Methods of assessing and reporting toxic reactions induced by therapy, particularly chemotherapy, need improvements. Accurate and reliable reporting of therapy-induced toxicity will be necessary for quality clinical research including drug development and for implementation of complex multimodality treatments, currently, however, the extent and quality of reporting of toxic reactions vary widely. Whereas standard and widely accepted criteria have been established for assessing and reporting therapeutic response, no such criteria exist for toxicity. We have developed comprehensive criteria for assessing and reliably reporting toxic reactions. We have reduced the degree of subjectivity in assigning grades by using primarily objective methods. An attempt has been made to standardize the "morbidity impact" of each toxicity grade irrespective of the organ system involved.
The purpose of this study was to explore the lived experiences of doctoral nursing education students who participated in a virtual mentoring program. A phenomenological design was used to enable the researchers to gain an understanding of the research phenomenon. The three patterns that emerged during the study were Confirmation of Mentoring, Building Communities, and Learning the Role of Doctoral Student. Under the pattern of Confirmation of Mentoring were the themes of Receiving Academic Support and Receiving Personal Support. Under the pattern of Building Communities were the themes of Getting to Know Mentors and Understanding the Importance of Relationships. Under the pattern of Learning of Role of Doctoral Student were the themes of Balancing Time and Learning Technology. Additional research is needed to more fully explore virtual mentoring within doctoral programs.
(1) Background: Impact factor (if) is often used as a measure of journal quality. The purpose of the present study was to determine whether trials with positive outcomes are more likely to be published in journals with higher ifs. (2) Methods: We reviewed 476 randomized phase iii cancer trials published in 13 journals between 1995 and 2005. Multivariate logistic regression models were used to investigate predictors of publication in journals with high ifs (compared with low and medium ifs). (3) Results: A positive outcome had the strongest association with publication in high-if journals [odds ratio (or): 4.13; 95% confidence interval (ci): 2.67 to 6.37; p < 0.001]. Other associated factors were a larger sample size (or: 1.06; 95% ci: 1.02 to 1.10; p = 0.001), intention-to-treat analysis (or: 2.53; 95% ci: 1.56 to 4.10; p < 0.001), North American authors (or for European authors: 0.36; 95% ci: 0.23 to 0.58; or for international authors: 0.41; 95% ci: 0.20 to 0.82; p < 0.001), adjuvant therapy trial (or: 2.58; 95% ci: 1.61 to 4.15; p < 0.001), shorter time to publication (or: 0.84; 95% ci: 0.77 to 0.92; p < 0.001), uncommon tumour type (or: 1.39; 95% ci: 0.90 to 2.13; p = 0.012), and hematologic malignancy (or: 3.15; 95% ci: 1.41 to 7.03; p = 0.012). (4) Conclusions: Cancer trials with positive outcomes are more likely to be published in journals with high ifs. Readers of medical literature should be aware of this “impact factor bias,” and investigators should be encouraged to submit reports of trials of high methodologic quality to journals with high ifs regardless of study outcomes.
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.