BACKGROUND: Thesis is an important part of specialisation and doctorate education and requires intense work. The aim of this study was to investigate the publication rates of Turkish Public Health Doctorate Theses (PHDT) and Public Health Specialization (PHST) theses in international and Turkish national peer-review journals and to analyze the distribution of research areas. METHODS: List of all theses upto 30 September 2009 were retrieved from theses database of the Council of Higher Education of the Republic of Turkey. The publication rates of these theses were found by searching PubMed, Science Citation Index-Expanded, Turkish Academic Network and Information Center (ULAKBIM) Turkish Medical Database, and Turkish Medline databases for the names of thesis author and mentor. The theses which were published in journals indexed either in PubMed or SCI-E were considered as international publications. RESULTS: Our search yielded a total of 538 theses (243 PHDT, 295 PHST). It was found that the overall publication rate in Turkish national journals was 18%. The overall publication rate in international journals was 11.9%. Overall the most common research area was occupational health. CONCLUSION: Publication rates of Turkish PHDT and PHST are low. A better understanding of factors affecting this publication rate is important for public health issues where national data is vital for better intervention programs and develop better public health policies.
HomeCirculationVol. 83, No. 1An updated coronary risk profile. A statement for health professionals. Free AccessAbstractPDF/EPUBAboutView PDFSections ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload citationsTrack citationsPermissions ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InMendeleyReddit Jump toFree AccessAbstractPDF/EPUBAn updated coronary risk profile. A statement for health professionals. K M Anderson, P W Wilson, P M Odell and W B Kannel K M AndersonK M Anderson Office of Scientific Affairs, American Heart Association, Dallas, TX 75231. , P W WilsonP W Wilson Office of Scientific Affairs, American Heart Association, Dallas, TX 75231. , P M OdellP M Odell Office of Scientific Affairs, American Heart Association, Dallas, TX 75231. and W B KannelW B Kannel Office of Scientific Affairs, American Heart Association, Dallas, TX 75231. Originally published1 Jan 1991https://doi.org/10.1161/01.CIR.83.1.356Circulation. 1991;83:356–362 Previous Back to top Next FiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsCited By Hespe C, Giskes K, Harris M and Peiris D (2022) Findings and lessons learnt implementing a cardiovascular disease quality improvement program in Australian primary care: a mixed method evaluation, BMC Health Services Research, 10.1186/s12913-021-07310-6, 22:1, Online publication date: 1-Dec-2022. Lemke E, Vetter V, Berger N, Banszerus V, König M and Demuth I (2022) Cardiovascular health is associated with the epigenetic clock in the Berlin Aging Study II (BASE-II), Mechanisms of Ageing and Development, 10.1016/j.mad.2021.111616, 201, (111616), Online publication date: 1-Jan-2022. Wong N, Budoff M, Ferdinand K, Graham I, Michos E, Reddy T, Shapiro M and Toth P (2022) Atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk assessment: An American Society for Preventive Cardiology clinical practice statement, American Journal of Preventive Cardiology, 10.1016/j.ajpc.2022.100335, 10, (100335), Online publication date: 1-Jun-2022. Coller J, Gong F, McGrady M, Shiel L, Liew D, Stewart S, Owen A, Krum H, Reid C, Prior D and Campbell D (2021) Risk factors for asymptomatic echocardiographic abnormalities that predict symptomatic heart failure, ESC Heart Failure, 10.1002/ehf2.13695, 9:1, (196-212), Online publication date: 1-Feb-2022. Mittal M, McEniery C, Supramaniam P, Cardozo L, Savvas M, Panay N and Hamoda H (2022) Impact of micronised progesterone and medroxyprogesterone acetate in combination with transdermal oestradiol on cardiovascular markers in women diagnosed with premature ovarian insufficiency or an early menopause: a randomised pilot trial, Maturitas, 10.1016/j.maturitas.2022.01.012, 161, (18-26), Online publication date: 1-Jul-2022. Adikari D, Gharleghi R, Zhang S, Jorm L, Sowmya A, Moses D, Ooi S and Beier S (2022) A new and automated risk prediction of coronary artery disease using clinical endpoints and medical imaging-derived patient-specific insights: protocol for the retrospective GeoCAD cohort study, BMJ Open, 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-054881, 12:6, (e054881), Online publication date: 1-Jun-2022. Disouza J, Patil K, Kakade P and Patravale V (2022) Dietary Fibers and Nutraceuticals in Prevention of Hypertension Research Anthology on Recent Advancements in Ethnopharmacology and Nutraceuticals, 10.4018/978-1-6684-3546-5.ch040, (778-809) Barton T, Low D, Bakker E, Janssen T, de Groot S, van der Woude L and Thijssen D (2021) Traditional Cardiovascular Risk Factors Strongly Underestimate the 5-Year Occurrence of Cardiovascular Morbidity and Mortality in Spinal Cord Injured Individuals, Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 10.1016/j.apmr.2020.07.013, 102:1, (27-34), Online publication date: 1-Jan-2021. Sadat Halder M and Kumar De S (2021) A RETROSPECTIVE COHORT STUDY TO UNDERSTAND THE AGE, GENDER AND RISK FACTORS PATTERN IN PATIENTS ATTENDING FOR CARDIAC REHABILITATION (CR) AFTER CORONARY ARTERY BYPASS GRAFTING (CABG) SURGERY, INDIAN JOURNAL OF APPLIED RESEARCH, 10.36106/ijar/5702089, (57-60), Online publication date: 1-Jul-2021. Black J, Campbell J, Parker S, Sharman J, Nelson M, Otahal P, Hamilton G and Marwick T (2021) Absolute risk assessment for guiding cardiovascular risk management in a chest pain clinic, Medical Journal of Australia, 10.5694/mja2.50960, 214:6, (266-271), Online publication date: 1-Apr-2021. Wen J (2021) Stem Cell Therapies for Cardiac Disease: Which Cell Types Are the Best ICBBS 2021: 2021 10th International Conference on Bioinformatics and Biomedical Science, 10.1145/3498731.3498762, 9781450384308, (196-203), Online publication date: 29-Oct-2021. Mishra P, Mishra B, Lyytikäinen L, Hilvo M, Juonala M, Kähönen M, Hutri-Kähönen N, Fotiadis D, Raitakari O, Laaksonen R and Lehtimäki T (2021) Assessment of plasma ceramides as predictor for subclinical atherosclerosis, Atherosclerosis Plus, 10.1016/j.athplu.2021.09.005, 45, (25-31), Online publication date: 1-Nov-2021. Okami Y, Ueshima H, Nakamura Y, Kondo K, Kadota A, Okuda N, Ohkubo T, Miyamatsu N, Okamura T, Miura K and Okayama A (2021) Risk Factors That Most Accurately Predict Coronary Artery Disease Based on the Duration of Follow-up ― NIPPON DATA80 ―, Circulation Journal, 10.1253/circj.CJ-20-0739, 85:6, (908-913), Online publication date: 25-May-2021. Wilson R, Aminian A and Tahrani A (2021) Metabolic surgery: A clinical update, Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism, 10.1111/dom.14235, 23:S1, (63-83), Online publication date: 1-Feb-2021. Steger A, Dommasch M, Müller A, Sinnecker D, Huster K, Gotzler T, Gotzler O, Hapfelmeier A, Ulm K, Barthel P, Hnatkova K, Laugwitz K, Malik M and Schmidt G (2020) Polyscore of autonomic parameters for risk stratification of the elderly general population: the Polyscore study, EP Europace, 10.1093/europace/euaa359, 23:5, (789-796), Online publication date: 21-May-2021. Li Y, Sperrin M, Ashcroft D and van Staa T (2021) Consistency of ranking was evaluated as new measure for prediction model stability: longitudinal cohort study, Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.06.026, 138, (168-177), Online publication date: 1-Oct-2021. Albaugh V, Kindel T, Nissen S and Aminian A (2021) Cardiovascular Risk Reduction Following Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery, Surgical Clinics of North America, 10.1016/j.suc.2020.12.012, 101:2, (269-294), Online publication date: 1-Apr-2021. Eftychidis I, Sakellari I, Anagnostopoulos A and Gavriilaki E (2021) Endothelial dysfunction and vascular complications after allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation: an expert analysis, Expert Review of Hematology, 10.1080/17474086.2021.1968823, 14:9, (831-840), Online publication date: 2-Sep-2021. Vaes B, Indestege P, Serneels T, Hegendörfer E, van Peet P, Poortvliet R, Wallemacq P, Gussekloo J and Degryse J (2020) Biomarkers versus traditional risk factors to predict cardiovascular events in very old adults: cross-validated prospective cohort study, BMJ Open, 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-035809, 10:6, (e035809), Online publication date: 1-Jun-2020. Wong N (2020) Cardiovascular risk assessment: The foundation of preventive cardiology, American Journal of Preventive Cardiology, 10.1016/j.ajpc.2020.100008, 1, (100008), Online publication date: 1-Mar-2020. Anžič Drofenik A, Vrtovec M, Božič Mijovski M, Sever M, Preložnik Zupan I, Kejžar N and Blinc A (2020) Progression of coronary calcium burden and carotid stiffness in patients with essential thrombocythemia associated with JAK2 V617F mutation, Atherosclerosis, 10.1016/j.atherosclerosis.2020.01.001, 296, (25-31), Online publication date: 1-Mar-2020. van Bussel E, Hoevenaar-Blom M, Poortvliet R, Gussekloo J, van Dalen J, van Gool W, Richard E and Moll van Charante E (2020) Predictive value of traditional risk factors for cardiovascular disease in older