Publications by authors named "Brooke Hightower"
Article Synopsis
- Predatory publishing involves unethical practices that can compromise scientific integrity by promoting low-quality research, leading to misleading results that affect clinical decision-making.
- This study assessed whether top dermatology journals include primary studies from suspected predatory journals (SPJs) within their systematic reviews, finding that 31% of reviews contained such studies.
- The Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology showed the highest prevalence of systematic reviews with studies from SPJs, while those featuring meta-analyses or registered protocols were less likely to include SPJs.
Background: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are increasingly used in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to foster patient-centered healthcare. The aim of this investigation was to assess the completeness of reporting of PROs in RCTs pertaining to cystic fibrosis (CF).
Methods: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for RCTs concerning CF that included PROs as a primary or secondary outcome.
Purpose: To evaluate the completeness of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) reporting using Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials Patient-Reported Outcome (CONSORT-PRO) in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving rotator cuff injuries.
Methods: We performed a comprehensive search of MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for published RCTs focused on rotator cuff injuries that included at least one PRO measure. We included RCTs published from 2006 to 2020.
Objectives: The main objective of this study was to assess the methodological and reporting quality of the systematic reviews (SRs) supporting the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and the American College of Cardiology (ACC) clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) recommendations for the management of patients with ventricular arrhythmias and sudden cardiac death (SCD). As a secondary objective, we sought to determine: (1) the proportion of Cochrane SRs were cited; and (2) whether Cochrane SRs scored higher on Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) and A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR-2) appraisals.
Design: Cross-sectional analysis.