Mario Malički

All Publications

• Structured peer review: pilot results from 23 Elsevier journals. PeerJ Malički, M., Mehmani, B. 2024; 12: e17514

  Abstract

  Reviewers rarely comment on the same aspects of a manuscript, making it difficult to properly assess manuscripts' quality and the quality of the peer review process. The goal of this pilot study was to evaluate structured peer review implementation by: 1) exploring whether and how reviewers answered structured peer review questions, 2) analysing reviewer agreement, 3) comparing that agreement to agreement before implementation of structured peer review, and 4) further enhancing the piloted set of structured peer review questions.Structured peer review consisting of nine questions was piloted in August 2022 in 220 Elsevier journals. We randomly selected 10% of these journals across all fields and IF quartiles and included manuscripts that received two review reports in the first 2 months of the pilot, leaving us with 107 manuscripts belonging to 23 journals. Eight questions had open-ended fields, while the ninth question (on language editing) had only a yes/no option. The reviews could also leave Comments-to-Author and Comments-to-Editor. Answers were independently analysed by two raters, using qualitative methods.Almost all the reviewers (n = 196, 92%) provided answers to all questions even though these questions were not mandatory in the system. The longest answer (Md 27 words, IQR 11 to 68) was for reporting methods with sufficient details for replicability or reproducibility. The reviewers had the highest (partial) agreement (of 72%) for assessing the flow and structure of the manuscript, and the lowest (of 53%) for assessing whether interpretation of the results was supported by data, and for assessing whether the statistical analyses were appropriate and reported in sufficient detail (52%). Two thirds of the reviewers (n = 145, 68%) filled out the Comments-to-Author section, of which 105 (49%) resembled traditional peer review reports. These reports contained a Md of 4 (IQR 3 to 5) topics covered by the structured questions. Absolute agreement regarding final recommendations (exact match of recommendation choice) was 41%, which was higher than what those journals had in the period from 2019 to 2021 (31% agreement, P = 0.0275).Our preliminary results indicate that reviewers successfully adapted to the new review format, and that they covered more topics than in their traditional reports. Individual question analysis indicated the greatest disagreement regarding the interpretation of the results and the conducting and the reporting of statistical analyses. While structured peer review did lead to improvement in reviewer final recommendation agreements, this was not a randomized trial, and further studies should be performed to corroborate this. Further research is also needed to determine whether structured peer review leads to greater knowledge transfer or better improvement of manuscripts.

  View details for DOI 10.7717/peerj.17514

  View details for PubMedID 38948202

  View details for PubMedCentralID PMC11212644

• Structure peer review to make it more robust NATURE Malicki, M. 2024; 628 (8008): 476

  View details for DOI 10.1038/d41586-024-01101-9

  View details for Web of Science ID 001204955900007

  View details for PubMedID 38627512

• Automatically listing senior members of departments as co-authors is highly prevalent in health sciences: meta-analysis of survey research. Scientific reports Meursinge Reynders, R. A., Cavagnetto, D., Ter Riet, G., Di Girolamo, N., Malički, M. 2024; 14 (1): 5883

  Abstract

  A systematic review with meta-analysis was conducted to assess the prevalence of automatically listing (a) senior member(s) of a department as co-author(s) on all submitted articles in health sciences and the prevalence of degrees of support on a 5-point justification scale. Survey research was searched in PubMed, Lens.org, and Dimensions.ai. until January 5 2023. We assessed the methodological quality of studies and conducted quantitative syntheses. We identified 15 eligible surveys, that provided 67 results, all of which were rated as having low quality. A pooled estimate of 20% [95% CI 16-25] (10 surveys, 3619 respondents) of researchers in various health sciences reported that a senior member of their department was automatically listed as an author on all submitted articles. Furthermore, 28% [95% CI 22-34] of researchers (10 surveys, 2180 respondents) felt that this practice was 'never', 24% [95% CI 22-27] 'rarely', 25% [95% CI 23-28] 'sometimes', 13% [95% CI 9-17] 'most of the time', and 8% [95% CI 6-9] 'always justified'. The practice of automatically assigning senior members of departments as co-authors on all submitted manuscripts may be common in the health sciences; with those admitting to this practice finding it unjustified in most cases.Registration of the protocol The protocol was registered in Open Science Framework. Link: https://osf.io/4eywp/ .

  View details for DOI 10.1038/s41598-024-55966-x

  View details for PubMedID 38467762

  View details for PubMedCentralID 8978359

• Honorary authorship is highly prevalent in health sciences: systematic review and meta-analysis of surveys. Scientific reports Meursinge Reynders, R. A., Ter Riet, G., Di Girolamo, N., Cavagnetto, D., Malicki, M. 2024; 14 (1): 4385

  Abstract

  A systematic review and meta-analysis of survey research was conducted to estimate honorary authorship prevalence in health sciences. We searched PubMed, Lens.org, and Dimensions.ai. until January 5 2023. Methodological quality was assessed and quantitative syntheses were conducted. Nineteen surveys were included and rated as having low methodological quality. We found a pooled prevalence of 26% [95% CI 21-31] (6 surveys, 2758 respondents) of researchers that perceived co-author(s) as honorary on the publication at issue (when they were not referred to any authorship criteria). That prevalence was 18% [95% CI 15-21] (11 surveys, 4272 respondents) when researchers were referred to Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) authorship criteria, and 51% [95% CI 47-56] (15 surveys, 5111 respondents) when researchers were asked to declare their co-author(s) contributions on the publication at issue (and these were then compared to ICMJE criteria). 10% of researchers [95% CI 9-12] (11 surveys, 3,663 respondents) reported being approached by others to include honorary author(s) on the publication at issue and 16% [95% CI 13-18] (2 surveys, 823 respondents) admitted adding (an) honorary author(s). Survey research consistently indicates that honorary authorship in the health sciences is highly prevalent, however the quality of the surveys' methods and reporting needs improvement.

  View details for DOI 10.1038/s41598-024-54909-w

  View details for PubMedID 38388672

• A guide for social science journal editors on easing into open science. Research integrity and peer review Silverstein, P., Elman, C., Montoya, A., McGillivray, B., Pennington, C. R., Harrison, C. H., Steltenpohl, C. N., Röer, J. P., Corker, K. S., Charron, L. M., Elsherif, M., Malicki, M., Hayes-Harb, R., Grinschgl, S., Neal, T., Evans, T. R., Karhulahti, V. M., Krenzer, W. L., Belaus, A., Moreau, D., Burin, D. I., Chin, E., Plomp, E., Mayo-Wilson, E., Lyle, J., Adler, J. M., Bottesini, J. G., Lawson, K. M., Schmidt, K., Reneau, K., Vilhuber, L., Waltman, L., Gernsbacher, M. A., Plonski, P. E., Ghai, S., Grant, S., Christian, T. M., Ngiam, W., Syed, M. 2024; 9 (1): 2

  Abstract

  Journal editors have a large amount of power to advance open science in their respective fields by incentivising and mandating open policies and practices at their journals. The Data PASS Journal Editors Discussion Interface (JEDI, an online community for social science journal editors: www.dpjedi.org ) has collated several resources on embedding open science in journal editing ( www.dpjedi.org/resources ). However, it can be overwhelming as an editor new to open science practices to know where to start. For this reason, we created a guide for journal editors on how to get started with open science. The guide outlines steps that editors can take to implement open policies and practices within their journal, and goes through the what, why, how, and worries of each policy and practice. This manuscript introduces and summarizes the guide (full guide: https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/hstcx ).

  View details for DOI 10.1186/s41073-023-00141-5

  View details for PubMedID 38360805

  View details for PubMedCentralID PMC10870631

• Research rigor and reproducibility in research education: A CTSA institutional survey. Journal of clinical and translational science Axfors, C., Malički, M., Goodman, S. N. 2024; 8 (1): e45

  Abstract

  We assessed the rigor and reproducibility (R&R) activities of institutions funded by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCTSA) through a survey and website search (N = 61). Of 50 institutional responses, 84% reported incorporating some form of R&R training, 68% reported devoted R&R training, 30% monitored R&R practices, and 10% incentivized them. Website searches revealed 9 (15%) freely available training curricula, and 7 (11%) institutional programs specifically created to enhance R&R. NCATS should formally integrate R&R principles into its translational science models and institutional requirements.