people: A systematic review, Preventive Medicine, 10.1016/j.ypmed.2020.105986, 132, (105986), Online publication date: 1-Mar-2020. Kim Y, Noh K, Byun S, Lee S, Kim T, Sunwoo L, Lee K, Kang S, Park K and Park S (2020) Effects of Hypertension, Diabetes, and Smoking on Age and Sex Prediction from Retinal Fundus Images, Scientific Reports, 10.1038/s41598-020-61519-9, 10:1, Online publication date: 1-Dec-2020. Palazón-Bru A, Ferri-Rufete D, Mares-García E, Durazo-Arvizu R, Divisón-Garrote J, Carbayo-Herencia J, Artigao-Rodenas L, Simarro-Rueda M, Molina-Escribano F, Ponce-García I, Gil-Guillén V and Pérez-Sempere Á (2020) Clusters of Cardiovascular Risk Factors and Their Impact on the 20-Year Cardiovascular Risk in a General Population, Journal of Cardiovascular Nursing, 10.1097/JCN.0000000000000637, 35:2, (210-216), Online publication date: 1-Mar-2020. Jamthikar A, Gupta D, Saba L, Khanna N, Viskovic K, Mavrogeni S, Laird J, Sattar N, Johri A, Pareek G, Miner M, Sfikakis P, Protogerou A, Viswanathan V, Sharma A, Kitas G, Nicolaides A, Kolluri R and Suri J (2020) Artificial intelligence framework for predictive cardiovascular and stroke risk assessment models: A narrative review of integrated approaches using carotid ultrasound, Computers in Biology and Medicine, 10.1016/j.compbiomed.2020.104043, 126, (104043), Online publication date: 1-Nov-2020. Torralbas-Ortega J, Paños-Martínez M, Patró-Moncunill E, Santiago-Barragán A, Cobo J, Escayola-Maranges A, Granero-Lázaro A and Marti-Mestre M (2020) Efficacy of a Short Psychoeducational Group Intervention for the Prevention of Cardiovascular Risk in Patients With Severe Mental Disorder, Journal of Nervous & Mental Disease, 10.1097/NMD.0000000000001081, 208:3, (222-229), Online publication date: 1-Mar-2020. Wang J, Smail-Crevier R, Nannarone M, Manuel D, MacQueen G, Patten S, Lashewicz B and Schmitz N (2020) The accuracy of depression risk perception in high risk Canadians, Journal of Affective Disorders, 10.1016/j.jad.2020.01.099, 265, (410-415), Online publication date: 1-Mar-2020. Vuksan V, Sievenpiper J, Jovanovski E, Jenkins A, Komishon A, Au-Yeung F, Zurbau A, Ho H, Li D and Smircic-Duvnjak L (2020) Effect of soluble-viscous dietary fibre on coronary heart disease risk score across 3 population health categories: data from randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials, Applied Physiology, Nutrition, and Metabolism, 10.1139/apnm-2019-0728, 45:7, (801-804), Online publication date: 1-Jul-2020. Warner E, Nannarone M, Smail-Crevier R, Manuel D, Lashewicz B, Patten S, Schmitz N, MacQueen G and Wang J (2020) The relationship between depression risk perception and self-help behaviours in high risk Canadians: a cross-sectional study, BMC Public Health, 10.1186/s12889-020-08983-0, 20:1, Online publication date: 1-Dec-2020. Wallisch C, Heinze G, Rinner C, Mundigler G, Winkelmayer W and Dunkler D (2020) Re-estimation improved the performance of two Framingham cardiovascular risk equations and the Pooled Cohort equations: A nationwide registry analysis, Scientific Reports, 10.1038/s41598-020-64629-6, 10:1, Online publication date: 1-Dec-2020. Kim J, Yu M, Kim Y, Min S, Ha J, Lee J, Kim D, Oh K, Joo K, Ahn C, Kim Y and Lee H (2019) Ratio of triglyceride to high-density lipoprotein cholesterol and risk of major cardiovascular events in kidney transplant recipients, Clinical and Experimental Nephrology, 10.1007/s10157-019-01776-9, 23:12, (1407-1417), Online publication date: 1-Dec-2019. Gomez-Sanchez L, Gomez-Marcos M, Patino-Alonso M, Recio-Rodriguez J, Gomez-Sanchez M, González-Sánchez J, Alonso-Domínguez R, Sánchez-Aguadero N, Maderuelo-Fernandez J, Ramos R, Garcia-Ortiz L and Rodriguez-Sanchez E (2019) Reclassification by applying the Framingham equation 30 years to subjects with intermediate cardiovascular risk. MARK study, Medicina Clínica (English Edition), 10.1016/j.medcle.2019.01.035, 153:9, (351-356), Online publication date: 1-Nov-2019. Lee K, Yong H, Lee J, Kang E and Na J (2018) Is the epicardial adipose tissue area on non-ECG gated low-dose chest CT useful for predicting coronary atherosclerosis in an asymptomatic population considered for lung cancer screening?, European Radiology, 10.1007/s00330-018-5562-4, 29:2, (932-940), Online publication date: 1-Feb-2019. Gibson C, Kerneis M, Yee M, Daaboul Y, Korjian S, Mehr A, Tricoci P, Alexander J, Kastelein J, Mehran R, Bode C, Lewis B, Mehta R, Duffy D, Feaster J, Halabi M, Angiolillo D, Duerschmied D, Ophuis T and Merkely B (2019) The CSL112-2001 trial: Safety and tolerability of multiple doses of CSL112 (apolipoprotein A-I [human]), an intravenous formulation of plasma-derived apolipoprotein A-I, among subjects with moderate renal impairment after acute myocardial infarction, American Heart Journal, 10.1016/j.ahj.2018.11.008, 208, (81-90), Online publication date: 1-Feb-2019. ter Wee M and Lissenberg-Witte B (2019) To Predict or not to Predict? A Quick Guide on How to Conduct Medical Research, 10.1007/978-90-368-2248-0_7, (189-227), . Wang J, MacQueen G, Patten S, Manuel D, Lashewicz B and Schmitz N (2019) A randomized controlled trial to examine the impacts of disclosing personalized depression risk information on the outcomes of individuals who are at high risk of developing major depression: a research protocol, BMC Psychiatry, 10.1186/s12888-019-2270-9, 19:1, Online publication date: 1-Dec-2019. Gavriilaki E, Gkaliagkousi E, Sakellari I, Anyfanti P, Douma S and Anagnostopoulos A (2019) Early Prediction of Cardiovascular Risk after Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation: Are We There Yet?, Biology of Blood and Marrow Transplantation, 10.1016/j.bbmt.2019.07.012, 25:10, (e310-e316), Online publication date: 1-Oct-2019. Sarfo F, Nichols M, Gebregziabher M, Tagge R, Asibey S, Jenkins C and Ovbiagele B (2019) Evaluation of Vascular Event Risk while on Long-term Anti-retroviral Suppressive Therapy [EVERLAST]: Protocol for a prospective observational study, eNeurologicalSci, 10.1016/j.ensci.2019.100189, 15, (100189), Online publication date: 1-Jun-2019. van Bronswijk S, Lemmens L, Keefe J, Huibers M, DeRubeis R and Peeters F (2018) A prognostic index for long-term outcome after successful acute phase cognitive therapy and interpersonal psychotherapy for major depressive disorder, Depression and Anxiety, 10.1002/da.22868, 36:3, (252-261), Online publication date: 1-Mar-2019. Dimberg L, Eriksson B and Hashem M (2019) Myocardial infarction and death findings from a 22-year follow-up of a cohort of 980 employed Swedish men, Public Health, 10.1016/j.puhe.2019.07.006, 175, (148-155), Online publication date: 1-Oct-2019. Cifkova R (2019) Arterial Hypertension and Cardiovascular Risk Management of Hypertension, 10.1007/978-3-319-92946-0_3, (57-74), . Rojas C, Ramírez H, Salazar L, Kalergis A, Gálvez A and Escobar‐Vera J (2019) Characterization of LDLR rs5925 and PCSK9 rs505151 genetic variants frequencies in healthy subjects from northern Chile: Influence on plasma lipid levels , Journal of Clinical Laboratory Analysis, 10.1002/jcla.23001, 33:9, Online publication date: 1-Nov-2019. Kotalik A, Eaton A, Lian Q, Serrano C, Connett J and Neaton J (2019) A win ratio approach to the re-analysis of Multiple Risk Factor Intervention Trial, Clinical Trials, 10.1177/1740774519868233, 16:6, (626-634), Online publication date: 1-Dec-2019. An Y, Yun S, Yang I, Kim D and Yang D (2019) Predictive Performance of Ultrasound-Determined Non-Alcoholic Fatty Pancreas Disease Severity for Intermediate and High Risk of Coronary Heart Disease, Journal of the Korean Society of Radiology, 10.3348/jksr.2019.80.6.1190, 80:6, (1190), . Sakaki J, Melough M, Lee S, Pounis G and Chun O (2019) Polyphenol-Rich Diets in Cardiovascular Disease Prevention Analysis in Nutrition Research, 10.1016/B978-0-12-814556-2.00010-5, (259-298), . Gomez-Sanchez L, Gomez-Marcos M, Patino-Alonso M, Recio-Rodriguez J, Gomez-Sanchez M, González-Sánchez J, Alonso-Domínguez R, Sánchez-Aguadero N, Maderuelo-Fernandez J, Ramos R, Garcia-Ortiz L and Rodriguez-Sanchez E (2019) Reclassification by applying the Framingham equation 30 years to subjects with intermediate cardiovascular risk. MARK study, Medicina Clínica, 10.1016/j.medcli.2019.01.033, 153:9, (351-356), Online publication date: 1-Nov-2019. Chen G, Gao L and Li X (2019) Effects of exercise training on cardiovascular risk factors in kidney transplant recipients: a systematic review and meta-analysis, Renal Failure, 10.1080/0886022X.2019.1611602, 41:1, (408-418), Online publication date: 1-Jan-2019. Rosenblit P (2019) Extreme Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease (ASCVD) Risk Recognition, Current Diabetes Reports, 10.1007/s11892-019-1178-6, 19:8, Online publication date: 1-Aug-2019. Disouza J, Patil K, Kakade P and Patravale V (2019) Dietary Fibers and Nutraceuticals in Prevention of Hypertension Nutraceutical and Functional Foods in Disease Prevention, 10.4018/978-1-5225-3267-5.ch007, (192-232) Charles‐Schoeman C, DeMasi R, Valdez H, Soma K, Hwang L, Boy M, Biswas P and McInnes I (2019) Risk Factors for Major Adverse Cardiovascular Events in Phase III and Long‐Term Extension Studies of Tofacitinib in Patients With Rheumatoid Arthritis , Arthritis & Rheumatology, 10.1002/art.40911, 71:9, (1450-1459), Online publication date: 1-Sep-2019. Sánchez-Acevedo M, Acosta-Chí