The pharmacoepigenetics of antipsychotic treatment in severe mental illness is a growing area of research that aims to understand the interface between antipsychotic treatment and genetic regulation. Pharmacoepigenetics may some day assist in identifying treatment response mechanisms or become one of the components in the implementation of precision medicine. To understand the current evidence regarding the effects of antipsychotics on DNA methylation a systematic review with qualitative synthesis was performed through Pubmed, Embase and Psychinfo from earliest data to June 2019. Studies were included if they analyzed DNA methylation in an antipsychotic‐treated population of patients with schizophrenia or bipolar disorder. Data extraction occurred via a standardized format and study quality was assessed. Twenty‐nine studies were identified for inclusion. Study design, antipsychotic type, sample source, and methods of DNA methylation measurement varied across all studies. Eighteen studies analyzed methylation in patients with schizophrenia, four studies in patients with bipolar disorder, and seven studies in a combined sample of schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. Twenty‐two studies used observational samples whereas the remainder used prospectively treated samples. Six studies assessed global methylation, five assessed epigenome‐wide, and 15 performed a candidate epigenetic study. Two studies analyzed both global and gene‐specific methylation, whereas one study performed a simultaneous epigenome‐wide and gene‐specific study. Only three genes were analyzed in more than one gene‐specific study and the findings were discordant. The state of the pharmacoepigenetic literature on antipsychotic use is still in its early stages and uniform reporting of methylation site information is needed. Future work should concentrate on using prospective sampling with appropriate control groups and begin to replicate many of the novel associations that have been reported.
Scholarly productivity is a critical component of pharmacy faculty effort and is used for promotion and tenure decisions. Several databases are available to measure scholarly productivity; however, comparisons amongst these databases are lacking for pharmacy faculty. The objective of this work was to compare scholarly metrics from three commonly utilized databases and a social networking site focused on data from research-intensive colleges of pharmacy and to identify factors associated with database differences. Scholarly metrics were obtained from Scopus, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and ResearchGate for faculty from research-intensive (Carnegie Rated R1, R2, or special focus) United States pharmacy schools with at least two million USD in funding from the National Institutes of Health. Metrics were compared and correlations were performed. Regression analyses were utilized to identify factors associated with database differences. Significant differences in scholarly metric values were observed between databases despite the high correlations, suggestive of systematic variation in database reporting. Time since first publication was the most common factor that was associated with database differences. Google Scholar tended to have higher metrics than all other databases, while Web of Science had lower metrics relative to other databases. Differences in reported metrics between databases are apparent, which may be attributable to the time since first publication and database coverage of pharmacy-specific journals. These differences should be considered by faculty, reviewers, and administrative staff when evaluating scholarly performance.
Objectives The objective of this work was to compare bibliometrics based on doctoral degrees within United States colleges of pharmacy to understand productivity differences. Secondary objectives were to provide quantitative data based on degree that could be utilized by individual faculty, administration and other key stakeholders in academic pharmacy. Methods Bibliometric indices were obtained from Scopus and Web of Science for faculty from research-intensive United States pharmacy schools. Scholarly metrics that included publication number, total citations, highest cited article and H-index were compared between degrees using multivariate regression adjusted for academic rank and years since first publication. A correction for multiple testing was applied. Key findings All collected scholarly metrics were higher for Ph.D.-only and Pharm.D./Ph.D. faculty when compared to Pharm.D.-only faculty. Ph.D.-only faculty significantly differed compared to Pharm.D./Ph.D. faculty for Web of Science average citations per document. Conclusions Differences are apparent between the major doctoral degrees at research-intensive, federally funded colleges of pharmacy; however, these differences were primarily identified for Pharm.D.-only compared to the other doctoral degree types Future work should analyse the potential variables that explain the scholarly metrics differences between degrees and aim to analyse other areas of faculty impact beyond scholarly metrics.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.