  View details for DOI 10.1017/cts.2024.10

  View details for PubMedID 38476247

  View details for PubMedCentralID PMC10928701

• Characterization of Comments About bioRxiv and medRxiv Preprints. JAMA network open Carneiro, C. F., da Costa, G. G., Neves, K., Abreu, M. B., Tan, P. B., Rayee, D., Boos, F. Z., Andrejew, R., Lubiana, T., Malicki, M., Amaral, O. B. 2023; 6 (8): e2331410

  Abstract

  Importance: Preprints have been increasingly used in biomedical science, and a key feature of many platforms is public commenting. The content of these comments, however, has not been well studied, and it is unclear whether they resemble those found in journal peer review.Objective: To describe the content of comments on the bioRxiv and medRxiv preprint platforms.Design, Setting, and Participants: In this cross-sectional study, preprints posted on the bioRxiv and medRxiv platforms in 2020 were accessed through each platform's application programming interface on March 29, 2021, and a random sample of preprints containing between 1 and 20 comments was evaluated independently by 3 evaluators using an instrument to assess their features and general content.Main Outcome and Measures: The numbers and percentages of comments from authors or nonauthors were assessed, and the comments from nonauthors were assessed for content. These nonauthor comments were assessed to determine whether they included compliments, criticisms, corrections, suggestions, or questions, as well as their topics (eg, relevance, interpretation, and methods). Nonauthor comments were also analyzed to determine whether they included references, provided a summary of the findings, or questioned the preprint's conclusions.Results: Of 52 736 preprints, 3850 (7.3%) received at least 1 comment (mean [SD] follow-up, 7.5 [3.6] months), and the 1921 assessed comments (from 1037 preprints) had a median length of 43 words (range, 1-3172 words). The criticisms, corrections, or suggestions present in 694 of 1125 comments (61.7%) were the most prevalent content, followed by compliments (n=428 [38.0%]) and questions (n=393 [35.0%]). Criticisms usually regarded interpretation (n=286), methodological design (n=267), and data collection (n=238), while compliments were mainly about relevance (n=111) and implications (n=72).Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study of preprint comments, topics commonly associated with journal peer review were frequent. However, only a small percentage of preprints posted on the bioRxiv and medRxiv platforms in 2020 received comments on these platforms. A clearer taxonomy of peer review roles would help to describe whether postpublication peer review fulfills them.

  View details for DOI 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.31410

  View details for PubMedID 37647065

• Transparency in conducting and reporting research: A survey of authors, reviewers, and editors across scholarly disciplines. PloS one Malicki, M., Aalbersberg, I. J., Bouter, L., Mulligan, A., Ter Riet, G. 2023; 18 (3): e0270054

  Abstract

  Calls have been made for improving transparency in conducting and reporting research, improving work climates, and preventing detrimental research practices. To assess attitudes and practices regarding these topics, we sent a survey to authors, reviewers, and editors. We received 3,659 (4.9%) responses out of 74,749 delivered emails. We found no significant differences between authors', reviewers', and editors' attitudes towards transparency in conducting and reporting research, or towards their perceptions of work climates. Undeserved authorship was perceived by all groups as the most prevalent detrimental research practice, while fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, and not citing prior relevant research, were seen as more prevalent by editors than authors or reviewers. Overall, 20% of respondents admitted sacrificing the quality of their publications for quantity, and 14% reported that funders interfered in their study design or reporting. While survey respondents came from 126 different countries, due to the survey's overall low response rate our results might not necessarily be generalizable. Nevertheless, results indicate that greater involvement of all stakeholders is needed to align actual practices with current recommendations.

  View details for DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0270054

  View details for PubMedID 36888682

• Statistical Guidance to Authors at Top-Ranked Journals across Scientific Disciplines AMERICAN STATISTICIAN Hardwicke, T. E., Salholz-Hillel, M., Malicki, M., Szucs, D., Bendixen, T., Ioannidis, J. A. 2022

  View details for DOI 10.1080/00031305.2022.2143897

  View details for Web of Science ID 000892943900001

• Honorary authorship in health sciences: a protocol for a systematic review of survey research. Systematic reviews Meursinge Reynders, R., Ter Riet, G., Di Girolamo, N., Malički, M. 2022; 11 (1): 57

  Abstract

  Honorary authorship refers to the practice of naming an individual who has made little or no contribution to a publication as an author. Honorary authorship inflates the output estimates of honorary authors and deflates the value of the work by authors who truly merit authorship. This manuscript presents the protocol for a systematic review that will assess the prevalence of five honorary authorship issues in health sciences.Surveys of authors of scientific publications in health sciences that assess prevalence estimates will be eligible. No selection criteria will be set for the time point for measuring outcomes, the setting, the language of the publication, and the publication status. Eligible manuscripts are searched from inception onwards in PubMed, Lens.org , and Dimensions.ai. Two calibrated authors will independently search, determine eligibility of manuscripts, and conduct data extraction. The quality of each review outcome for each eligible manuscript will be assessed with a 14-item checklist developed and piloted for this review. Data will be qualitatively synthesized and quantitative syntheses will be performed where feasible. Criteria for precluding quantitative syntheses were defined a priori. The pooled random effects double arcsine transformed summary event rates of five outcomes on honorary authorship issues with the pertinent 95% confidence intervals will be calculated if these criteria are met. Summary estimates will be displayed after back-transformation. Stata software (Stata Corporation, College Station, TX, USA) version 16 will be used for all statistical analyses. Statistical heterogeneity will be assessed using Tau2 and Chi2 tests and I2 to quantify inconsistency.The outcomes of the planned systematic review will give insights in the magnitude of honorary authorship in health sciences and could direct new research studies to develop and implement strategies to address this problem. However, the validity of the outcomes could be influenced by low response rates, inadequate research design, weighting issues, and recall bias in the eligible surveys.This protocol was registered a priori in the Open Science Framework (OSF) link: https://osf.io/5nvar/ .

  View details for DOI 10.1186/s13643-022-01928-1

  View details for PubMedID 35379330

  View details for PubMedCentralID PMC8978359

• Predictors of academic progression and desire to continue education for undergraduate and graduate nursing students: Cross-sectional study and a nested follow-up study. Nurse education today Bokan, I., Buljan, I., Marusic, M., Malicki, M., Civljak, M., Marusic, A. 2022; 111: 105274

  Abstract

  BACKGROUND: There is conflicting evidence on predictors of nursing degree completion. Identification of predictors of student desire to continue their education could be important in developing strategies for encouraging and supporting students to complete their university-level nursing education.AIM: To explore the factors associated with the enrollment in the first graduate year of nursing studies, progression from the first to the third year of university undergraduate nursing study, and the desire of third-year undergraduate students to continue nursing education at the graduate level.PARTICIPANTS AND METHODS: A cross-sectional study involving 351 first- and third-year undergraduate and first-year graduate nursing students from three cohorts of the University of Split Department of Health Studies and one generation of first- and third-year undergraduate nursing students from the Catholic University of Croatia, Zagreb. We collected sociodemographic data on the participants, their opinions about their education, and scores on nine psychological questionnaires: performance self-efficacy, academic self-efficacy, perseverance, attitudes towards science, self-respect, motivation, dispositional hope, future time perspective, and perceived personal incompetence.RESULTS: More than half of third-year undergraduate students wanted to continue their nursing studies at the graduate level, but they did not progress to the graduate degree studies immediately after finishing their undergraduate studies. None of the assessed characteristics predicted the desire of the final undergraduate year students to continue nursing education at the graduate level. In a nested follow-up study of a cohort of undergraduate students, we observed an increase in student attitudes towards science, extrinsic and intrinsic motivation, future orientation, and a decrease in perceived personal incompetence.CONCLUSION: Our results demonstrate that immediate progression to graduate level of nursing education, although perceived as desired, is not achieved by undergraduate nursing students. Interventions focusing on motivation, future orientation, and personal competence need to be explored as a way to promote academic progression in nursing.

  View details for DOI 10.1016/j.nedt.2022.105274

  View details for PubMedID 35276537

• Systematic review and meta-analyses of studies analysing instructions to authors from 1987 to 2017 NATURE COMMUNICATIONS Malicki, M., Jeroncic, A., Aalbersberg, I. J., Bouter, L., ter Riet, G. 2021; 12 (1): 5840

  Abstract

  To gain insight into changes of scholarly journals' recommendations, we conducted a systematic review of studies that analysed journals' Instructions to Authors (ItAs). We summarised results of 153 studies, and meta-analysed how often ItAs addressed: 1) authorship, 2) conflicts of interest, 3) data sharing, 4) ethics approval, 5) funding disclosure, and 6) International Committee of Medical Journal Editors' Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts. For each topic we found large between-study heterogeneity. Here, we show six factors that explained most of that heterogeneity: 1) time (addressing of topics generally increased over time), 2) country (large differences found between countries), 3) database indexation (large differences found between databases), 4) impact factor (topics were more often addressed in highest than in lowest impact factor journals), 5) discipline (topics were more often addressed in Health Sciences than in other disciplines), and 6) sub-discipline (topics were more often addressed in general than in sub-disciplinary journals).