Z, Sabino-Moxo B, Márquez-Domínguez J and Canton-Croda R (2019) Big Data Analysis for Cardiovascular Diseases Coronary and Cardiothoracic Critical Care, 10.4018/978-1-5225-8185-7.ch004, (60-77) Plante T, Juraschek S, Zakai N, Tracy R and Cushman M (2019) Comparison of Frequency of Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease Events Among Primary and Secondary Prevention Subgroups of the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial, The American Journal of Cardiology, 10.1016/j.amjcard.2019.08.028, 124:11, (1701-1706), Online publication date: 1-Dec-2019. Nakas G, Bechlioulis A, Marini A, Vakalis K, Bougiakli M, Giannitsi S, Nikolaou K, Antoniadou E, Kotsia A, Gartzonika K, Chasiotis G, Bairaktari E, Katsouras C, Triantis G, Sionis D, Michalis L and Naka K (2019) The importance of characteristics of angina symptoms for the prediction of coronary artery disease in a cohort of stable patients in the modern era, Hellenic Journal of Cardiology, 10.1016/j.hjc.2018.06.003, 60:4, (241-246), Online publication date: 1-Jul-2019. Buettner R and Schunter M (2019) Efficient machine learning based detection of heart disease 2019 IEEE International Conference on E-health Networking, Application & Services (HealthCom), 10.1109/HealthCom46333.2019.9009429, 978-1-7281-0402-7, (1-6) Albarqouni L, Doust J, Magliano D, Barr E, Shaw J and Glasziou P (2019) External validation and comparison of four cardiovascular risk prediction models with data from the Australian Diabetes, Obesity and Lifestyle study, Medical Journal of Australia, 10.5694/mja2.12061, 210:4, (161-167), Online publication date: 1-Mar-2019. Liu Y, Li Q, Chen S, Wang X, Zhou Y, Tan N and Chen J (2018) A Simple Modified Framingham Scoring System to Predict Obstructive Coronary Artery Disease, Journal of Cardiovascular Translational Research, 10.1007/s12265-018-9837-6, 11:6, (495-502), Online publication date: 1-Dec-2018. Hermansson J and Kahan T (2017) Systematic Review of Validity Assessments of Framingham Risk Score Results in Health of Therapies in Online publication date: M, V, J, E, C, G, L and A (2018) levels in and as markers of and adipose tissue BMC Online publication date: 1-Dec-2018. H, T, D and E (2018) Risk Factors for Heart Disease International on Medical and (1-6) J, B, Wang J, S, S, C, S, C and MacQueen G (2018) for of the study, BMC Psychiatry, Online publication date: 1-Dec-2018. A, M, and M (2017) of in research the review of the of the Framingham Journal of Medical Online publication date: C, J, J, C, J, E, J, D and F (2018) Online publication date: T, G and E (2018) The of in for Primary Prevention of Cardiovascular Diseases in Current Cardiovascular Risk Reports, Online publication date: M, D, M, M and M (2018) a review of and Biomedical Online publication date: R and L (2018) The of Cardiovascular Disease Risk is the Best Risk for the Journal of and in Medical and Online publication date: H (2018) Risk Prediction in Biomedical . L, S, T, C, A, S, D, H, J, Jenkins D, C and Sievenpiper J (2018) Dietary and Cardiovascular Disease: A Systematic Review and of Trials, in Cardiovascular Online publication date: H (2018) Risk Prediction of Cardiovascular Research and Medicine, . Most J, L, S, H, E and L (2018) improvement in health in healthy individuals and American Journal of and Metabolism, Online publication date: J, B, F, I, M, M, M, E, N, A, M, L, T, D, J and Neaton J (2018) Which with high from of A of the trial, The Online publication date: J, C, E, N, E and N (2018) Risk Factors in Cardiovascular Disease Risk Online publication date: R, K, R, W and L (2018) The of the model for prognostic in health a review, and Research, Online publication date: 1-Dec-2018. S and I (2018) Clínica Online publication date: M, I and D (2017) The cardiovascular of of and International Journal of and Nutrition, Online publication date: T and S (2018) assessment of to health in patients with cardiovascular disease in BMC Health Services Research, Online publication date: 1-Dec-2018. C, L, A, A, M, M, V, A, M, N, A and A (2018) Is With a Risk of Atherosclerosis in Patients on Journal of Online publication date: Sánchez-Acevedo M, Acosta-Chí Z, Sabino-Moxo B, Márquez-Domínguez J and Canton-Croda R (2018) Big Data Analysis for Cardiovascular Diseases Big Data Management and the of for Health V, J, S, J, J, S and R (2018) Cardiovascular Risk Prediction Underestimate Risk in Online publication date: X, Wang X, Y, Chen S, Zhang R, Li L, Yu B and J (2017) Impact of Smoking and Smoking on as by The American Journal of Cardiology, Online publication date: S, J and R (2017) Cardiovascular Disease and Blood Pressure & Online publication date: J, I, M, D, B, R and de A (2017) of in a general population Clínica Online publication date: Marini A, Naka K, Vakalis K, Bechlioulis A, Bougiakli M, Giannitsi S, Nikolaou K, Antoniadou E, Gartzonika C, Chasiotis G, Bairaktari E, Katsouras C, Triantis G, Sionis D and Michalis L (2017) of coronary artery disease in patients for stable or acute coronary Hellenic Journal of Cardiology, Online publication date: V, A, P, R and S (2017) of a in Fibers and at Low in in and Nutrition . M, K, D and M (2017) E de Medicina Online publication date: E, R, C, T, S, W and N and of that and the risk of cardiovascular Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism, 19:1, Online publication date: Jenkins D, B, F, M, P, A, A, W, M, de R, C, N, Jenkins A, S and N (2017) Effect of Current Dietary on and Cardiovascular Risk Journal of the American of Cardiology, Online publication date: S, L, Y, F, Zhang S, Li D, W, Zhang X, D and X (2017) of and traditional risk factors the performance of coronary heart disease Online publication date: O, D and G Efficacy of on for Cardiovascular Disease Risk Reduction among a Review of the Journal of and Health Online publication date: Most J, V, L and L (2017) in An update, Ageing Research Online publication date: J, K, E, C, T, B, N, T, Li Q, A and Peiris D (2017) of for with cardiovascular Australian Journal of Primary Health, 23:5, . Lee S, Yun S, Kim D, H and Park Y (2017) Severity of disease on and risk of coronary heart Journal of Clinical 45:7, Online publication date: H and L (2017) An early risk of coronary heart using model International Conference on of Data and Online publication date: J The and Medical Online publication date: E, N and A (2017) for of Research
Academia and Clinic18 August 2009Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA StatementFREEDavid Moher, PhD, Alessandro Liberati, MD, DrPH, Jennifer Tetzlaff, BSc, and Douglas G. Altman, DSc, the PRISMA Group*David Moher, PhDFrom Ottawa Methods Centre, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada; Università di Modena e Reggio Emilia, Modena, Italy; Centro Cochrane Italiano, Istituto Ricerche Farmacologiche Mario Negri, Milan, Italy; and Centre for Statistics in Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.Search for more papers by this author, Alessandro Liberati, MD, DrPHFrom Ottawa Methods Centre, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada; Università di Modena e Reggio Emilia, Modena, Italy; Centro Cochrane Italiano, Istituto Ricerche Farmacologiche Mario Negri, Milan, Italy; and Centre for Statistics in Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.Search for more papers by this author, Jennifer Tetzlaff, BScFrom Ottawa Methods Centre, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada; Università di Modena e Reggio Emilia, Modena, Italy; Centro Cochrane Italiano, Istituto Ricerche Farmacologiche Mario Negri, Milan, Italy; and Centre for Statistics in Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.Search for more papers by this author, and Douglas G. Altman, DScFrom Ottawa Methods Centre, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada; Università di Modena e Reggio Emilia, Modena, Italy; Centro Cochrane Italiano, Istituto Ricerche Farmacologiche Mario Negri, Milan, Italy; and Centre for Statistics in Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.Search for more papers by this author, the PRISMA Group*Search for more papers by this authorAuthor, Article, and Disclosure Informationhttps://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-151-4-200908180-00135 SectionsSupplemental MaterialAboutVisual AbstractPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissions ShareFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail Editor's Note: In order to encourage dissemination of the PRISMA Statement, this article is freely accessible on the Annals of Internal Medicine Web site (www.annals.org) and will be also published in PLOS Medicine, BMJ, Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, and Open Medicine. The authors jointly hold the copyright of this article. For details on further use, see the PRISMA Web site (www.prisma-statement.org).Systematic reviews and meta-analyses have become increasingly important in health care. Clinicians read them to keep up to date with their field (1, 2), and they are often used as a starting point for developing clinical practice guidelines. Granting agencies may require a systematic review to ensure there is justification for further research (3), and some health care journals are moving in this direction (4). As with all research, the value of a systematic review depends