One Third of the Clinical Cancer Studies Report Conflict of Interest

While many of us just recovered from the news that Elsevier was paid to produce fake Journals to promote pharmaceutical products, another news item has appeared about “conflicts of interests in scientific publications”

This news is based on a new journal article from researchers from the University of Michigan’s Comprehensive Cancer Center in Ann Arbor, published in an early online edition of Cancer [1]

As mentioned in my previous post about the Elsevier “Fake Journals”, pharma-sponsored trials rarely produce results that are unfavorable to the companies’ products [e.g. see 3 for an overview, and many papers of Lisa Bero]. Concerned by these findings, the main medical journals now require researchers to disclose their potential conflicts of interest (COI).

The present study [1] analyzes the frequency of self-reported conflicts of interest (COI), source of study funding, and (their relationship with) other characteristics in original clinical cancer research (thus no reviews or basic research) published in 8 medical Journals in 2006. The 8 journals are high-impact clinical journals, 5 are oncology journals (Journal of Clinical Oncology, the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, Lancet Oncology,Clinical Cancer Research, Cancer) and 3 are core general medical journals (New England Journal of Medicine,JAMA, the Journal of the American Medical Association, Lancet).

In these medical journals 1534 original oncology studies were found. Twenty-nine percent of the oncology articles reported COI: 17% declared industrial funding and the remaining 12% of the studies had authors who were an employee of industry at the time of publication, or were funded by industry.

The study was thoroughly done: 2 students independently coded the articles and 2 other coders, blinded for the initial coding, assessed all randomized trials (within those 1543 papers) for the outcomes. They graded the authors’ subjective interpretations as positive (in favor of the intervention), neutral, or negative (in favor of the control arm). Overall survival was assessed quantitatively.

The main results:

• Conflicts of interest varied by discipline (P<.001). Studies that had a corresponding author from a medical oncology department or division were most likely to have conflicts (45%), and studies from diagnostic radiology were least likely to have conflicts (4%)
• Likewise the cancer type mattered, especially with regard to likelihood of industrial funding (P = .001). Studies on the male reproductive system and lung cancers scored highest and studies on neurological cancers scored lowest as to the likelihood of funding. (however there is some contradiction because gynecologic departments have a high score and gynecologic cancers have a relatively low score, conf. figures 1 and 2)
• Continental origin was also an important variable (P<.001). COI were observed in 33% of the North American studies, 27% of the European studies, 5% of the Asian studies, and 40% of the studies from other locations.
• COI was most likely in articles with male first and senior authors (P<.001).
• Industry funded studies were more likely to focus on treatment (P<.001), and less on epidemiology, prevention, risk factors for incidence, screening, or diagnostic methods.
• The randomized trials (n=124) that assessed survival were more likely to report positive survival outcomes when a COI was present (P=.04). (see below)

The paper has received a lot of media attention, initiated by the press release of the University of Michigan Health System itself. The data however are less shocking then they may seem. The main finding is that “conflicts of interest characterize a substantial minority of the clinically oriented cancer research published in high-impact medical journals”. This and the characteristics of the papers with COI (see above) add to earlier papers that report on the occurrence of COI in published articles, including papers in the field of clinical oncology.”

Some outcomes are not very surprising, such as that pharmaceutical industries and funding will be most involved in intervention studies in medical oncology studies (not so much in radiology or diagnostics).

In itself, COI does not mean that the results cannot be trusted or that they are plain wrong. Credibility could be questioned if only positive results are published or if the results are represented more positive then they really are.