  View details for DOI 10.1038/s41467-021-26027-y

  View details for Web of Science ID 000704007700019

  View details for PubMedID 34611157

  View details for PubMedCentralID PMC8492806

• Toward Assessing Clinical Trial Publications for Reporting Transparency. Journal of biomedical informatics Kilicoglu, H., Rosemblat, G., Hoang, L., Wadhwa, S., Peng, Z., Malicki, M., Schneider, J., Riet, G. T. 2021: 103717

  Abstract

  OBJECTIVE: To annotate a corpus of randomized controlled trial (RCT) publications with the checklist items of CONSORT reporting guidelines and using the corpus to develop text mining methods for RCT appraisal.METHODS: We annotated a corpus of 50 RCT articles at the sentence level using 37 fine-grained CONSORT checklist items. A subset (31 articles) was double-annotated and adjudicated, while 19 were annotated by a single annotator and reconciled by another. We calculated inter-annotator agreement at the article and section level using MASI (Measuring Agreement on Set-Valued Items) and at the CONSORT item level using Krippendorff's alpha. We experimented with two rule-based methods (phrase-based and section header-based) and two supervised learning approaches (support vector machine and BioBERT-based neural network classifiers), for recognizing 17 methodology-related items in the RCT Methods sections.RESULTS: We created CONSORT-TM consisting of 10,709 sentences, 4,845 (45%) of which were annotated with 5,246 labels. A median of 28 CONSORT items (out of possible 37) were annotated per article. Agreement was moderate at the article and section levels (average MASI: 0.60 and 0.64, respectively). Agreement varied considerably among individual checklist items (Krippendorff's alpha= 0.06-0.96). The model based on BioBERT performed best overall for recognizing methodology-related items (micro-precision: 0.82, micro-recall: 0.63, micro-F1: 0.71). Combining models using majority vote and label aggregation further improved precision and recall, respectively.CONCLUSION: Our annotated corpus, CONSORT-TM, contains more fine-grained information than earlier RCT corpora. Low frequency of some CONSORT items made it difficult to train effective text mining models to recognize them. For the items commonly reported, CONSORT-TM can serve as a testbed for text mining methods that assess RCT transparency, rigor, and reliability, and support methods for peer review and authoring assistance. Minor modifications to the annotation scheme and a larger corpus could facilitate improved text mining models. CONSORT-TM is publicly available at https://github.com/kilicogluh/CONSORT-TM.

  View details for DOI 10.1016/j.jbi.2021.103717

  View details for PubMedID 33647518

• Analysis of single comments left for bioRxiv preprints till September 2019. Biochemia medica Malički, M. n., Costello, J. n., Alperin, J. P., Maggio, L. A. 2021; 31 (2): 020201

  Abstract

  While early commenting on studies is seen as one of the advantages of preprints, the type of such comments, and the people who post them, have not been systematically explored.We analysed comments posted between 21 May 2015 and 9 September 2019 for 1983 bioRxiv preprints that received only one comment on the bioRxiv website. The comment types were classified by three coders independently, with all differences resolved by consensus.Our analysis showed that 69% of comments were posted by non-authors (N = 1366), and 31% by the preprints' authors themselves (N = 617). Twelve percent of non-author comments (N = 168) were full review reports traditionally found during journal review, while the rest most commonly contained praises (N = 577, 42%), suggestions (N = 399, 29%), or criticisms (N = 226, 17%). Authors' comments most commonly contained publication status updates (N = 354, 57%), additional study information (N = 158, 26%), or solicited feedback for the preprints (N = 65, 11%).Our results indicate that comments posted for bioRxiv preprints may have potential benefits for both the public and the scholarly community. Further research is needed to measure the direct impact of these comments on comments made by journal peer reviewers, subsequent preprint versions or journal publications.

  View details for DOI 10.11613/BM.2021.020201

  View details for PubMedID 33927548

  View details for PubMedCentralID PMC8047782

• Attitudes and practices of open data, preprinting, and peer-review-A cross sectional study on Croatian scientists. PloS one Bazdaric, K., Vrkic, I., Arh, E., Mavrinac, M., Gligora Markovic, M., Bilic-Zulle, L., Stojanovski, J., Malicki, M. 2021; 16 (6): e0244529

  Abstract

  Attitudes towards open peer review, open data and use of preprints influence scientists' engagement with those practices. Yet there is a lack of validated questionnaires that measure these attitudes. The goal of our study was to construct and validate such a questionnaire and use it to assess attitudes of Croatian scientists. We first developed a 21-item questionnaire called Attitudes towards Open data sharing, preprinting, and peer-review (ATOPP), which had a reliable four-factor structure, and measured attitudes towards open data, preprint servers, open peer-review and open peer-review in small scientific communities. We then used the ATOPP to explore attitudes of Croatian scientists (n = 541) towards these topics, and to assess the association of their attitudes with their open science practices and demographic information. Overall, Croatian scientists' attitudes towards these topics were generally neutral, with a median (Md) score of 3.3 out of max 5 on the scale score. We also found no gender (P = 0.995) or field differences (P = 0.523) in their attitudes. However, attitudes of scientist who previously engaged in open peer-review or preprinting were higher than of scientists that did not (Md 3.5 vs. 3.3, P<0.001, and Md 3.6 vs 3.3, P<0.001, respectively). Further research is needed to determine optimal ways of increasing scientists' attitudes and their open science practices.

  View details for DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0244529

  View details for PubMedID 34153041

• Is the quality of reviews reflected in editors' and authors' satisfaction with peer review? A cross-sectional study in 12 journals across four research fields LEARNED PUBLISHING Pranic, S. M., Malicki, M., Marusic, S., Mehmani, B., Marusic, A. 2021; 34 (2): 187-197

  View details for DOI 10.1002/leap.1344

  View details for Web of Science ID 000587315800001

• Predictors of academic success and aspirations in secondary nursing education: A cross-sectional study in Croatia NURSE EDUCATION TODAY Bokan, I., Buljan, I., Marusic, M., Malicki, M., Marusic, A. 2020; 88: 104370

  Abstract

  Academic success of students in nursing education is an issue causing concern in many parts of the world because of the shortage of nurses in the labour market, versatility of the educational programs and status of the students during studies and after graduation.To determine the predictors of academic success and educational aspirations of secondary nursing school students to enrol in higher education programs.This cross-sectional study included 312 students (92.6% response rate) from the Health School in Split, Croatia, enrolled in nursing program in 2015/2016. Besides sociodemographic data and grade point average (GPA), we collected data using 9 instruments: performance self-efficacy, academic self-efficacy, perseverance, attitudes towards science, self-respect, motivation, dispositional hope, future time perspective, and perceived personal incompetence.In a linear regression analysis, performance self-efficacy (β = 0.38) and future time orientation (β = 0.19) proved to be significant predictors of current GPA, explaining 20% of the variance. In logistic regression, participants' aspiration to enrol in higher education rather than get employed after secondary school graduation was predicted by higher extrinsic motivation (odds ratio (OR) = 1.11, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.06 to 1.17) and higher performance self-efficacy (OR = 3.06, 95% CI = 1.62 to 5.77); explaining approximately 26% of the variance in the results.Performance self-efficacy and future time orientation were the main predictors of academic success of Croatian nursing students at the secondary education level. Higher performance self-efficacy and extrinsic motivation were associated with aspirations to continue university education.

  View details for DOI 10.1016/j.nedt.2020.104370

  View details for Web of Science ID 000528252100018

  View details for PubMedID 32120087

• The effect of a combined intervention on exclusive breastfeeding in primiparas: A randomised controlled trial MATERNAL AND CHILD NUTRITION Puharic, D., Malicki, M., Borovac, J., Sparac, V., Poljak, B., Aracic, N., Marinovic, N., Luetic, N., Zakarija-Grkovic, I. 2020; 16 (3): e12948

  Abstract

  An antenatal/postnatal intervention involving proactive telephone support and written materials was conducted among primiparas. Four hundred women, from the Split-Dalmatia County, Croatia, were randomized between November 2013 and December 2016 into three groups: intervention (IG), active control (ACG) and standard care (SCG). Primary outcome was exclusive breastfeeding (EBF) at 3 months. Secondary outcomes included breastfeeding difficulties, attitudes towards infant feeding, breastfeeding self-efficacy and social support. Practice staff were blinded to group allocation. Of 400 women, 45 (11%) were lost to follow-up, and final analyses were conducted on 129 (IG), 103 (ACG) and 123 (SCG) participants. EBF rates at 3 months were significantly higher for the IG (odds ratio [OR] 4.6, 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.7 to 8.1; EBF 81%) as well as at 6 months (OR 15.7, 95% CI, 9.1 to 27.1; EBF 64%) compared with SCG (EBF 47% at 3 months and 3% at 6 months). Higher rates were also observed for the ACG at 3 months (OR 2.2, 95% CI, 1.3 to 3.8, EBF 68%) and 6 months (OR 2.3, 95% CI, 1.4 to 3.9, EBF 16%). Participants in the IG had the highest increase in positive attitudes towards infant feeding, in comparison to baseline, and significantly higher breastfeeding self-efficacy. Participants in SCG experienced significantly more breastfeeding difficulties, both at 3 and 6 months, in comparison to AC and IGs. Written breastfeeding materials and proactive telephone support among primiparas are an effective means of increasing breastfeeding rates, decreasing breastfeeding difficulties and improving self-efficacy and attitudes towards infant feeding.

