5 results
Peer review of clinical and translational research manuscripts: Perspectives from statistical collaborators
- Phillip J. Schulte, Judith D. Goldberg, Robert A. Oster, Walter T. Ambrosius, Lauren Balmert Bonner, Howard Cabral, Rickey E. Carter, Ye Chen, Manisha Desai, Dongmei Li, Christopher J. Lindsell, Gina-Maria Pomann, Emily Slade, Tor D. Tosteson, Fang Yu, Heidi Spratt
-
- Journal:
- Journal of Clinical and Translational Science / Volume 8 / Issue 1 / 2024
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 04 January 2024, e20
-
- Article
-
- You have access Access
- Open access
- HTML
- Export citation
-
Research articles in the clinical and translational science literature commonly use quantitative data to inform evaluation of interventions, learn about the etiology of disease, or develop methods for diagnostic testing or risk prediction of future events. The peer review process must evaluate the methodology used therein, including use of quantitative statistical methods. In this manuscript, we provide guidance for peer reviewers tasked with assessing quantitative methodology, intended to complement guidelines and recommendations that exist for manuscript authors. We describe components of clinical and translational science research manuscripts that require assessment including study design and hypothesis evaluation, sampling and data acquisition, interventions (for studies that include an intervention), measurement of data, statistical analysis methods, presentation of the study results, and interpretation of the study results. For each component, we describe what reviewers should look for and assess; how reviewers should provide helpful comments for fixable errors or omissions; and how reviewers should communicate uncorrectable and irreparable errors. We then discuss the critical concepts of transparency and acceptance/revision guidelines when communicating with responsible journal editors.
1 Quantity or quality? Comparing objective and subjective participation measures to predict quality of life in aging msTBI.
- Andrew P Cwiek, Samantha Vervoordt, Emily E Carter, Frank G Hillary
-
- Journal:
- Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society / Volume 29 / Issue s1 / November 2023
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 21 December 2023, pp. 113-114
-
- Article
-
- You have access Access
- Export citation
-
Objective:
Community reintegration and participation have been shown to be significantly correlated to improved Quality of Life (QoL) following moderate to severe traumatic brain injury (msTBI), yet these models often come with significant levels of unaccounted variability (Pierce and Hanks, 2006). Measures for community participation frequently employ objective measures of participation, such as number of outings in a week or current employment status (Migliorini et al., 2016), which may not adequately account for lifestyle differences, especially in aging populations. Less often integrated are subjective measures of an individual’s own belongingness and autonomy within the community (Heineman et al., 2011), also referred to as their participation enfranchisement (PE). The present study examines three questions pertinent to the potential clinical value of PE. First, do measures of objective participation significantly predict an individual’s PE ratings? Second, are both types of measures equally successful predictors of QoL for aging individuals with chronic-stage msTBI. Finally, would controlling for either objective or subjective integration ratings enable neurocognitive assessments to better predict QoL post injury?
Participants and Methods:41 older-adults (M= 65.32; SD= 7.51) with a history of msTBI were included (M= 12.59 years post-injury;SD= 8.29) for analysis. Subjective community integration was measured through the Participation Enfranchisement Survey. The Participation Assessment with Recombined Tools-Objective (PART-O) provided the objective measurement of participation. Quality of life was assessed through the Quality of Life after Brain Injury (QOLIBRI). An estimate of neurocognitive performance was created through the Brief Test of Adult Cognition by Telephone (BTACT), which includes six domains including: verbal-learning and memory (immediate and delayed recall), working memory (digit-span backwards), reasoning (number sequencing), semantic fluency (category fluency), and processing speed (backwards counting). Performance on the BTACT, PE ratings, and PART-O scores were included as the dependent variables in stepwise, linear regression models predicting QoL ratings to assess the differential contribution of the dependent variables and potential interaction effects.