Indeed, Jagsi et al show that “randomized trials with a COI were more likely to report positive survival outcomes (P=.04)”. However, the likelihood that the author interpretation was positive or more positive than the objective effect on overall survival wasn’t influenced by COI. And differences in industrial funding didn’t influence any of the blinded outcomes assessed. Also in this study, the non-neutral findings are emphasized. 😉

On the other hand, authors had to rely on the information given, i.e. not all conflicts of interests may have been reported. Another issue is that not all known COIs are disclosed to the public (i.e. medicalnewstoday)

The following conclusion of the lead author Reshma Jagsi seems most relevant:[2]

“Given the frequency we observed for conflicts of interest and the fact that conflicts were associated with study outcomes, I would suggest that merely disclosing conflicts is probably not enough. It’s becoming increasingly clear that we need to look more at how we can disentangle cancer research from industries”

References

1. Jagsi, R., Sheets, N., Jankovic, A., Motomura, A., Amarnath, S., & Ubel, P. (2009). Frequency, nature, effects, and correlates of conflicts of interest in published clinical cancer research Cancer DOI: 10.1002/cncr.24315
2. University of Michigan Health System (2009, May 13). 29 Percent Of Cancer Studies Report Conflict Of Interest. ScienceDaily. Retrieved May 14, 2009, from http://www.sciencedaily.com­ /releases/2009/05/090511090846.htm
3. Smith R. Medical Journals Are an Extension of the Marketing Arm of Pharmaceutical Companies. PLoS Med. 2005 May; 2(5): e138. Published online 2005 May 17. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0020138.

You may also want to read:

• Merck’s Ghostwriters, Haunted Papers and Fake Elsevier Journals

Hattip: @sciencebase, Reinout Rietveld (via NRC-next)

Stories 3. Science or Library Work: what is more rewarding?

Amy Tenderich of Diabetesmine, will celebrate her birthday at the very same day as she hosts the next Grand Round. She has therefore chosen a very appropriate theme (see announcement):

I’m favoring any and all posts having to do with birthdays and special occasions – or anything that smacks of serendipity, perks, or gifts related to the work you all do.

First of all I would like to congratulate Amy on her birthday.

I have been hesitating whether I should contribute to this round. It is not an easy subject and a bit out of scope. However, thinking about it, many ideas came up and it even became difficult to choose one. But here it is. It is even the first post in a series: STORIES, a selection of personal stories.

Most of you will know that I’m a medical librarian by profession, but a medical biologist by education. Many years I worked as a scientist, with mice, patients, cells, DNA and proteins.

I was an avid scientist. My motivation was to unravel mechanisms and understand life. I liked to ask questions: “why is this? why do I find that? how does it work?” The greatest reward you can get is: looking for explanations and finding the answer to a question. Thinking about it and discussing it with others is exciting.The more difficult a question is, the more rewarding it is to find the answer. The gift that science gives you is science itself.

In those twenty years I did have my little successes. I had a press conference at a congress (1) (because it was the only subject that was understandable for the public) and I had two papers that were frequently cited (2).

The finding that gave rise to those two publications was very serendipitous. We found a very tiny band in B cells that were used as a negative (!) control for follicular lymphoma in a PCR for the t(14;18) chromosomal translocation. This translocation is considered the hallmark of this type of B-cell cancer. If this was true, it would mean that the lymphoma-associated t(14;18) involving the BCL2 oncogene could also occur outside the context of malignancy. My task was to prove that this was true. This was not an easy task, because we had to exclude that the tiny bands in the tonsils were due to contamination with exponentially amplified tumor DNA. A lot of tricks were needed to enable direct sequencing of the tonsil DNA to show that each chromosomal breakpoint was unique. To be honest, there were quite some moments of despair and most of the time I believed I was hunting ghosts. Certainly when the first band I sequenced was from a contaminating tumor. But finally we succeeded.

And although science can be very rewarding:

• Most ideas aren’t that new.
• There are many dead leads and negative results (see cartoon).
• Experiments can fail.
• There is a lot of competition
  
• It takes very long before you get results (depending on the type of experiment)
• It takes even longer before you get enough results to publish
• It takes still longer before you have written down the first version of the paper
• … and to wait for the first comments of the co-authors (see cartoon)
• … and to rewrite the paper and to wait …
• … and to submit to the journal and wait..
• … to get the first rejection, because your paper didn’t get a high enough priority
• and to rewrite, wait for the comments of the co-authors, adapt and submit
  
• to be rejected for the second time by referees that don’t understand a bit of your subject or are competitors
• to rewrite etcetera, till it is accepted…and published
• to wait till somebody other than you or your co-authors find the paper relevant enough to cite.
• but most importantly even with very good results that make you feel very happy and content:
  • each answer raises more questions
  • most research, whatever brilliant, is just a drop in the ocean or worse:
  • it gets invalidated

I loved to do research and I loved to be a researcher. However, it is difficult for post-doc to keep finding a job and wait for the contract renewals each year. So almost 4 years ago, just before another renewal of the contract, I was happy to get the opportunity to become a medical librarian at a place not far from where I lived. In fact, after all these years it is my first permanent job.