  View details for DOI 10.1111/mcn.12948

  View details for Web of Science ID 000506835700001

  View details for PubMedID 31943761

  View details for PubMedCentralID PMC7296797

• Preprint Servers' Policies, Submission Requirements, and Transparency in Reporting and Research Integrity Recommendations. JAMA Malicki, M., Jeroncic, A., Ter Riet, G., Bouter, L. M., Ioannidis, J. P., Goodman, S. N., Aalbersberg, I. J. 2020; 324 (18): 1901–3

  View details for DOI 10.1001/jama.2020.17195

  View details for PubMedID 33170231

• The worldwide clinical trial research response to the COVID-19 pandemic - the first 100 days. F1000Research Janiaud, P., Axfors, C., Van't Hooft, J., Saccilotto, R., Agarwal, A., Appenzeller-Herzog, C., Contopoulos-Ioannidis, D. G., Danchev, V., Dirnagl, U., Ewald, H., Gartlehner, G., Goodman, S. N., Haber, N. A., Ioannidis, A. D., Ioannidis, J. P., Lythgoe, M. P., Ma, W., Macleod, M., Malicki, M., Meerpohl, J. J., Min, Y., Moher, D., Nagavci, B., Naudet, F., Pauli-Magnus, C., O'Sullivan, J. W., Riedel, N., Roth, J. A., Sauermann, M., Schandelmaier, S., Schmitt, A. M., Speich, B., Williamson, P. R., Hemkens, L. G. 2020; 9: 1193

  Abstract

  Background: Never before have clinical trials drawn as much public attention as those testing interventions for COVID-19. We aimed to describe the worldwide COVID-19 clinical research response and its evolution over the first 100 days of the pandemic. Methods: Descriptive analysis of planned, ongoing or completed trials by April 9, 2020 testing any intervention to treat or prevent COVID-19, systematically identified in trial registries, preprint servers, and literature databases. A survey was conducted of all trials to assess their recruitment status up to July 6, 2020. Results: Most of the 689 trials (overall target sample size 396,366) were small (median sample size 120; interquartile range [IQR] 60-300) but randomized (75.8%; n=522) and were often conducted in China (51.1%; n=352) or the USA (11%; n=76). 525 trials (76.2%) planned to include 155,571 hospitalized patients, and 25 (3.6%) planned to include 96,821 health-care workers. Treatments were evaluated in 607 trials (88.1%), frequently antivirals (n=144) or antimalarials (n=112); 78 trials (11.3%) focused on prevention, including 14 vaccine trials. No trial investigated social distancing. Interventions tested in 11 trials with >5,000 participants were also tested in 169 smaller trials (median sample size 273; IQR 90-700). Hydroxychloroquine alone was investigated in 110 trials. While 414 trials (60.0%) expected completion in 2020, only 35 trials (4.1%; 3,071 participants) were completed by July 6. Of 112 trials with detailed recruitment information, 55 had recruited <20% of the targeted sample; 27 between 20-50%; and 30 over 50% (median 14.8% [IQR 2.0-62.0%]). Conclusions: The size and speed of the COVID-19 clinical trials agenda is unprecedented. However, most trials were small investigating a small fraction of treatment options. The feasibility of this research agenda is questionable, and many trials may end in futility, wasting research resources. Much better coordination is needed to respond to global health threats.

  View details for DOI 10.12688/f1000research.26707.1

  View details for PubMedID 33082937

• Journals' instructions to authors: A cross-sectional study across scientific disciplines PLOS ONE Malicki, M., Aalbersberg, I. J., Bouter, L., ter Riet, G. 2019; 14 (9): e0222157

  Abstract

  In light of increasing calls for transparent reporting of research and prevention of detrimental research practices, we conducted a cross-sectional machine-assisted analysis of a representative sample of scientific journals' instructions to authors (ItAs) across all disciplines. We investigated addressing of 19 topics related to transparency in reporting and research integrity. Only three topics were addressed in more than one third of ItAs: conflicts of interest, plagiarism, and the type of peer review the journal employs. Health and Life Sciences journals, journals published by medium or large publishers, and journals registered in the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) were more likely to address many of the analysed topics, while Arts & Humanities journals were least likely to do so. Despite the recent calls for transparency and integrity in research, our analysis shows that most scientific journals need to update their ItAs to align them with practices which prevent detrimental research practices and ensure transparent reporting of research.

  View details for DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0222157

  View details for Web of Science ID 000532084200037

  View details for PubMedID 31487331

  View details for PubMedCentralID PMC6728033

• Correcting duplicate publications: follow up study of MEDLINE tagged duplications BIOCHEMIA MEDICA Malicki, M., Utrobicic, A., Marusic, A. 2019; 29 (1): 010201

  Abstract

  As MEDLINE indexers tag similar articles as duplicates even when journals have not addressed the duplication(s), we sought to determine the reasons behind the tagged duplications, and if the journals had undertaken or had planned to undertake any actions to address them.On 16 January 2013, we extracted all tagged duplicate publications (DPs), analysed published notices, and then contacted MEDLINE and editors regarding cases unaddressed by notices. For non-respondents, we compared full text of the articles. We followed up the study for the next 5 years to see if any changes occurred.We found 1011 indexed DPs, which represented 555 possible DP cases (in MEDLINE, both the original and the duplicate are assigned a DP tag). Six cases were excluded as we could not obtain their full text. Additional 190 (35%) cases were incorrectly tagged as DPs. Of 359 actual cases of DPs, 200 (54%) were due to publishers' actions (e.g. identical publications in the same journal), and 159 (46%) due to authors' actions (e.g. article submission to more than one journal). Of the 359 cases, 185 (52%) were addressed by notices, but only 25 (7%) retracted. Following our notifications, MEDLINE corrected 138 (73%) incorrectly tagged cases, and editors retracted 8 articles.Despite clear policies on how to handle DPs, just half (54%) of the DPs in MEDLINE were addressed by journals and only 9% retracted. Publishers, editors, and indexers need to develop and implement standards for better correction of duplicate published records.

  View details for DOI 10.11613/BM.2019.010201

  View details for Web of Science ID 000460477100002

  View details for PubMedID 30591809

  View details for PubMedCentralID PMC6294161

• Perceptions of Ethical Climate and Research Pressures in Different Faculties of a University: Cross-Sectional Study at the University of Split, Croatia SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING ETHICS Malicki, M., Katavic, V., Markovic, D., Marusic, M., Marusic, A. 2019; 25 (1): 231-245

  Abstract

  We determined the prevailing ethical climate at three different schools of a single university, in order to explore possible differences in the ethical climate related to different research fields: the School of Electrical Engineering, Mechanical Engineering, and Naval Architecture; the School of Humanities and Social Sciences; and the School of Medicine. We used the Ethical Climate Questionnaire to survey the staff (teachers and administration) at the three schools, and used the research integrity and organizational climate (RIOC) survey for early-stage researchers at the three schools. The dominant ethical climate type perceived collectively at the three university schools (response rate 49%, n = 294) was Laws and professional codes, which is associated with the cosmopolitan level of analysis and the ethical construct of principle. Individually, the same climate predominated at the schools for engineering and humanities, but the School of Medicine had the Self-interest ethical climate, which is associated with the individual level of analysis and the egoism ethical construct. In the RIOC survey (response rate 85%; n = 70), early-stage researchers from the three university schools did not differ in their perceptions of the organizational research integrity climate, or in their perceived individual, group or organizational pressures. Our study is the first, to the best of our knowledge, to show differences in perceived ethical climate at a medical school compared to other schools at a university. Further studies are needed to explore the reasons for these differences and how they translate to organizational outcomes, such as job satisfaction, commitment to the institution and dysfunctional behaviour, including research misconduct.