on what was done, what was found, and the clarity of reporting. As with other publications, the reporting quality of systematic reviews varies, limiting readers' ability to assess the strengths and weaknesses of those reviews.Several early studies evaluated the quality of review reports. In 1987, Mulrow examined 50 review articles published in four leading medical journals in 1985 and 1986 and found that none met all eight explicit scientific criteria, such as a quality assessment of included studies (5). In 1987, Sacks and colleagues (6) evaluated the adequacy of reporting of 83 meta-analyses on 23 characteristics in six domains. Reporting was generally poor; between one and 14 characteristics were adequately reported (mean = 7.7; standard deviation = 2.7). A 1996 update of this study found little improvement (7).In 1996, to address the suboptimal reporting of meta-analyses, an international group developed a guidance called the QUOROM Statement (QUality Of Reporting Of Meta-analyses), which focused on the reporting of meta-analyses of randomized, controlled trials (8). In this article, we summarize a revision of these guidelines, renamed PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses), which have been updated to address several conceptual and practical advances in the science of systematic reviews (Box 1).Box 1. Conceptual Issues in the Evolution From QUOROM to PRISMA Download figure Download PowerPoint TerminologyThe terminology used to describe a systematic review and meta-analysis has evolved over time. One reason for changing the name from QUOROM to PRISMA was the desire to encompass both systematic reviews and meta-analyses. We have adopted the definitions used by the Cochrane Collaboration (9). A systematic review is a review of a clearly formulated question that uses systematic and explicit methods to identify, select, and critically appraise relevant research, and to collect and analyze data from the studies that are included in the review. Statistical methods (meta-analysis) may or may not be used to analyze and summarize the results of the included studies. Meta-analysis refers to the use of statistical techniques in a systematic review to integrate the results of included studies.Developing the PRISMA StatementA three-day meeting was held in Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, in June 2005 with 29 participants, including review authors, methodologists, clinicians, medical editors, and a consumer. The objective of the Ottawa meeting was to revise and expand the QUOROM checklist and flow diagram, as needed.The executive committee completed the following tasks, prior to the meeting: a systematic review of studies examining the quality of reporting of systematic reviews, and a comprehensive literature search to identify methodological and other articles that might inform the meeting, especially in relation to modifying checklist items. An international survey of review authors, consumers, and groups commissioning or using systematic reviews and meta-analyses was completed, including the International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment (INAHTA) and the Guidelines International Network (GIN). The survey aimed to ascertain views of QUOROM, including the merits of the existing checklist items. The results of these activities were presented during the meeting and are summarized on the PRISMA Web site (www.prisma-statement.org).Only items deemed essential were retained or added to the checklist. Some additional items are nevertheless desirable, and review authors should include these, if relevant (10). For example, it is useful to indicate whether the systematic review is an update (11) of a previous review, and to describe any changes in procedures from those described in the original protocol.Shortly after the meeting a draft of the PRISMA checklist was circulated to the group, including those invited to the meeting but unable to attend. A disposition file was created containing comments and revisions from each respondent, and the checklist was subsequently revised 11 times. The group approved the checklist, flow diagram, and this summary paper.Although no direct evidence was found to support retaining or adding some items, evidence from other domains was believed to be relevant. For example, Item 5 asks authors to provide registration information about the systematic review, including a registration number, if available. Although systematic review registration is not yet widely available (12, 13), the participating journals of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) (14) now require all clinical trials to be registered in an effort to increase transparency and accountability (15). Those aspects are also likely to benefit systematic reviewers, possibly reducing the risk of an excessive number of reviews addressing the same question (16, 17) and providing greater transparency when updating systematic reviews.The PRISMA StatementThe PRISMA Statement consists of a 27-item checklist (Table 1; see also Table S1, for a downloadable Word template for researchers to re-use) and a four-phase flow diagram (Figure 1; see also Figure S1, for a downloadable Word template for researchers to re-use). The aim of the PRISMA Statement is to help authors improve the reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. We have focused on randomized trials, but PRISMA can also be used as a basis for reporting systematic reviews of other types of research, particularly evaluations of interventions. PRISMA may also be useful for critical appraisal of published systematic reviews. However, the PRISMA checklist is not a quality assessment instrument to gauge the quality of a systematic review.Table 1. Checklist of Items to Include When Reporting a Systematic Review or Meta-AnalysisFigure 1. Flow of information through the different phases of a systematic review. Download figure Download PowerPoint From QUOROM to PRISMAThe new PRISMA checklist differs in several respects from the QUOROM checklist, and the substantive specific changes are highlighted in Table 2. Generally, the PRISMA checklist “decouples” several items present in the QUOROM checklist and, where applicable, several checklist items are linked to improve consistency across the systematic review report.Table 2. Substantive Specific Changes Between the QUOROM Checklist and the PRISMA ChecklistThe flow diagram has also been modified. Before including studies and providing reasons for excluding others, the review team must first search the literature. This search results in records. Once these records have been screened and eligibility criteria applied, a smaller number of articles will remain. The number of included articles might be smaller (or larger) than the number of studies, because articles may report on multiple studies and results from a particular study may be published in several articles. To capture this information, the PRISMA flow diagram now requests information on these phases of the review process.EndorsementThe PRISMA Statement should replace the QUOROM Statement for those journals that have endorsed QUOROM. We hope that other journals will support PRISMA; they can do so by registering on the PRISMA Web site. To underscore to authors, and others, the importance of transparent reporting of systematic reviews, we encourage supporting journals to reference the PRISMA Statement and include the PRISMA Web address in their instructions to authors. We also invite editorial organizations to consider endorsing PRISMA and encourage authors to adhere to its principles.The PRISMA Explanation and Elaboration PaperIn addition to the PRISMA Statement, a supporting Explanation and Elaboration document has been produced (18) following the style used for other reporting guidelines (19–21). The process of completing this document included developing a large database of exemplars to highlight how best to report each checklist item, and identifying a comprehensive evidence base to support the inclusion of each checklist item. The Explanation and Elaboration document was completed after several face-to-face meetings and numerous iterations among several meeting participants, after which it was shared with the whole group for additional revisions and final approval. Finally, the group formed a dissemination subcommittee to help disseminate and implement PRISMA.DiscussionThe quality of reporting of systematic reviews is still not optimal (22–27). In a recent review of 300 systematic reviews, few authors reported assessing possible publication bias (22), even though there is overwhelming evidence both for its existence (28) and its impact on the results of systematic reviews (29). Even when the possibility of publication bias is assessed, there is no guarantee that systematic reviewers have assessed or interpreted it appropriately (30). Although the absence of reporting such an assessment does not necessarily indicate that it was not done, reporting an assessment of possible publication bias is likely to be a marker of the thoroughness of the conduct of the systematic review.Several approaches have been developed to conduct systematic reviews on a broader array of questions. For example, systematic reviews are now conducted to investigate cost-effectiveness (31), diagnostic (32) or prognostic