No abstract

Summary Objectives The purpose of this evidence‐based review is to identify and describe the interventions that have been implemented to reduce waiting times for major elective surgery. Methods Scoping review and presentation of the results according to the SUPPORT tools. We searched MEDLINE/PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, SciELO, DARE‐HTA, and Google Scholar. The inclusion criteria for research design were comprehensive. Results We identified 5200 records. After eliminating duplicates and screening by title and abstract, 171 records remained for full‐text assessment, of which 12 were ultimately included for this review because they reported specific interventions and 96 records were included for further reference. The included studies show significant variability regarding elective procedures, population, and type of provider, as well as in the characteristics of the interventions and the settings. All the studies had methodological limitations. We graded the certainty of the evidence as very low. Conclusions According to the evidence found for this review, interventions most likely should be multidimensional, with prioritization strategies on the waiting lists to incorporate equity criteria, together with quality management improvements of the surgical pathways and the use of operating rooms, as well as improvements in the planning of the surgical schedule.

No abstract

IntroductionUniversity ranking systems and the publish-or-perish dictum, among other factors, are driving universities and researchers around the world to increase their research productivity. Authors frequently report multiple affiliations in published articles. It is not known if the reported institutional affiliations are real affiliations, which is when the universities have contributed substantially to the research conducted and to the published manuscript. This study aims to establish whether there is an empirical basis for author affiliation misrepresentation in authors with multiple institutional affiliations.Methods and analysisThis individual secondary data exploratory analysis on Scopus-indexed articles for 2016 will search all authors who report multiple institutional affiliations in which at least one of the affiliations is to a Chilean university. We will consider that misrepresentation of an affiliation is more likely when it is not possible to verify objectively a link between the author and the mentioned institution through institutional websites. If we cannot corroborate the author affiliation, we will consider this a finding of potential misrepresentation of the affiliation. We will summarise results with descriptive statistics.Ethics and disseminationThe study protocol was approved by the institutional ethics committee of Universidad de Santiago de Chile, Resolution No. 261, and dated January 15, 2018. Results will be submitted to the World Conference on Research Integrity, among other meetings on publication ethics and research integrity, and will be published in scientific, peer-reviewed journals.

No abstract