of 12.35) (B) of sharing plain language summaries.

Conclusions

The method/platform used to share a PLS has a direct impact on engagement and wider dissemination.

Keywords:

• Plain language summaries
• best practice
• patients

 

 

Should key opinion leaders have a role in amplification of peer-reviewed publications in the digital space?

Abstract

Objective

To better understand how Digital Opinion Leaders (DOLs) might support efforts to expand the reach of peer-reviewed manuscripts.

Methods

We undertook a social listening exercise to track online engagement for the data rollout of the OlympiA clinical trial and its accompanying primary publication. A month before and after the ASCO 2021 congress, we used Brandwatch to conduct a social listening exercise which uses Boolean search queries with combinations of “OlympiA Trial,” “Olympia,” “clinical trial,” “adjuvant Olaparib,” “BRCA1/2 Mutation,” and phase 3” to capture online engagement about the OlympiA trial data release from public social media platforms. These data are then our basis for analyzing and providing insights from the conversations.

Results

Between June 3 and June 9, there were 1681 mentions of the OlympiA trial data of which 12% was contributed by DOLs, 58% through journals, and 30% specifically by the publishing journal (NEJM), representing 203, 974 and 504 total tweets respectively. Paradoxically, despite the low proportion of initial tweets by DOLs, they were responsible for the greatest amplification of online engagement with the trial data with a total of 956710 impressions.

Conclusion

The accelerated migration of medical and scientific communications to the virtual world has created a new type of KOLs called DOLs who have mastered digital ecosystems such as twitter and YouTube. These data demonstrate the impact of DOL engagement in more rapid and widespread dissemination of scientific evidence and therefore support a re-examination of the publications compliance framework regarding engagement of thought leaders in the digital space.

Keywords:

• Engagement
• medical/scientific communications
• social media

A survey on perceptions and use of publication extenders within pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries

Abstract

Objective

Publication extenders such as infographics or video abstracts can be used to distribute research beyond a standard journal publication. We aimed to understand how the use and relative importance of these tools is perceived by publication professionals in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries.

Methods

We created a survey to assess the use of, and general attitudes towards, publication extenders among pharmaceutical and biotechnology industry global publication leads.

Results

In total, we surveyed 11 publication professionals, 9 of whom worked in a pharmaceutical company and 2 in a biotechnology company. Ten respondents (91%) reported using publication extenders in the past, with just under half (5/11) interested in increasing their usage over the next 2 years. Although graphical abstracts were the most used type of extender (by 8 of the 11 respondents), video abstracts were considered the most impactful (9/11), followed by infographics and lay summaries (both 8/11). Although over 90% of respondents believed publication extenders were at least somewhat useful to increase reach/visibility of their manuscripts, 82% stated they have never received any metrics on their benefits. The cost of development, reluctance to burden internal reviewers/authors with additional items to review and uncertainty of additional value were considered key barriers to developing publication extenders.

Conclusions

Overall, in our small sample, pharmaceutical and biotechnology industry publication leads believed that publication extenders have the potential to be useful in improving the reach and visibility of their data. However, lack of metrics regarding the effectiveness of publication extenders should be addressed to alleviate some of the uncertainty around their added value.

Keywords:

• Enhanced content/publication extenders
• survey
• medical publication profession