  View details for DOI 10.1007/s11948-017-9987-y

  View details for Web of Science ID 000461310400013

  View details for PubMedID 29071571

  View details for PubMedCentralID PMC6418058

• Effectiveness of treatment of newly diagnosed hypertension in family medicine practices in South Croatia BMC FAMILY PRACTICE Juric, D., Pavlicevic, I., Marusic, A., Malicki, M., Buljan, I., Sarotic, V., Mrduljas-Dujic, N., Komparak, A., Vujevic, M., De Micheli-Vitturi, D., Susnjar, P., Puljiz, T., Jercic, M., Leskur, D., Marusic, M. 2019; 20: 10

  Abstract

  Uncontrolled blood pressure remains an urgent issue in clinical practice worldwide. This study aimed to compare the characteristics and effectiveness of hypertension control in family medicine pratice in the first treatment year, in relation to the geographical position, socio-economic standard, and access to medical services and public pharmacies in urban, rural and island environments (city of Split vs. Dalmatian Hinterland vs. islands in Southern Croatia).A historical cohort study included 213 patients diagnosed from 2008 to 2014 with essential arterial hypertension (AH) and without related complications or diabetes mellitus. Each patient was followed up for 365 days from the visit when the diagnosis of hypertension was ascertained. Normotension was defined as arterial pressure < 140/90 mmHg. The annual cost of drugs prescribed for treating newly diagnosed hypertensive patient and the total price for defined daily dose per patient were also evaluated.More than half patients achieved normotension within a year from the initial diagnosis in all family medicine practices (57.3%), without significant differences among the three geographic regions (P = 0.981). Higher initial systolic blood pressure was a positive predictive prognostic factor on achieveing normotension (odds ratio (OR) 0.96, 95% confidence interval 0.95-0.98). ACE inhibitors were the most commonly prescribed antihypertensive agents in monotherapy (35.1%), as well as considering overall prescriptions (25.2%). Calcium channel blockers were the most commonly prescribed initial BP-lowering single agents in urban areas (28.6%), whereas angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors were more common in rural (28.0%) and island areas (22.7%) (P = 0.037). The median annual antihypertensive drug cost was 169.4 (95% CI 151.5-201.8) Croatian kunas and was similar across the study sites.Multiple antihypertensive drugs, prescribed in accordance with the guidelines, lead to similar pharmacological effects. Primary care physicians seem to be able to overcome potential interfering socio-economic factors and successfully achieve normotension in newly diagnosed patients with uncomplicated AH after 1 year of treatment.

  View details for DOI 10.1186/s12875-019-0902-2

  View details for Web of Science ID 000455578800001

  View details for PubMedID 30642264

  View details for PubMedCentralID PMC6330736

• Frequency and format of clinical trial results dissemination to patients: a survey of authors of trials indexed in PubMed. BMJ open Schroter, S. n., Price, A. n., Malički, M. n., Richards, T. n., Clarke, M. n. 2019; 9 (10): e032701

  Abstract

  Dissemination of research findings is central to research integrity and promoting discussion of new knowledge and its potential for translation into practice and policy. We investigated the frequency and format of dissemination to trial participants and patient groups.Survey of authors of clinical trials indexed in PubMed in 2014-2015.Questionnaire emailed to 19 321 authors; 3127 responses received (16%). Of these 3127 trials, 2690 had human participants and 1818 enrolled individual patients. Among the 1818, 498 authors (27%) reported having disseminated results to participants, 238 (13%) planned to do so, 600 (33%) did not plan to, 176 (10%) were unsure and 306 (17%) indicated 'other' or did not answer. Of the 498 authors who had disseminated, 198 (40%) shared academic reports, 252 (51%) shared lay reports, 111 (22%) shared both and 164 (33%) provided individualised study results. Of the 1818 trials, 577 authors (32%) shared/planned to share results with patients outside their trial by direct contact with charities/patient groups, 401 (22%) via patient communities, 845 (46%) via presentations at conferences with patient representation, 494 (27%) via mainstream media and 708 (39%) by online lay summaries. Relatively few of the 1818 authors reported dissemination was suggested by institutional bodies: 314 (17%) of funders reportedly suggested dissemination to trial participants, 252 (14%) to patient groups; 333 (18%) of ethical review boards reportedly suggested dissemination to trial participants, 148 (8%) to patient groups. Authors described many barriers to dissemination.Fewer than half the respondents had disseminated to participants (or planned to) and only half of those who had disseminated shared lay reports. Motivation to disseminate results to participants appears to arise within research teams rather than being incentivised by institutional bodies. Multiple factors need to be considered and various steps taken to facilitate wide dissemination of research to participants.

  View details for DOI 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-032701

  View details for PubMedID 31636111

• How to choose an evidence-based medicine knowledge test for medical students? Comparison of three knowledge measures BMC MEDICAL EDUCATION Buljan, I., Jeroncic, A., Malicki, M., Marusic, M., Marusic, A. 2018; 18: 290

  Abstract

  There are a few studies of alignment between different knowledge-indices for evidence-based medicine (EBM). The aim of this study was to investigate whether the type of test used to assess knowledge of EBM affects the estimation of this knowledge in medical students.Medical students enrolled in 1-week EBM course were tested with the Fresno, Berlin, and ACE tests at the beginning and the end of the course. We evaluated the ability of these tests to detect a change in the acquired level of EBM knowledge and compared the estimates of change with those of the Control group that was tested with the ACE and Berlin tests before and after an unrelated non-EBM course. The distributions of test scores and average item difficulty indices were compared among the tests and the groups.Test scores improved on all three tests when compared with their pre-test results and the control. Students had on average a "good" performance on the ACE test, "sufficient" performance on the Berlin test, and "insufficient" performance or have "not passed" on the Fresno test. The post-test improvements in performance on the Fresno test (median 31% increase in percent scores, 95% confidence interval (CI) 25-42%) outperformed those on the ACE (13, 95% CI 13-20%) and Berlin tests (13, 95% CI 7-20%). Post-test score distributions demonstrated that the ACE test had less potential to discriminate between levels of EBM knowledge than other tests.The use of different EBM tests resulted in different assessment of general EBM knowledge in a sample of graduate medical students, with lowest results on the Fresno and highest on the ACE test. In the light of these findings, EBM knowledge assessment should be based on the course's content and learning objectives.

  View details for DOI 10.1186/s12909-018-1391-z

  View details for Web of Science ID 000452276300001

  View details for PubMedID 30514288

  View details for PubMedCentralID PMC6278026

• Letter to the editor in response to "No difference in knowledge obtained from infographic or plain language summary of a Cochrane systematic review: three randomized controlled trials" by Buljan et al. (2017) Response JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY Buljan, I., Malicki, M., Wager, E., Puljak, L., Hren, D., Kellie, F., West, H., Alfirevic, Z., Marusic, A. 2018; 100: 133-134

  View details for DOI 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2018.02.021

  View details for Web of Science ID 000439682200019

  View details for PubMedID 29518477

• Automatic recognition of self-acknowledged limitations in clinical research literature JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL INFORMATICS ASSOCIATION Kilicoglu, H., Rosemblat, G., Malicki, M., ter Riet, G. 2018; 25 (7): 855-861

  Abstract

  To automatically recognize self-acknowledged limitations in clinical research publications to support efforts in improving research transparency.To develop our recognition methods, we used a set of 8431 sentences from 1197 PubMed Central articles. A subset of these sentences was manually annotated for training/testing, and inter-annotator agreement was calculated. We cast the recognition problem as a binary classification task, in which we determine whether a given sentence from a publication discusses self-acknowledged limitations or not. We experimented with three methods: a rule-based approach based on document structure, supervised machine learning, and a semi-supervised method that uses self-training to expand the training set in order to improve classification performance. The machine learning algorithms used were logistic regression (LR) and support vector machines (SVM).Annotators had good agreement in labeling limitation sentences (Krippendorff's α = 0.781). Of the three methods used, the rule-based method yielded the best performance with 91.5% accuracy (95% CI [90.1-92.9]), while self-training with SVM led to a small improvement over fully supervised learning (89.9%, 95% CI [88.4-91.4] vs 89.6%, 95% CI [88.1-91.1]).The approach presented can be incorporated into the workflows of stakeholders focusing on research transparency to improve reporting of limitations in clinical studies.