questions (33), genetic associations (34), and policy making (35). The general concepts and topics covered by PRISMA are all relevant to any systematic review, not just those whose objective is to summarize the benefits and harms of a health care intervention. However, some modifications of the checklist items or flow diagram will be necessary in particular circumstances. For example, assessing the risk of bias is a key concept, but the items used to assess this in a diagnostic review are likely to focus on issues such as the spectrum of patients and the verification of disease status, which differ from reviews of interventions. The flow diagram will also need adjustments when reporting individual patient data meta-analysis (36).We have developed an explanatory document (18) to increase the usefulness of PRISMA. For each checklist item, this document contains an example of good reporting, a rationale for its inclusion, and supporting evidence, including references, whenever possible. We believe this document will also serve as a useful resource for those teaching systematic review methodology. We encourage journals to include reference to the explanatory document in their Instructions to Authors.Like any evidence-based endeavor, PRISMA is a living document. To this end we invite readers to comment on the revised version, particularly the new checklist and flow diagram, through the PRISMA Web site. We will use such information to inform PRISMA's continued development.References1. Oxman AD, Cook DJ, Guyatt GH. Users' guides to the medical literature. VI. How to use an overview. Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group. JAMA. 1994;272:1367-71. [PMID: 7933399] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar2. Swingler GH, Volmink J, Ioannidis JP. Number of published systematic reviews and global burden of disease: database analysis. BMJ. 2003;327:1083-4. [PMID: 14604930] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar3. Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Randomized controlled trials registration/application checklist. December 2006. Accessed at www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/documents/rct_reg_e.pdf on 19 May 2009. Google Scholar4. Young C, Horton R. Putting clinical trials into context. Lancet. 2005;366:107-8. [PMID: 16005318] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar5. Mulrow CD. The medical review article: state of the science. Ann Intern Med. 1987;106:485-8. [PMID: 3813259] LinkGoogle Scholar6. Sacks HS, Berrier J, Reitman D, Ancona-Berk VA, Chalmers TC. Meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials. N Engl J Med. 1987;316:450-5. [PMID: 3807986] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar7. Sacks HS, Reitman D, Pagano D, Kupelnick B. Meta-analysis: an update. Mt Sinai J Med. 1996;63:216-24. [PMID: 8692168] MedlineGoogle Scholar8. Moher D, Cook DJ, Eastwood S, Olkin I, Rennie D, Stroup DF. Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement. Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses. Lancet. 1999;354:1896-900. [PMID: 10584742] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar9. Green S, Higgins J, eds. Glossary. In: Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions 4.2.5. The Cochrane Collaboration; 2005. Accessed at www.cochrane.org/resources/glossary.htm on 19 May 2009. Google Scholar10. Strech D, Tilburt J. Value judgments in the analysis and synthesis of evidence. J Clin Epidemiol. 2008;61:521-4. [PMID: 18471654] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar11. Moher D, Tsertsvadze A. Systematic reviews: when is an update an update? Lancet. 2006;367:881-3. [PMID: 16546523] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar12. University of York Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. 2009. Accessed at www.york.ac.uk/inst/crd/ on 19 May 2009. Google Scholar13. The Joanna Briggs Institute protocols & work in progress. 2009. Accessed at www.joannabriggs.edu.au/pubs/systematic_reviews_prot.php on 19 May 2009. Google Scholar14. De Angelis C, Drazen JM, Frizelle FA, Haug C, Hoey J, Horton R, et al; International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Clinical trial registration: a statement from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors [Editorial]. CMAJ. 2004;171:606-7. [PMID: 15367465] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar15. Whittington CJ, Kendall T, Fonagy P, Cottrell D, Cotgrove A, Boddington E. Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors in childhood depression: systematic review of published versus unpublished data. Lancet. 2004;363:1341-5. [PMID: 15110490] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar16. Bagshaw SM, McAlister FA, Manns BJ, Ghali WA. Acetylcysteine in the prevention of contrast-induced nephropathy: a case study of the pitfalls in the evolution of evidence. Arch Intern Med. 2006;166:161-6. [PMID: 16432083] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar17. Biondi-Zoccai GG, Lotrionte M, Abbate A, Testa L, Remigi E, Burzotta F, et al. Compliance with QUOROM and quality of reporting of overlapping meta-analyses on the role of acetylcysteine in the prevention of contrast associated nephropathy: case study. BMJ. 2006;332:202-9. [PMID: 16415336] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar18. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gøtzsche P, Ioannidis JP, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med. 2009;151:W-65-94. LinkGoogle Scholar19. Altman DG, Schulz KF, Moher D, Egger M, Davidoff F, Elbourne D, et al; CONSORT GROUP (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials). The revised CONSORT statement for reporting randomized trials: explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med. 2001;134:663-94. [PMID: 11304107] LinkGoogle Scholar20. Bossuyt PM, Reitsma JB, Bruns DE, Gatsonis CA, Glasziou PP, Irwig LM, et al; Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy. The STARD statement for reporting studies of diagnostic accuracy: explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med. 2003;138:W1-12. [PMID: 12513067] LinkGoogle Scholar21. Vandenbroucke JP, von Elm E, Altman DG, Gøtzsche PC, Mulrow CD, Pocock SJ, et al; STROBE Initiative. Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE): explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med. 2007;147:W163-94. [PMID: 17938389] LinkGoogle Scholar22. Moher D, Tetzlaff J, Tricco AC, Sampson M, Altman DG. Epidemiology and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews. PLoS Med. 2007;4:78. [PMID: 17388659] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar23. Bhandari M, Morrow F, Kulkarni AV, Tornetta P. Meta-analyses in orthopaedic surgery. A systematic review of their methodologies. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2001;83-A:15-24. [PMID: 11205853] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar24. Kelly KD, Travers A, Dorgan M, Slater L, Rowe BH. Evaluating the quality of systematic reviews in the emergency medicine literature. Ann Emerg Med. 2001;38:518-26. [PMID: 11679863] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar25. Richards D. The quality of systematic reviews in dentistry. Evid Based Dent. 2004;5:17. [PMID: 15238972] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar26. Choi PT, Halpern SH, Malik N, Jadad AR, Tramèr MR, Walder B. Examining the evidence in anesthesia literature: a critical appraisal of systematic reviews. Anesth Analg. 2001;92:700-9. [PMID: 11226105] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar27. Delaney A, Bagshaw SM, Ferland A, Manns B, Laupland KB, Doig CJ. A systematic evaluation of the quality of meta-analyses in the critical care literature. Crit Care. 2005;9:R575-82. [PMID: 16277721] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar28. Dickersin K. Publication bias: recognizing the problem, understanding its origins and scope, and preventing harm.. In: Rothstein HR, Sutton AJ, Borenstein M, eds. Publication Bias in Meta-Analysis—Prevention, Assessment and Adjustments. Chichester, UK: J Wiley; 2005:11-33. Google Scholar29. Sutton AJ. Evidence concerning the consequences of publication and related biases.. In: Rothstein HR, Sutton AJ, Borenstein M, eds. Publication Bias in Meta-Analysis—Prevention, Assessment and Adjustments. Chichester, UK: J Wiley; 2005:175-92. Google Scholar30. Lau J, Ioannidis JP, Terrin N, Schmid CH, Olkin I. The case of the misleading funnel plot. BMJ. 2006;333:597-600. [PMID: 16974018] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar31. Ladabaum U, Chopra CL, Huang G, Scheiman JM, Chernew ME, Fendrick AM. Aspirin as an adjunct to screening for prevention of sporadic colorectal cancer. A cost-effectiveness analysis. Ann Intern Med. 2001;135:769-81. [PMID: 11694102] LinkGoogle Scholar32. Deeks JJ. Systematic reviews in health care: Systematic reviews of evaluations of diagnostic and screening tests. BMJ. 2001;323:157-62. [PMID: 11463691] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar33. Altman DG. Systematic reviews of evaluations of prognostic variables. BMJ. 2001;323:224-8. [PMID: 11473921] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar34. Ioannidis JP, Ntzani EE, Trikalinos TA, Contopoulos-Ioannidis DG. Replication validity of genetic association studies. Nat Genet. 