And it is a far more rewarding job than I ever had before, although perhaps not as challenging as research.

• Results are more immediate.
• Answers are clearcut (well mostly)
• People (doctors, nurses, students) are very happy when you learn them how to search (well generally)
• they are also happy when you do the search for them
• or when you help them doing it
• It is very rewarding to develop courses, to teach, to educate
• the job has many facets

The rewards can vary from a happy smile, a hand shake and “a thank you” to acknowledgments and even co-authorships in papers. Sometimes I even get tangible presents, like chocolates, cookies, wine or gift tokens.

Last week a patron suddenly said when seeing the presents gathered: “Is it your birthday?”
Presumably it is about time to drink the wine I got.Cheers!

Photo credits (Flickr-CC):

• Birthday Present: http://www.flickr.com/photos/marcelgermain/2267526122/
• DNA form a bottle: http://www.flickr.com/photos/publik15/3419163183/
• Rose Vase plus Wine Bottles: http://www.flickr.com/photos/krizalis/2717145005/

23andMe: 23notMe, not yet

The company 23andMe was in the news thrice this month:

1. cutting the price of its service by more than a half
2. organizing a celebrity spit party
3. the husband of the 23andMe co-founder Anne Wojcicki, better known as Google co-Founder Sergey Brin, revealed he is at risk for Parkinson’s Disease, as determined by….23andMe.

Coincidence or part of a strategic plan?

23andMe is a ‘direct to consumer genetic testing’ company that as 23andMe puts it: “democratizes personal genetics”. The lowering of the service price from $999 to $399 brings personalized genomics within the range of many.

What do you get for those $399? A spit kit, you do your thing, send the tube to a certified lab, which analyzes your saliva for more than a half-million points (called SNPs) scattered across the 23 pairs of chromosomes you have (hence 23andMe), as well as your mitochondrial DNA. 23andMe shows the digital data and gives you information on certain traits and diseases. 23andMe also gives information on your ancestry and compares your DNA to your relative’s and friend’s-genes, if you want to share that knowledge with them. With your genes in their database you help 23andMe to perform more research for new discoveries, a program called 23andWe. In fact once you sign up you cannot refuse the use your (anonymous) DNA for this purpose.

The main question is: what purpose does this serve (besides as a potential for yielding income)?

According to 23andMe the main purpose is ‘for research’, ‘for education’ and ‘for fun’: “It’s fun to learn about your own genome”.

In this light, we should probably see the recent event 23andMe organized: a spit party where a few hundred people were lured away from the catwalks during the Fashion Week in New York City. On the sound track of “a whole lot of love” celebrities were spitting their DNA-containing saliva in a tube (see here and here). According Guy Kawasaki, who report on it on his blog (see here),

“even Goldie Hawn and Kurt Russell were there providing their spit, but their handlers wouldn’t let me take a picture. I found this ironical: Giving DNA was okay but not a picture.”

The aim for which Sergey Brin let 23andMe test his DNA was less funny. As Sergey (whos mother has Parkinson) explains in his brand new blog:

(…..) Nonetheless it is clear that I have a markedly higher chance of developing Parkinson’s in my lifetime than the average person. In fact, it is somewhere between 20% to 80% depending on the study and how you measure. At the same time, research into LRRK2 looks intriguing (both for LRRK2 carriers and potentially for others).

Thus this shows a 3rd aim: diagnostic?!
Formally 23andMe denies there is a diagnostic purpose (in part, surely, because the company doesn’t want to antagonize the FDA, which strictly regulates diagnostic testing for disease). However, 23andme does give information on your risk profile for certain diseases, including Parkinson.