Results:While both the PART-O (f(1,39)=5.52;p=.024,n2=.124) and the PE survey (f(1,39)=14.31 ;p<.001,n2=.268) significantly predicted QoL, the addition of PE in the PART-O model resulted in significant (20.9%) reduction in unaccounted variance. Further in the model controlling for PE, PART-O no longer provides a significant (p=.15) contribution to the model estimating QoL (f(2,38)=8.41; p=.001). Performance on the BTACT correlated with PART-O (p<.0001), but not PE (p=.13) ratings. Finally, across two models controlling for BTACT performance, PE (p=.002,partial n2=.23), but not PART-O (p=.28,partial n2=.031) contributed significantly to QoL predictions. No significant interactions between PART-O, PE, and/or BTACT were observed when added to any model.
Conclusions:MsTBI impacts nearly every facet of an individual’s life, and as such, improving QoL post-injury requires a broad, yet well-considered approach. The objective ratings of participation, subjective PE, BTACT performance, all independently predicted quality of life in this sample. However, after controlling for neurocognitive assessment performance, PE was shown to independently contribute to quality of life, while the PART-O ratings no longer provided significant contribution. While community integration is a vital factor to consider for long-term rehabilitation, tailoring what “integration” means to the patient may hold significant potential to improve long-term quality of life.
68 The Impact of Pain Catastrophizing on Neuropsychological Performance in Youth with Persistent Post Concussive Symptoms
- Emily E Carter, Jessica Bove, Aliyah Snyder, Meeryo Choe, Chris Giza, Talin Babikian, Robert Asarnow
-
- Journal:
- Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society / Volume 29 / Issue s1 / November 2023
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 21 December 2023, pp. 171-172
-
- Article
-
- You have access Access
- Export citation
-
Objective:
Patients with persistent post-concussion symptoms (PPCS) experience prolonged recovery (e.g., headache, fatigue, or dizziness) lasting >2 months post injury. These symptoms are thought to be maintained by several biopsychosocial factors including dysregulated stress responses, such as pain catastrophizing, that may drive behavioral avoidance and contribute to mood symptoms and cognitive difficulties. Conditions with similar symptomatology to PPCS (e.g., anxiety disorders, somatosensory disorders, chronic pain, etc.) also exhibit maladaptive thought patterns like pain catastrophizing as well as decrements in certain aspects of cognitive performance; however little is known about how pain catastrophizing might relate to neuropsychological performance in youth with PPCS. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between pain catastrophizing and neuropsychological performance in youth participants with PPCS.
Participants and Methods:A prospective case-control study design was used to examine 29 participants between the ages of 13 to 23. Participants were divided into two groups: 1) patients with PPCS (2-16 months post-injury; n = 15) and 2) age-matched, non-injured controls (n = 14). Participants completed the Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS) to determine degree of catastrophic thinking related to pain experience and the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI). Neuropsychological performance was assessed using the Repeatable Battery for the Assessment of Neuropsychological Status (RBANS) and a modified version of the Paced Auditory Serial Addition Test (PASAT) where performance was evaluated by total correct and error type (i.e., commission and omission) across 5 trials. ANCOVA was used to compare group differences in pain catastrophizing and neuropsychological tests scores while controlling for age and linear regressions examined the relationship between PCS total score and each neuropsychological test score while controlling for level of depression.
Results:Overall, the PPCS group reported significantly higher levels of pain catastrophizing on the PCS compared to the control group (p < 0.01). For neuropsychological performance, the PPCS group scored significantly lower than the control group on List Learning (p < 0.01), Semantic Fluency (p < 0.05), and List Recall (p < 0.01) on the RBANS and made significantly higher omission errors (but not commission) on the PASAT(p <.01). Higher pain catastrophizing was also associated with poorer neuropsychological performance on the exact same tasks the PPCS group performed worse than controls. There was no significant interaction by group in the impact of PCS scores on neurocognitive performance.
Conclusions:Compared to controls, youth PPCS patients reported higher levels of pain catastrophizing. Additionally, pain catastrophizing was associated with poorer neuropsychological performance. These findings suggest that increased pain catastrophizing after head injury could contribute to poorer cognitive performance in youth. As such, interventions that target maladaptive cognitive coping styles like pain catastrophizing may be especially helpful for patients with PPCS.
What Can State Medical Boards Do to Effectively Address Serious Ethical Violations?