  View details for DOI 10.1093/jamia/ocy038

  View details for Web of Science ID 000440954800012

  View details for PubMedID 29718377

  View details for PubMedCentralID PMC6016608

• The Medical School of the Catholic University of Croatia: Principles, Goals, Standards and Organization. Acta medica academica Sapunar, D., Marusic, M., Puljak, L., Grkovic, I., Malicki, M., Marusic, A., Civljak, M., Tanjic, Z. 2018; 47 (1): 61-75

  Abstract

  The aim of the study was to present the concept on which the School of Medicine at the Catholic University of Croatia (CUC) will be established. The new School will alleviate the shortage of physicians in Croatia and introduce an innovative form of medical education focused on principles of patient-centered care and social accountability. At the same time, the students will acquire all relevant competencies and levels of knowledge, skills and attitudes that are required by current evidence in medical education, European standards and guidelines for quality assurance at higher education institutions. The four pillars of the CUC Medical School are: 1) distributed medical education that involves health institutions outside major medical centers, 2) the concept of transformative learning, 3) teaching and practicing evidence-based medicine, and 4) implementation of quality management principles supported by information technology solutions for effective management of learning, research and practice. The overall aim of the CUC School of Medicine is to educate and train physicians capable of using best available medical evidence to deliver economically sustainable healthcare that can improve equity and health outcomes in the communities they serve, particularly those that are currently underserved.CONCLUSION: The proposed programme is introducing an original system of modern medical education that insists on developing humanistic aspects of medicine, patient-centred care and social accountability, while maintaining all competencies and knowledge levels that a physician should have according to the current understanding of medical education.

  View details for DOI 10.5644/ama2006-124.215

  View details for PubMedID 29957972

• No difference in knowledge obtained from infographic or plain language summary of a Cochrane systematic review: three randomized controlled trials JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY Buljan, I., Malicki, M., Wager, E., Puljak, L., Hren, D., Kellie, F., West, H., Alfirevic, Z., Marusic, A. 2018; 97: 86-94

  Abstract

  The aim of this study was to test the usefulness of an infographic in the translation of knowledge about health information from a Cochrane systematic review to lay and professional populations in comparison to a plain language summary (PLS) and scientific abstract (SA).We conducted three parallel randomized trials with university students (n = 171), consumers (n = 99), and doctors (n = 64), to examine the effect of different summary formats of a Cochrane systematic review on the knowledge about health information presented in the review, reading experience, and perceived user-friendliness. In the trials involving students and doctors, an infographic was compared to a PLS and a SA, while in those with consumers, an infographic was compared to a PLS.We found no difference in knowledge between the infographic and the text-based PLS in any of the trials or in the whole participant sample. All three participant groups preferred the infographic and gave it higher ratings for reading experience (d = 0.48 in the overall sample) and user-friendliness (d = 0.46 in the overall sample).Although the infographic format was perceived as more enjoyable for reading, it was not better than a traditional, text-based PLS in the translation of knowledge about findings from a Cochrane systematic review.

  View details for DOI 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.12.003

  View details for Web of Science ID 000430897600012

  View details for PubMedID 29269021

• Short- and long-term effects of retrieval practice on learning concepts in evidence-based medicine: Experimental study JOURNAL OF EVALUATION IN CLINICAL PRACTICE Banozic, A., Buljan, I., Malicki, M., Marusic, M., Marusic, A. 2018; 24 (1): 262-263

  View details for DOI 10.1111/jep.12740

  View details for Web of Science ID 000428647800033

  View details for PubMedID 28370993

• Diagnostic Interview for Genetic Studies: validity and reliability of the Croatian version PSYCHIATRIC GENETICS Kralj, Z., Dedic, M., Kovacevic, A., Malicki, M., Dedic, J., Pelivan, M., Vukovic, D., Fisher, C., Kember, R. L., Nurnberger, J., Bucan, M., Britvic, D. 2017; 27 (1): 17-22

  Abstract

  To test the validity and reliability of the Diagnostic Interview for Genetic Studies (DIGS) in patients with mental illness in Croatia.Following translation, back-translation, and pilot testing, the Croatian version of DIGS (CRO-DIGS) was administered to a total of 150 inpatients and outpatients diagnosed at the Clinical Hospital in Split with bipolar and major depressive disorder (n=56), schizophrenia and schizoaffective disorder (n=62), and alcohol dependence or use disorders (n=32). Initial testing was performed independently by one interviewer and one observer blinded to the diagnosis, and a retest was performed after 8 weeks by a third examiner.The validity of CRO-DIGS was high (κ=0.916), with an excellent inter-rater (κ=0.824) reliability, especially for bipolar disorder (κ=0.956). Following an 8 week test-retest interval, the reliability for all diagnoses was found to be excellent (κ=0.843).Our study has shown excellent validity and reliability of the Croatian version of DIGS, making it a promising instrument to assess mental illness of patients. The development of a valid and reliable diagnostic tool such as the CRO-DIGS will considerably advance the scientific communities' ability to carry out genetic studies of psychiatric illness in the region.

  View details for DOI 10.1097/YPG.0000000000000154

  View details for Web of Science ID 000392327700002

  View details for PubMedID 27776093

  View details for PubMedCentralID PMC5218897

• Breastfeeding booklet and proactive phone calls for increasing exclusive breastfeeding rates: RCT protocol MATERNAL AND CHILD NUTRITION Zakarija-Grkovic, I., Puharic, D., Malicki, M., Hoddinott, P. 2017; 13 (1)

  Abstract

  Breastfeeding is associated with infant and maternal health benefits and considerable potential savings to health services. Despite this, only 37% of infants globally are exclusively breastfed for 6 months. Interventions are needed to improve breastfeeding rates. The aim of this study is to determine whether written breastfeeding information in pregnancy and proactive breastfeeding-focused support phone calls, provided by a health professional educated in breastfeeding management, increase exclusive breastfeeding rates at 3 months compared with general birth-related information with proactive support calls or standard care. This is a single-centre, randomised, controlled, three-arm, superiority study with blind outcome assessment. Eligible participants will include primigravidae with singleton pregnancies who speak Croatian, attending six primary care obstetric practices. We estimate a total sample size of 459, with computer generated stratified randomisation of 153 women per arm. Participants in the intervention and active control groups will receive booklets in pregnancy, phone calls 2 weeks later, and 2, 6 and 10 weeks after birth. The primary outcome will be the proportion of women exclusively breastfeeding at 3 months. Secondary outcomes will compare: infant feeding practices and attitudes, social support, breastfeeding difficulties, breastfeeding self efficacy and utilisation of breastfeeding support services. Follow-up at 6 months will compare exclusive and any breastfeeding and utilised support services. Analysis will be by intention to treat. This trial will contribute to future evidence syntheses identifying the most effective forms of breastfeeding support.

  View details for DOI 10.1111/mcn.12249

  View details for Web of Science ID 000391959300013

  View details for PubMedID 26990672

  View details for PubMedCentralID PMC6866199

• Extent, Awareness and Perception of Dissemination Bias in Qualitative Research: An Explorative Survey PLOS ONE Toews, I., Glenton, C., Lewin, S., Berg, R. C., Noyes, J., Booth, A., Marusic, A., Malicki, M., Munthe-Kaas, H. M., Meerpohl, J. J. 2016; 11 (8): e0159290

  Abstract

  Qualitative research findings are increasingly used to inform decision-making. Research has indicated that not all quantitative research on the effects of interventions is disseminated or published. The extent to which qualitative researchers also systematically underreport or fail to publish certain types of research findings, and the impact this may have, has received little attention.A survey was delivered online to gather data regarding non-dissemination and dissemination bias in qualitative research. We invited relevant stakeholders through our professional networks, authors of qualitative research identified through a systematic literature search, and further via snowball sampling.1032 people took part in the survey of whom 859 participants identified as researchers, 133 as editors and 682 as peer reviewers. 68.1% of the researchers said that they had conducted at least one qualitative study that they had not published in a peer-reviewed journal. The main reasons for non-dissemination were that a publication was still intended (35.7%), resource constraints (35.4%), and that the authors gave up after the paper was rejected by one or more journals (32.5%). A majority of the editors and peer reviewers "(strongly) agreed" that the main reasons for rejecting a manuscript of a qualitative study were inadequate study quality (59.5%; 68.5%) and inadequate reporting quality (59.1%; 57.5%). Of 800 respondents, 83.1% "(strongly) agreed" that non-dissemination and possible resulting dissemination bias might undermine the willingness of funders to support qualitative research. 72.6% and 71.2%, respectively, "(strongly) agreed" that non-dissemination might lead to inappropriate health policy and health care.The proportion of non-dissemination in qualitative research is substantial. Researchers, editors and peer reviewers play an important role in this. Non-dissemination and resulting dissemination bias may impact on health care research, practice and policy. More detailed investigations on patterns and causes of the non-dissemination of qualitative research are needed.