2001;29:306-9. [PMID: 11600885] CrossrefMedlineGoogle J, Oxman A, E. systematic reviews that inform health care and J Health [PMID: CrossrefMedlineGoogle of meta-analyses using updated individual patient data. Cochrane Working Group. Med. [PMID: CrossrefMedlineGoogle E, R, I, L, Liberati A. Assessment of methodological quality of studies by systematic reviews: results of the study. BMJ. [PMID: CrossrefMedlineGoogle Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, R, P, et al; Working Group. an on quality of evidence and of BMJ. [PMID: CrossrefMedlineGoogle R, Cook DJ, A, et al; and An the quality of evidence and of in guidelines and J Crit Med. [PMID: CrossrefMedlineGoogle A, Gøtzsche PC, Altman DG. evidence for reporting of in randomized trials: of protocols to published articles. JAMA. [PMID: CrossrefMedlineGoogle Schmid I, Altman DG. reporting bias in randomized trials by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. CMAJ. [PMID: CrossrefMedlineGoogle CA, P, protocols of systematic reviews: what was to what was JAMA. [PMID: CrossrefMedlineGoogle In to A Article, and Disclosure From Ottawa Methods Centre, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada; Università di Modena e Reggio Emilia, Modena, Italy; Centro Cochrane Italiano, Istituto Ricerche Farmacologiche Mario Negri, Milan, Italy; and Centre for Statistics in Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, United The following to the PRISMA Altman, DSc, Centre for Statistics in Medicine United PhD, University Hospital MD, Health Research & Health PLoS Medicine United PhD, Hospital of Ontario, A. & Research and PhD, PLoS Medicine the of United PhD, Cochrane Centre United and of and MD, of Medicine, Clinical Epidemiology and University Ontario, PhD, Università di Modena e Reggio and Centro Cochrane Italiano, Istituto Ricerche Farmacologiche Mario J. PhD, University of United MD, PhD, of Medicine, Clinical Epidemiology and University Ontario, PhD, of Health MD, of and Medicine, University of MD, PhD, Medical United MD, The Cochrane Centre PhD, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute Ontario, MD, of Medicine, Clinical Epidemiology and University Ontario, PhD, United MD, University of MD, PhD, Systematic Reviews United and for Health and University of the and Alessandro Liberati, MD, Università di Modena e Reggio and Centro Cochrane Italiano, Istituto Ricerche Farmacologiche Mario MD, Centre for the of the of Health PhD, The United MD, Centro Cochrane Italiano, Istituto Ricerche Farmacologiche Mario Moher, PhD, Ottawa Methods Centre, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute Ontario, MD, Annals of Internal Medicine for Medical MD, Health Research Centre Health and Technology Assessment Ontario, Canada; at the of the first meeting of the group, Ontario, MD, University of Hospital of Ontario, PhD, Health International G. MD, PhD, Evidence-Based Jennifer Tetzlaff, BSc, Ottawa Methods Centre, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute Ontario, The Cochrane Cochrane Collaboration United at the of the first meeting of the group, United and MD, Institute of University of Ottawa Ontario, PRISMA was by the Canadian Institutes of Health Università di Modena e Reggio Emilia, Italy; Research Clinical Evidence The Cochrane Collaboration; and Liberati is in through of the of University and Altman is by Research Moher is by a University of Ottawa Research of the any in the or of the PRISMA no a role in the Moher, PhD, Ottawa Methods Centre, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, The Ottawa Ottawa, Canada; Moher and Ottawa Methods Centre, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, The Ottawa Ottawa, Università di Modena e Reggio and Centro Cochrane Italiano, Istituto Ricerche Farmacologiche Mario Negri, Milan, Centre for Statistics in Medicine, University of Oxford, United of the PRISMA is in the PRISMA Statement for Reporting Systematic Reviews and of Studies Health Explanation and Elaboration Alessandro Liberati Douglas G. Altman Jennifer
Associations between modifiable exposures and disease seen in observational epidemiology are sometimes confounded and thus misleading, despite our best efforts to improve the design and analysis of studies. Mendelian randomization—the random assortment of genes from parents to offspring that occurs during gamete formation and conception—provides one method for assessing the causal nature of some environmental exposures. The association between a disease and a polymorphism that mimics the biological link between a proposed exposure and disease is not generally susceptible to the reverse causation or confounding that may distort interpretations of conventional observational studies. Several examples where the phenotypic effects of polymorphisms are well documented provide encouraging evidence of the explanatory power of Mendelian randomization and are described. The limitations of the approach include confounding by polymorphisms in linkage disequilibrium with the polymorphism under study, that polymorphisms may have several phenotypic effects associated with disease, the lack of suitable polymorphisms for studying modifiable exposures of interest, and canalization—the buffering of the effects of genetic variation during development. Nevertheless, Mendelian randomization provides new opportunities to test causality and demonstrates how investment in the human genome project may contribute to understanding and preventing the adverse effects on human health of modifiable exposures. Genetic epidemiology—the theme of this issue of the International Journal of Epidemiology—is seen by many to be the only future for epidemiology, perhaps reflecting a growing awareness of the limitations of observational epidemiology1 (Box 1). Genetic epidemiology is concerned with understanding heritable aspects of disease risk, individual susceptibility to disease, and ultimately with contributing to a comprehensive molecular understanding of pathogenesis. The massive investment and expansion of human genetics, if it is to return value for the common good, must be integrated into public health functions. The human genome epidemiology network (HuGE Net—http://www.cdc.gov/genetics/huge.htm) has been established to promote the use of genetic knowledge—in terms of genetic tests and services—for disease prevention and health promotion.2,3 A broad taxonomy of human genome studies of public health relevance has been developed4 (Box 2). In this issue of the IJE, we publish a paper by Miguel Porta,5 who highlights the need for a more rational approach to genetic testing, given the likely low penetrance of many genes associated with cancers,6 likening the role of the genome to a jazz score that is interpreted and developed through experience and context—and is seldom predictable. Such insights may well temper enthusiasm for genetic testing in populations. However, in parallel to the approaches advocated by HuGE, genetic epidemiology can lead to a more robust understanding of environmental determinants of disease (e.g. dietary factors, occupational exposures, and health-related behaviours) relevant to whole populations (and not simply to genetically susceptible sub-populations).7–10 This approach has recently been referred to as ‘Mendelian randomization’.11–15 Here we begin by briefly reviewing reasons for current concerns about aetiological findings generated by conventional observational epidemiology and then we outline the potential contribution (and limitations) of Mendelian randomization. ‘Epidemiology set to get fast-track treatment’ ‘A consortium of leading European research centres and pharmaceutical companies will this week announce a plan to transform epidemiology by combining it with the new techniques of high-throughput biology. They plan to create a new field of study—genomic epidemiology—by using screening technologies derived from the human genome project … We think it is important to expand classical epidemiology and genetic epidemiology to take it to this high-throughput mode, says Esper Boel, vice-president of biotechnology research at Novo Nordisk. We want to use post-genomic technologies to create a new clinical science, to turn functional genomics into real clinical chemistry.’ From: Butler D. Epidemiology set to get fast-track treatment. Nature 2001;414:139. Reprinted with permission. Surveillance Population frequency of gene variants predisposing to specific diseases Population frequency of morbidity and mortality from such diseases Population frequency and effects of environmental factors known to interact with gene variants Economic costs of genetic components of diseases Coverage, access, and uptake of genetic tests and services Aetiology Magnitude of disease risk associated with gene variants in different populations Contribution of gene variants to the overall level of disease in different populations Magnitude of disease risk associated with gene–gene and gene–environment interactions in different populations Health services research Clinical validity and utility of genetic tests in different populations Determinants and impact of using genetic tests and services in different populations Adapted from Khoury MJ, Burke W, Thomson EJ (eds). Genetics and Public Health in the 21st Century. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000.