- Tristan McIntosh, Elizabeth Pendo, Heidi A. Walsh, Kari A. Baldwin, Patricia King, Emily E. Anderson, Catherine V. Caldicott, Jeffrey D. Carter, Sandra H. Johnson, Katherine Mathews, William A. Norcross, Dana C. Shaffer, James M. DuBois
-
- Journal:
- Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics / Volume 51 / Issue 4 / Winter 2023
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 13 March 2024, pp. 941-953
- Print publication:
- Winter 2023
-
- Article
-
- You have access Access
- Open access
- HTML
- Export citation
-
State Medical Boards (SMBs) can take severe disciplinary actions (e.g., license revocation or suspension) against physicians who commit egregious wrongdoing in order to protect the public. However, there is noteworthy variability in the extent to which SMBs impose severe disciplinary action. In this manuscript, we present and synthesize a subset of 11 recommendations based on findings from our team’s larger consensus-building project that identified a list of 56 policies and legal provisions SMBs can use to better protect patients from egregious wrongdoing by physicians.
Contributors
-
- By Tod C. Aeby, Melanie D. Altizer, Ronan A. Bakker, Meghann E. Batten, Anita K. Blanchard, Brian Bond, Megan A. Brady, Saweda A. Bright, Ellen L. Brock, Amy Brown, Ashley Carroll, Jori S. Carter, Frances Casey, Weldon Chafe, David Chelmow, Jessica M. Ciaburri, Stephen A. Cohen, Adrianne M. Colton, PonJola Coney, Jennifer A. Cross, Julie Zemaitis DeCesare, Layson L. Denney, Megan L. Evans, Nicole S. Fanning, Tanaz R. Ferzandi, Katie P. Friday, Nancy D. Gaba, Rajiv B. Gala, Andrew Galffy, Adrienne L. Gentry, Edward J. Gill, Philippe Girerd, Meredith Gray, Amy Hempel, Audra Jolyn Hill, Chris J. Hong, Kathryn A. Houston, Patricia S. Huguelet, Warner K. Huh, Jordan Hylton, Christine R. Isaacs, Alison F. Jacoby, Isaiah M. Johnson, Nicole W. Karjane, Emily E. Landers, Susan M. Lanni, Eduardo Lara-Torre, Lee A. Learman, Nikola Alexander Letham, Rachel K. Love, Richard Scott Lucidi, Elisabeth McGaw, Kimberly Woods McMorrow, Christopher A. Manipula, Kirk J. Matthews, Michelle Meglin, Megan Metcalf, Sarah H. Milton, Gaby Moawad, Christopher Morosky, Lindsay H. Morrell, Elizabeth L. Munter, Erin L. Murata, Amanda B. Murchison, Nguyet A. Nguyen, Nan G. O’Connell, Tony Ogburn, K. Nathan Parthasarathy, Thomas C. Peng, Ashley Peterson, Sarah Peterson, John G. Pierce, Amber Price, Heidi J. Purcell, Ronald M. Ramus, Nicole Calloway Rankins, Fidelma B. Rigby, Amanda H. Ritter, Barbara L. Robinson, Danielle Roncari, Lisa Rubinsak, Jennifer Salcedo, Mary T. Sale, Peter F. Schnatz, John W. Seeds, Kathryn Shaia, Karen Shelton, Megan M. Shine, Haller J. Smith, Roger P. Smith, Nancy A. Sokkary, Reni A. Soon, Aparna Sridhar, Lilja Stefansson, Laurie S. Swaim, Chemen M. Tate, Hong-Thao Thieu, Meredith S. Thomas, L. Chesney Thompson, Tiffany Tonismae, Angela M. Tran, Breanna Walker, Alan G. Waxman, C. Nathan Webb, Valerie L. Williams, Sarah B. Wilson, Elizabeth M. Yoselevsky, Amy E. Young
- Edited by David Chelmow, Virginia Commonwealth University, Christine R. Isaacs, Virginia Commonwealth University, Ashley Carroll, Virginia Commonwealth University
-
- Book:
- Acute Care and Emergency Gynecology
- Published online:
- 05 November 2014
- Print publication:
- 30 October 2014, pp ix-xiv
-
- Chapter
- Export citation