ObjectivePubMed’s provision of MEDLINE and other National Library of Medicine (NLM) resources has made it one of the most widely accessible biomedical resources globally. The growth of PubMed Central (PMC) and public access mandates have affected PubMed’s composition. The authors tested recent claims that content in PMC is of low quality and affects PubMed’s reliability, while exploring PubMed’s role in the current scholarly communications landscape.MethodsThe percentage of MEDLINE-indexed records was assessed in PubMed and various subsets of records from PMC. Data were retrieved via the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) interface, and follow-up interviews with a PMC external reviewer and staff at NLM were conducted.ResultsAlmost all PubMed content (91%) is indexed in MEDLINE; however, since the launch of PMC, the percentage of PubMed records indexed in MEDLINE has slowly decreased. This trend is the result of an increase in PMC content from journals that are not indexed in MEDLINE and not a result of author manuscripts submitted to PMC in compliance with public access policies. Author manuscripts in PMC continue to be published in MEDLINE-indexed journals at a high rate (85%). The interviewees clarified the difference between the sources, with MEDLINE serving as a highly selective index of journals in biomedical literature and PMC serving as an open archive of quality biomedical and life sciences literature and a repository of funded research.ConclusionThe differing scopes of PMC and MEDLINE will likely continue to affect their overlap; however, quality control exists in the maintenance and facilitation of both resources, and funding from major grantors is a major component of quality assurance in PMC.

To test the efficacy of poststorage bedside leucodepletion of blood products in the prevention of primary HLA alloimmunization and its clinical sequelae, 172 patients with hematologic malignancy requiring intensive red blood cell and platelet support were randomized to receive either standard or filtered red blood cells and platelets. Quality control of bedside filtration was explored by sequential sampling downstream of the filter, but this did not predict the total number of leucocytes transfused. After exclusions, 123 evaluable patients were assessed every two weeks until the end of therapy. HLA antibodies developed in 21 of 56 (37.5%) nonfilter (NF) and 15 of 67 (22%) filter (F) patients (risk ratio estimate, 0.60 [95% confidence interval, 0.34 to 1.05]; P = .07). Patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML; n = 53) had higher alloimmunization rates in both arms of the study, with a greater effect of filtration (62.5% NF and 31.0% F; P = .025). Bedside filtration did not affect the overall incidence of febrile transfusion reactions (FTRs; 37% NF and 34% F; P = .71) or of platelet refractoriness assessed in 50 patients (30% NF and 26% F), despite an association between broad HLA reactivity and both FTRs and refractoriness. However, FTRs were also seen in 28 patients without HLA antibodies. Five alloimmunized refractory patients (2 F and 3 NF) required HLA-selected platelets. This report, the first prospective study of bedside filtration, has failed to show clear clinical benefit. Methodological limitations may account in part for this failure, notably the difficulties in accurately assessing the number of leucocytes transfused.

Background Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) and Developmental Coordination Disorder (DCD) are developmental disorders that, since the DSM-5, can be diagnosed as co-occurring conditions. While some recent studies suggest that ASD and DCD have similar traits, others show clear behavioral distinctions between the two conditions. By gathering all studies that included (1) an ASD group and a DCD group, (2) an ASD+DCD group and a DCD group, or (3) ASD, ASD+DCD, and DCD groups, we aimed to identify similarities and differences in behaviors between the two disorders. Method We used a systematic search of PubMed (1946 –), Scopus (1970 –), PsycINFO (via EBSCO, 1600 –), CINAHL (via EBSCO, 1937 –), SportDiscus (via EBSCO, 1985 –), and WorldCat (via FirstSearch) in addition to reference list and author name searching PubMed, Scopus, PsycINFO, CINAHL, SportDiscus, and WorldCat to identify original studies that met the following criteria: (1) an ASD group and a DCD group, (2) an ASD+DCD group and a DCD group, or (3) ASD, ASD+DCD, and DCD groups. Results From the 1,598 articles screened, 11 were included in the qualitative analysis. The articles included reported more differences than similarities in individuals with ASD and DCD, with clear distinctions for working memory ability, gestural performance, grip selection, and cortical thickness. Only two studies reported similarities in face processing abilities and perceived competence, and the interventional studies showed group similarities in behavior improvement, such as intelligence and attention. Conclusions Based on the articles reviewed, we conclude that while DCD and ASD share some behavioral symptoms, the symptom profiles of each disorder are unique and separable. We recommend that the evaluation of potential DCD in individuals with ASD be performed systematically and thoroughly, so as to distinguish this co-occurring condition from sensorimotor symptoms associated with ASD.

Twenty-one pretreatment variables were investigated for prognostic influence on survival in 301 previously untreated patients with ovarian carcinoma, stage IIB-IV. Patients were randomized to sequential combination chemotherapy: cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, 5-fluorouracil, followed by cisplatin and hexamethylmelamine, or to the 3-drug combination alternating with the 2-drug combination every other month. Median overall survivals were 25 and 22 months, respectively, P greater than 0.4. Based on the results from a Cox multivariate stepwise analysis a subset of independent significant prognostic factors was found to include: residual tumor size, performance status, alkaline phosphatase, number of metastases, histological differentiation grade and type. A prognostic index was calculated for each patient and three prognostic categories of patients were determined. The 3-yr survival rates for patients with low-, intermediate-, and high-risk scores were 62, 31, and 7%, respectively. Multivariate analysis thus contributes further information about the disease, and a knowledge of the distribution of such factors across different trials is important when comparing treatment outcome.