  View details for DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0159290

  View details for Web of Science ID 000381367800025

  View details for PubMedID 27487090

  View details for PubMedCentralID PMC4972302

• Association of trait and specific hopes: cross sectional study on students and workers of health professions in Split, Croatia PEERJ Malicki, M., Markovic, D., Marusic, M. 2016; 4: e1604

  Abstract

  Introduction. Hope (hoping) is most commonly assessed as a dispositional trait and associated with quality of life, self-care agency and non-attempts of suicide. However, little research has been conducted on hoping for specific events. Materials and Methods. We distributed a survey consisting of Integrative Hope Scale (IHS) and visual analogue scales on which respondents could declare their levels (intensity) of hope for specific events, to all first year health students enrolled at the University Department of Health Studies, Split, Croatia in 2011/2012, as well as to working health professionals attending a nursing conference in April 2012. Results. A total of 161 (89.4%) students and 88 (89.8%) working health professionals returned the completed questionnaires. We found high trait hope scores of students and working health professionals (Md = 111, 95% CI [109-113] vs. Md = 115, 95% CI [112-119]; U = 5,353, P = 0.065), and weak to moderate correlations of trait and specific hopes (r = 0.18-0.48, Spearman's rank correlation coefficient). Students and workers reported 31 different things they hoped for most in life, of which the most prevalent were being healthy and happy. There was very little agreement between participants' reported influence of the four factors compromising the trait hope (self-confidence, ambition, optimism, and social support) on their specific hopes. Conclusions. Our findings, while strengthening the validity of hope as a trait, indicate that specific hopes of individuals are moderated by factors not captured by the IHS trait scale. Further research should explore specific hoping in detail, as well as the effectiveness of interventions aimed at increasing specific or generalized hoping.

  View details for DOI 10.7717/peerj.1604

  View details for Web of Science ID 000368413200008

  View details for PubMedID 26819851

  View details for PubMedCentralID PMC4727959

• Bias in dissemination of clinical research findings: structured OPEN framework of what, who and why, based on literature review and expert consensus BMJ OPEN Bassler, D., Mueller, K. F., Briel, M., Kleijnen, J., Marusic, A., Wager, E., Antes, G., von Elm, E., Altman, D. G., Meerpohl, J. J., OPEN Consortium 2016; 6 (1): e010024

  Abstract

  The aim of this study is to review highly cited articles that focus on non-publication of studies, and to develop a consistent and comprehensive approach to defining (non-) dissemination of research findings.We performed a scoping review of definitions of the term 'publication bias' in highly cited publications.Ideas and experiences of a core group of authors were collected in a draft document, which was complemented by the findings from our literature search.The draft document including findings from the literature search was circulated to an international group of experts and revised until no additional ideas emerged and consensus was reached.We propose a new approach to the comprehensive conceptualisation of (non-) dissemination of research.Our 'What, Who and Why?' approach includes issues that need to be considered when disseminating research findings (What?), the different players who should assume responsibility during the various stages of conducting a clinical trial and disseminating clinical trial documents (Who?), and motivations that might lead the various players to disseminate findings selectively, thereby introducing bias in the dissemination process (Why?).Our comprehensive framework of (non-) dissemination of research findings, based on the results of a scoping literature search and expert consensus will facilitate the development of future policies and guidelines regarding the multifaceted issue of selective publication, historically referred to as 'publication bias'.

  View details for DOI 10.1136/bmjopen-2015-010024

  View details for Web of Science ID 000369993900158

  View details for PubMedID 26801469

  View details for PubMedCentralID PMC4735132

• Decisional conflict and vaccine uptake: cross-sectional study of 2012/2013 influenza season in Croatia ARCHIVES OF MEDICAL SCIENCE Pavlicevic, I., Skrabic, S., Malicki, M., Mercep, A., Marusic, M., Marusic, A. 2015; 11 (4): 788-795

  Abstract

  As scientific, media and individual opinions on the need for seasonal influenza vaccination differ, we explored patients' decisional conflict and perceived physician and social support when making a vaccination choice.We conducted a survey of patients with previous vaccination experience in a single family medicine office in Split, Croatia. The questionnaire included the Decisional Conflict Scale (DCS), perceived social support, and attitudes and knowledge concerning vaccination.Out of 203 (86%) adult patients with previous vaccination experience, 182 (40.4%) opted to vaccinate in the current season, 98 (48.3%) refused, and 22 (11.3%) were undecided. The median decisional conflict score was highest among those undecided (43.8 out of the maximum 100, interquartile range (IQR) 33.2-52.3), lowest among those opting to vaccinate (17.2, IQR 9.4-26.6), and intermediate among those who refused vaccination (25.0, IQR 17.2-39.1) (p < 0.001, Kruskal-Wallis test and post-hoc Mann-Whitney U tests). The most common self-reported reasons for vaccination were previous vaccination experience (n = 85, 42%) and media information (n = 62, 30%). Those who refused vaccination felt less satisfied with the support they received from their family physician than those who decided to vaccinate (median 6.5 (IQR 0-9) vs. 9 (IQR 5-10) on a scale from 0 to 10), respectively; p = 0.001, Mann-Whitney U test).Higher decisional conflict of patients who refuse influenza vaccination and those undecided, alongside their perceived low support of the family physician in making that choice, emphasize the importance family doctors play in advising and helping patients make informed decisions about seasonal influenza vaccination.

  View details for DOI 10.5114/aoms.2015.53299

  View details for Web of Science ID 000359484900012

  View details for PubMedID 26322091

  View details for PubMedCentralID PMC4548032

• Evidence-informed recommendations to reduce dissemination bias in clinical research: conclusions from the OPEN (Overcome failure to Publish nEgative fiNdings) project based on an international consensus meeting BMJ OPEN Meerpohl, J. J., Schell, L. K., Bassler, D., Gallus, S., Kleijnen, J., Kulig, M., La Vecchia, C., Marusic, A., Ravaud, P., Reis, A., Schmucker, C., Strech, D., Urrutia, G., Wager, E., Antes, G., OPEN Project Consortium 2015; 5 (5): e006666

  Abstract

  Dissemination bias in clinical research severely impedes informed decision-making not only for healthcare professionals and patients, but also for funders, research ethics committees, regulatory bodies and other stakeholder groups that make health-related decisions. Decisions based on incomplete and biased evidence cannot only harm people, but may also have huge financial implications by wasting resources on ineffective or harmful diagnostic and therapeutic measures, and unnecessary research. Owing to involvement of multiple stakeholders, it remains easy for any single group to assign responsibility for resolving the problem to others.To develop evidence-informed general and targeted recommendations addressing the various stakeholders involved in knowledge generation and dissemination to help overcome the problem of dissemination bias on the basis of previously collated evidence.Based on findings from systematic reviews, document analyses and surveys, we developed general and targeted draft recommendations. During a 2-day workshop in summer 2013, these draft recommendations were discussed with external experts and key stakeholders, and refined following a rigorous and transparent methodological approach.Four general, overarching recommendations applicable to all or most stakeholder groups were formulated, addressing (1) awareness raising, (2) implementation of targeted recommendations, (3) trial registration and results posting, and (4) systematic approaches to evidence synthesis. These general recommendations are complemented and specified by 47 targeted recommendations tailored towards funding agencies, pharmaceutical and device companies, research institutions, researchers (systematic reviewers and trialists), research ethics committees, trial registries, journal editors and publishers, regulatory agencies, benefit (health technology) assessment institutions and legislators.Despite various recent examples of dissemination bias and several initiatives to reduce it, the problem of dissemination bias has not been resolved. Tailored recommendations based on a comprehensive approach will hopefully help increase transparency in biomedical research by overcoming the failure to disseminate negative findings.

  View details for DOI 10.1136/bmjopen-2014-006666

  View details for Web of Science ID 000354648100008

  View details for PubMedID 25943371

  View details for PubMedCentralID PMC4431130

• Is there a solution to publication bias? Researchers call for changes in dissemination of clinical research results JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY Malicki, M., Marusic, A., OPEN Overcome Failure Publish nEga 2014; 67 (10): 1103-1110

  Abstract

  To explore opinions of authors of published reports of clinical trials and Cochrane systematic reviews on the causes and methods of preventing publication bias.An online questionnaire was developed and sent to researchers publishing in high-impact or national general medical journals, authors of Cochrane systematic reviews, and a general population of researchers. Open-ended questions about publication bias were qualitatively analyzed. We also held a focus group with experienced researchers and/or Cochrane reviewers.Publication bias was common: 48 (36%) respondents had own unpublished trials and 40 (30%) admitted selective outcome reporting; but researchers felt strongly that blame rested also with the system that promotes and augments publication bias practices. Qualitative analysis of both survey responses and focus group discussion identified possible ways of reducing publication bias through increased transparency, improvements to trial registries, search engines and databases, enhancement of the role of institutional review boards, positive encouragement of scientists, and policy changes.Although well aware of the problem, clinical researchers knowingly contribute to problems of selective reporting and nonpublication of trials. They call for changes in current practices of journal-based communication of trial reporting and for systematic evaluation of measures to decrease publication bias.