Objective The International Journal of Adolescent Medicine and Health ( IJAMH ) is an interdisciplinary, peer-reviewed, scientific journal which aims to publish original research on the promotion, prevention and improvement of adolescents’ health and well-being globally. Starting 2025, the journal will be transferred to Diamond Open Access on a year-by-year basis . All articles will thus immediately appear under the Creative Commons license CC-BY. There will be no publication costs for the authors. The Open Access transformation is based on Subscribe-to-Open , an alternative model that enables the full Open Access transformation of journals by continuing existing subscriptions. The prerequisite for successful transformation is that subscriptions are continued to the same extent as before. The editors of the International Journal of Adolescent Medicine and Health and the publisher De Gruyter would therefore like to thank all subscribers for their support in making the transformation to Open Access possible. Our mission is to enhance the health and well-being of individuals during adolescence. To achieve this, we aim not only to publish research that supports their healthy growth and development but also to empower young people with chronic conditions and special health needs to successfully transition from pediatric to adult care. Starting in 2025, the journal will feature a dedicated section "Transitions in Medicine and Health Care", focusing on this important topic. We work closely with the Society for Transition Medicine ( Gesellschaft für Transitionsmedizin e.V. , GfTM), whose official publication the journal is. We seek original manuscripts, review articles, short communications, and letters to the editor from all disciplines worldwide. We welcome manuscripts from our colleagues in medicine, nursing, health services research, social work, psychiatry, psychology and youth work, public health and policy, and other disciplines working to improve the health and well-being of adolescents and young adults. International Journal of Adolescent Medicine and Health regularly identifies focus topics that the editorial team considers to be of particular global relevance. Focus Topics in 2024 and 2025 Innovations in Adolescent Health Climate Change and Health Refugee and Migrant Health Promoting Mental Health Diversity and Inclusion Sexual and Reproductive Health Our International Editorial Team is dedicated to producing a high-quality scientific journal that is essential reading for healthcare professionals, practitioners, researchers, educators, managers, policymakers, students, and other learners. All contributions submitted for publication undergo single-anonymized peer review by at least two renowned experts in the field, selected and invited by the Editors-in-Chief or the Associate Editors. Article formats Original Articles, Review Articles, Short Communications, Letters to the Editor
The evolving landscape of open access (OA) journal publishing holds significant importance for policymakers and stakeholders who seek to make informed decisions and develop strategies that foster sustainable growth and advancements in open access initiatives within China. This study addressed the shortcomings of the current journal evaluation system and recognized the necessity of researching the elasticity of annual publication capacity (PUB) in relation to the Journal Impact Factor (JIF). By constructing an economic model of elasticity, a comparative analysis of the characteristics and dynamics of international OA journals from China and overseas was conducted. The analysis categorized OA journals based on their respective elasticity values and provided specific recommendations tailored to each category. These recommendations offer valuable insights into the development and growth potential of both OA journals from China and overseas. Moreover, the findings underscore the importance of strategic decision-making to strike a balance between quantity and quality in OA journal management. By comprehending the dynamic nature of elasticity, China can enhance its OA journal landscape, e
An exploratory, descriptive analysis is presented of the national orientation of scientific, scholarly journals as reflected in the affiliations of publishing or citing authors. It calculates for journals covered in Scopus an Index of National Orientation (INO), and analyses the distribution of INO values across disciplines and countries, and the correlation between INO values and journal impact factors. The study did not find solid evidence that journal impact factors are good measures of journal internationality in terms of the geographical distribution of publishing or citing authors, as the relationship between a journal's national orientation and its citation impact is found to be inverse U-shaped. In addition, journals publishing in English are not necessarily internationally oriented in terms of the affiliations of publishing or citing authors; in social sciences and humanities also USA has their nationally oriented literatures. The paper examines the extent to which nationally oriented journals entering Scopus in earlier years, have become in recent years more international. It is found that in the study set about 40 per cent of such journals does reveal traces of internati
The electric power sector is a leading source of air pollutant emissions, impacting the public health of nearly every community. Although regulatory measures have reduced air pollutants, fossil fuels remain a significant component of the energy supply, highlighting the need for more advanced demand-side approaches to reduce the public health impacts. To enable health-informed demand-side management, we introduce HealthPredictor, a domain-specific AI model that provides an end-to-end pipeline linking electricity use to public health outcomes. The model comprises three components: a fuel mix predictor that estimates the contribution of different generation sources, an air quality converter that models pollutant emissions and atmospheric dispersion, and a health impact assessor that translates resulting pollutant changes into monetized health damages. Across multiple regions in the United States, our health-driven optimization framework yields substantially lower prediction errors in terms of public health impacts than fuel mix-driven baselines. A case study on electric vehicle charging schedules illustrates the public health gains enabled by our method and the actionable guidance it
The surging demand for artificial intelligence (AI) has led to a rapid expansion of energy-intensive data centers, contributing to criteria air pollutant emissions and raising public health concerns that have received comparatively limited attention in sustainability assessments. This paper introduces a principled methodology to model air pollutant emissions for data centers and estimate the public health impacts. Our findings reveal that the growing demand for AI and computing technologies is projected to push the total annual public health burden of U.S. data centers up to more than $20 billion in 2028. Although national-level impacts remain modest, data center health costs are unevenly distributed: in the most affected counties, the estimated per-household health burden can reach about seven times the national average. Next, we propose a health-informed computing framework that explicitly incorporates public health impacts into data center resource management across space and time, mitigating public health costs while supporting environmental sustainability. More broadly, we recommend extended energy reporting to include public health impact of data centers and paying attention
Rapidly evolving technology, data and analytic landscapes are permeating many fields and professions. In public health, the need for data science skills including data literacy is particularly prominent given both the potential of novel data types and analysis methods to fill gaps in existing public health research and intervention practices, as well as the potential of such data or methods to perpetuate or augment health disparities. Through a review of public health courses and programs at the top 10 U.S. and globally ranked schools of public health, this article summarizes existing educational efforts in public health data science. These existing practices serve to inform efforts for broadening such curricula to further schools and populations. Data science ethics course offerings are also examined in context of assessing how population health principles can be blended into training across levels of data involvement to augment the traditional core of public health curricula. Parallel findings from domestic and international 'outside the classroom' training programs are also synthesized to advance approaches for increasing diversity in public health data science. Based on these p
Past research has shown the benefits of food journaling in promoting mindful eating and healthier food choices. However, the links between journaling and healthy eating have not been thoroughly examined. Beyond caloric restriction, do journalers consistently and sufficiently consume healthful diets? How different are their eating habits compared to those of average consumers who tend to be less conscious about health? In this study, we analyze the healthy eating behaviors of active food journalers using data from MyFitnessPal. Surprisingly, our findings show that food journalers do not eat as healthily as they should despite their proclivity to health eating and their food choices resemble those of the general populace. Furthermore, we find that the journaling duration is only a marginal determinant of healthy eating outcomes and sociodemographic factors, such as gender and regions of residence, are much more predictive of healthy food choices.
Citation network analysis has become one of methods to study how scientific knowledge flows from one domain to another. Health informatics is a multidisciplinary field that includes social science, software engineering, behavioral science, medical science and others. In this study, we perform an analysis of citation statistics from health informatics journals using data set extracted from CrossRef. For each health informatics journal, we extract the number of citations from/to studies related to computer science, medicine/clinical medicine and other fields, including the number of self-citations from the health informatics journal. With a similar number of articles used in our analysis, we show that the Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association (JAMIA) has more in-citations than the Journal of Medical Internet Research (JMIR); while JMIR has a higher number of out-citations and self-citations. We also show that JMIR cites more articles from health informatics journals and medicine related journals. In addition, the Journal of Medical Systems (JMS) cites more articles from computer science journals compared with other health informatics journals included in our analysi
BACKGROUND: Health literacy concerns the knowledge and competences of persons to meet the complex demands of health in modern society. Although its importance is increasingly recognised, there is no consensus about the definition of health literacy or about its conceptual dimensions, which limits the possibilities for measurement and comparison. The aim of the study is to review definitions and models on health literacy to develop an integrated definition and conceptual model capturing the most comprehensive evidence-based dimensions of health literacy. METHODS: A systematic literature review was performed to identify definitions and conceptual frameworks of health literacy. A content analysis of the definitions and conceptual frameworks was carried out to identify the central dimensions of health literacy and develop an integrated model. RESULTS: The review resulted in 17 definitions of health literacy and 12 conceptual models. Based on the content analysis, an integrative conceptual model was developed containing 12 dimensions referring to the knowledge, motivation and competencies of accessing, understanding, appraising and applying health-related information within the healthcare, disease prevention and health promotion setting, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Based upon this review, a model is proposed integrating medical and public health views of health literacy. The model can serve as a basis for developing health literacy enhancing interventions and provide a conceptual basis for the development and validation of measurement tools, capturing the different dimensions of health literacy within the healthcare, disease prevention and health promotion settings.
The study investigates the juridico-technological architecture of international public health instruments, focusing on their implementation across India, the European Union, the United States and low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), particularly in Sub-Saharan Africa. It addresses a research lacuna: the insufficient harmonisation between normative health law and algorithmic public health infrastructures in resource-constrained jurisdictions. The principal objective is to assess how artificial intelligence augments implementation of instruments grounded in IHR 2005 and the WHO FCTC while identifying doctrinal and infrastructural bottlenecks. Using comparative doctrinal analysis and legal-normative mapping, the study triangulates legislative instruments, WHO monitoring frameworks, AI systems including BlueDot, Aarogya Setu and EIOS, and compliance metrics. Preliminary results show that AI has improved early detection, surveillance precision and responsiveness in high-capacity jurisdictions, whereas LMICs face infrastructural deficits, data privacy gaps and fragmented legal scaffolding. The findings highlight the relevance of the EU Artificial Intelligence Act and GDPR as regulat
Large Language Models (LLMs) hold promise in addressing complex medical problems. However, while most prior studies focus on improving accuracy and reasoning abilities, a significant bottleneck in developing effective healthcare agents lies in the readability of LLM-generated responses, specifically, their ability to answer public health problems clearly and simply to people without medical backgrounds. In this work, we introduce RephQA, a benchmark for evaluating the readability of LLMs in public health question answering (QA). It contains 533 expert-reviewed QA pairs from 27 sources across 13 topics, and includes a proxy multiple-choice task to assess informativeness, along with two readability metrics: Flesch-Kincaid grade level and professional score. Evaluation of 25 LLMs reveals that most fail to meet readability standards, highlighting a gap between reasoning and effective communication. To address this, we explore four readability-enhancing strategies-standard prompting, chain-of-thought prompting, Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO), and a token-adapted variant. Token-adapted GRPO achieves the best results, advancing the development of more practical and user-friendl
BACKGROUND: Pain is an enormous problem globally. Estimates suggest that 20% of adults suffer from pain globally and 10% are newly diagnosed with chronic pain each year. Nevertheless, the problem of pain has primarily been regarded as a medical problem, and has been little addressed by the field of public health. DISCUSSION: Despite the ubiquity of pain, whether acute, chronic or intermittent, public health scholars and practitioners have not addressed this issue as a public health problem. The importance of viewing pain through a public health lens allows one to understand pain as a multifaceted, interdisciplinary problem for which many of the causes are the social determinants of health. Addressing pain as a global public health issue will also aid in priority setting and formulating public health policy to address this problem, which, like most other chronic non-communicable diseases, is growing both in absolute numbers and in its inequitable distribution across the globe. SUMMARY: The prevalence, incidence, and vast social and health consequences of global pain requires that the public health community give due attention to this issue. Doing so will mean that health care providers and public health professionals will have a more comprehensive understanding of pain and the appropriate public health and social policy responses to this problem.
Rankings of scholarly journals based on citation data are often met with skepticism by the scientific community. Part of the skepticism is due to disparity between the common perception of journals' prestige and their ranking based on citation counts. A more serious concern is the inappropriate use of journal rankings to evaluate the scientific influence of authors. This paper focuses on analysis of the table of cross-citations among a selection of Statistics journals. Data are collected from the Web of Science database published by Thomson Reuters. Our results suggest that modelling the exchange of citations between journals is useful to highlight the most prestigious journals, but also that journal citation data are characterized by considerable heterogeneity, which needs to be properly summarized. Inferential conclusions require care in order to avoid potential over-interpretation of insignificant differences between journal ratings. Comparison with published ratings of institutions from the UK's Research Assessment Exercise shows strong correlation at aggregate level between assessed research quality and journal citation `export scores' within the discipline of Statistics.
We present a technical case study on the Privacy-Enhancing Technologies (PETs) for Public Health Challenge, a collaborative effort to safely leverage sensitive private sector data for social impact, specifically pandemic management. The project utilized Differential Privacy (DP) to create realistic, privacy-preserved synthetic financial transaction data, which was then combined with public health and mobility datasets. This approach successfully addressed the critical hurdle of sharing sensitive financial information for research and policy. The analysis demonstrated that this synthetic, DP-protected data possesses significant spatial-temporal and predictive power for public health. Key outcomes include the development of six reusable tools and frameworks supporting diagnostic nowcasting (e.g., Hotspot Detection, Pandemic Adherence Monitoring) and predictive forecasting (e.g., Mobility Analysis, Contact Matrix Estimation) for epidemiological decision-making. The study provides best practices for advancing data sharing in a privacy-compliant manner.
This paper presents a holistic systems informatics approach, i.e., Define, Measure, Analyze, Improve, and Control (DMAIC), for epidemic response and management through the intensive use of data, statistics and optimization. Despite the sustained successes of system informatics in a variety of established industries such as manufacturing, logistics, services and beyond, there is a dearth of concentrated review and application of the data-driven DMAIC approach in the context of epidemic outbreaks. First, we define specific challenges posed by epidemic outbreaks to populational health, health systems, as well as economic challenges to different industries such as retailing, education and manufacturing. Second, we present a review of medical testing and statistical sampling methods for data collection, as well as existing efforts in data management and data visualization. Third, we discuss the importance to realizing the full potential of data for epidemic insights, and emphasize the need to leverage analytical methods and tools for decision support. Fourth, an epidemic brings imperative changes to health systems. We discuss the new trend of healthcare solutions to improve system resil