  View details for DOI 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.06.002

  View details for Web of Science ID 000342122200007

  View details for PubMedID 25034197

• Study Design, Publication Outcome, and Funding of Research Presented at International Congresses on Peer Review and Biomedical Publication JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION Malicki, M., von Elm, E., Marusic, A. 2014; 311 (10): 1065-1067

  View details for DOI 10.1001/jama.2014.143

  View details for Web of Science ID 000332575800026

  View details for PubMedID 24618970

• Editorial research and the publication process in biomedicine and health: Report from the Esteve Foundation Discussion Group, December 2012 BIOCHEMIA MEDICA Marusic, A., Malicki, M., von Elm, E., Esteve Fdn Discussion Grp 2014; 24 (2): 211-216

  Abstract

  Despite the fact that there are more than twenty thousand biomedical journals in the world, research into the work of editors and publication process in biomedical and health care journals is rare. In December 2012, the Esteve Foundation, a non-profit scientific institution that fosters progress in pharmacotherapy by means of scientific communication and discussion organized a discussion group of 7 editors and/or experts in peer review biomedical publishing. They presented findings of past editorial research, discussed the lack of competitive funding schemes and specialized journals for dissemination of editorial research, and reported on the great diversity of misconduct and conflict of interest policies, as well as adherence to reporting guidelines. Furthermore, they reported on the reluctance of editors to investigate allegations of misconduct or increase the level of data sharing in health research. In the end, they concluded that if editors are to remain gatekeepers of scientific knowledge they should reaffirm their focus on the integrity of the scientific record and completeness of the data they publish. Additionally, more research should be undertaken to understand why many journals are not adhering to editorial standards, and what obstacles editors face when engaging in editorial research.

  View details for DOI 10.11613/BM.2014.023

  View details for Web of Science ID 000337218300003

  View details for PubMedID 24969914

  View details for PubMedCentralID PMC4083572

• Teaching science throughout the six-year medical curriculum: two-year experience from the University of Split School of Medicine, Split, Croatia. Acta medica academica Marusic, A., Malicki, M., Sambunjak, D., Jeroncic, A., Marusic, M. 2014; 43 (1): 50-62

  Abstract

  OBJECTIVE: The aim of this article is to present the introduction of a mandatory, vertically integrated course in research methodology into medical curriculum. At the School of Medicine in Split (Croatia) we organized this course in 2010, with the total of 270 hours in the 6-year curriculum. In the first year (50 hours) students learned basic principles of scientific method, structure of scientific article, basic statistical concepts, data analysis, interpretation and presentation. In the second year (25 hours) students applied the knowledge from the first year in real examples of research data to answer a research hypothesis and present the results and conclusions. Students were guided through the process of making a hypothesis, analyzing data, interpreting them, constructing tables and figures, and writing a short research report. At the end of the course they formally presented the results to other students and course teachers, using PowerPoint slides. The third year (25 hours) was devoted to mastering concepts and basic skills of evidencebased medicine (EBM). The course in the fourth year (25 hours) was integrated with the clinical courses (internal medicine, neurology, and psychiatry) and structured as a "journal club". In the fifth year (25 hours), the teaching was devoted to developing a research plan for the graduation thesis that the students had to conduct during the sixth year. The sixth year (120 hours) was devoted to the execution of research planned in the fifth year, including data collection, data analysis, interpretation, and thesis writing and defense.CONCLUSION: The new course succeeded in increasing students' knowledge and skills for critical thinking and EBM, and prepared them for life-long learning in medicine.

  View details for DOI 10.5644/ama2006-124.100

  View details for PubMedID 24893639

• Students' and parents' attitudes toward basic life support training in primary schools CROATIAN MEDICAL JOURNAL Petric, J., Malicki, M., Markovic, D., Mestrovic, J. 2013; 54 (4): 376-380

  Abstract

  To assess attitudes of students and their parents toward basic life support (BLS) training in primary schools, along with their perceptions of students' fears toward applying and training BLS.In October 2011, a specifically designed, voluntary and anonymous questionnaire was distributed to 7th and 8th grade students and to their parents in two primary schools in Split, Croatia. Completed questionnaires were analyzed to determine the validity of the scale, and to determine sex and group differences in individual items and the whole scale.The questionnaires were completed by 301 school children and 361 parents. Cronbach's alpha of the whole scale was 0.83, indicating good internal consistency. The students' score for the whole attitude scale was 73.7 ∓ 11.1 out of maximum 95, while the parents' score was 68.0 ∓ 11.9. Students' attitude was significantly more positive than that of the parents (U=29.7, P<0.001). The greatest perceived students' fear toward applying BLS was that they would harm the person in need of BLS.Our study showed that in Croatia both students in their last two years of primary school and their parents had a positive attitude toward BLS training in primary schools. Implementing compulsory BLS training in Croatia's primary schools could help increase students' confidence, quell their fears toward applying BLS, and possibly even increase the survival of bystander-witnessed cardiac arrests.

  View details for DOI 10.3325/cmj.2013.54.376

  View details for Web of Science ID 000324490800009

  View details for PubMedID 23986279

  View details for PubMedCentralID PMC3760662

• Students' satisfaction with their 1st year: cross-sectional study at the new Medical Studies in English Program at the University of Split School of Medicine Valic, Z., Malicki, M., Bradaric, K., Bozic, J., Ljutic, D., Valic, M. FEDERATION AMER SOC EXP BIOL. 2013

  View details for Web of Science ID 000319860506190

• No health research without education for research - experience from an integrated course in undergraduate medical curriculum MEDICAL TEACHER Marusic, A., Sambunjak, D., Jeroncic, A., Malicki, M., Marusic, M. 2013; 35 (7): 609

  View details for DOI 10.3109/0142159X.2013.772969

  View details for Web of Science ID 000321487000023

  View details for PubMedID 23464888

• Why do you think you should be the author on this manuscript? Analysis of open-ended responses of authors in a general medical journal BMC MEDICAL RESEARCH METHODOLOGY Malicki, M., Jeroncic, A., Marusic, M., Marusic, A. 2012; 12: 189

  Abstract

  To assess how authors would describe their contribution to the submitted manuscript without reference to or requirement to satisfy authorship criteria of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), we analyzed responses of authors to an open-ended question "Why do you think you should be the author on this manuscript?".Responses of authors (n=1425) who submitted their manuscripts (n=345) to the Croatian Medical Journal, an international general medical journal, from March 2009 until July 2010 were transcribed and matched to ICMJE criteria. Statements that could not be matched were separately categorized. Responses according to the number of authors or their byline position on the manuscript were analyzed using Mann-Whitney U test and Moses test of extreme reactions.The number of authors per manuscript ranged from 1 to 26 (median=4, IQR=3-6), with the median of 2 contributions per author (IQR=2-3). Authors' responses could be matched to the ICMJE criteria in 1116 (87.0%) cases. Among these, only 15.6% clearly declared contributions from all 3 ICMJE criteria; however, if signing of the authorship form was taken as the fulfillment of the third ICMJE criterion, overall fraction of deserving authorship was 54.2%. Non-ICMJE contributions were declared by 98 (7.6%) authors whose other contributions could be matched to ICMJE criteria, and by 116 (13.0%) authors whose contributions could not be matched to ICMJE criteria. The most frequently reported non-ICMJE contribution was literature review. Authors on manuscripts with more than 8 authors declared more contributions than those on manuscript with 8 or fewer authors: median 2, IQR 1-4, vs. median 2, IQR 1-3, respectively (Mann Whitney U test, p=0.001; Moses Test of Extreme Reactions, p<0.001). Almost a third of single authors (n=9; 31.0%) reported contributions that could not be matched to any ICMJE criterion.In cases of multi-author collaborative efforts but not in manuscripts with fewer authors open-ended authorship declaration without instructions on ICMJE criteria elicited responses from authors that were similar to responses when ICMJE criteria were explicitly required. Current authorship criteria and the practice of contribution declaration should be revised in order to capture deserving authorship in biomedical research.

  View details for DOI 10.1186/1471-2288-12-189

  View details for Web of Science ID 000209534600001

  View details for PubMedID 23256648

  View details for PubMedCentralID PMC3552823

• Professional achievements in medicine: too many unresolved questions. Acta medica academica Jurcevic Kozina, S., Malicki, M. 2012; 41 (1): 18-25

  Abstract

  From pre-enrollment assessments, through medical education and post-graduate training, medical schools are trying to educate and facilitate the development of their students so that they become exemplary experts in their future fields. Yet despite the long history of medical education, scientific research has failed to provide correlations between medical schools education processes and achievements of their students. Among the greatest obstacles for this is the primary definition of achievement, and, subsequently, its characteristics and measurement. In this review we present current findings related to medical education, discuss their implications and provide suggestions for medical schools on how to get the best out of their students while facilitating their personal growth.

  View details for DOI 10.5644/ama2006-124.32

  View details for PubMedID 23311481