In addition, 23andMe encourages the formation of networks of people sharing the same traits.

“If you want to have a community around psoriasis,” Ms Wojcicki said, “we’d like to be able to allow you to form a psoriasis-specific community.” (see New York Times article)

Psoriasis-specific community when you only have the genes that may enhance the risk of getting psoriasis??

That sounds like condemning you to a psoriasis patient already?!

Then lets discuss the following burning question: how well does 23andMe predict that you will get the disease?

Even the LRRK2-gene data of Mr. Brin aren’t that conclusive. A marked higher chance of 20% to 80% is often misconceived as meaning that Sergey’s chance of getting Parkison is 20-80%, or “he will almost get the disease for sure”. As explained by the Gene Sherpa in his excellent post on this subject (see here) it only means that the LRRK2-mutation increases the normal chance of Americans/Europeans getting Parkinson from 2-5% to 4-10% at the most (the chance is less than doubled). Furthermore LRRK2 isn’t the most crucial gene for getting Parkinson.

23andMe has chosen to relate personal health info only to common diseases and common genes. Thus whether you have an enhanced or lowered risk for breast cancer (normal 1 out of 8 women) is determined by 2 (not very predictive) SNPs associated with Breast Cancer, but not by determining BRCA1/2 mutations that are highly predictive for breast cancer, but rare in the entire (western) population .

Although 24andMe explicitly mentions that the tests are for non-diagnostic purposes, it is hard to imagine that people will see it otherwise. But:

• Most genes are only weakly predisposing
• Often multiple genes are working in concert in a difficult to predict way (seldom one gene-one disease)
• The environment and chance also play an important role.

Thus the value of these fun predictions is low, but how does it affect people that think they are prone to having a disease? For some it might be reason to adjust their lifestyle (but then, what is the chance you really change “your destiny”), others may get fixed on their presumptive future disease, confused, or depressed. It is not without reason that genetic screening is usually restricted to people with high risks, when a disease can be predicted accurately (without too many false positives and negatives), something can be done about it (prevention or treatment), and only as part of a genetic consultation by professionals.

Sources; further reading

23andme : https://www.23andme.com/

Blogpost Sergei: http://too.blogspot.com/2008/09/lrrk2.html

Reaction to blogpost: NYtimes.com (2008/09/19): Technology (free login needed)

http://www.social-marketing.com/blog/2008/09/too-much-information.html

http://casesblog.blogspot.com/2008/09/google-founder-sergey-brin-starts-blog.html

** http://thegenesherpa.blogspot.com/2008/09/lrrk2-and-parkinson-disease.html

Lower prices: several blogs, see blogcarnival at: Gene-Genie-37 (2008/09/14):

Party:NYtimes (2008/09/14) fashion,14spit (free login needed)

http://spittoon.23andme.com/2008/09/11/23andme-struts-its-stuff-in-nyc-during-fashion-week/

http://blog.guykawasaki.com/2007/11/23andme-party.html

#Sciblog – a bird-eye’s view from the camera

Last Saturday I learned from @AJCann and @Jobadge (Twitter) that there was a Science Blogging Conference going on in London, that you could virtually attend.

Although I planned to do something else (banking for my mom, pick up my daughter from her overnight stay; Saturday is my-shopping-&-bodyshape-sauna- & blogging-if-I-have-some-spare-time-day), I decided to follow it. In the meantime I tried to blog about something else, which didn’t work.

I largely followed Cameron Neylon’s streamed video on Mogulus. It’s main value was the audio-stream, as well as the candid-camera function peeping at the audience from behind.

I came in late (back from banking) and unfortunately missed the Keynote lecture of Ben Goldacre from Badscience.

The next session didn’t do it for me, partly because the 3 blogging ladies ( Jenny Rohn, Grrl Scientist, Anna Kushnir) were almost inaudible and what they had to say about the bridging function of blogs between scientists and the general public (also figuratively) didn’t catch my ears. In the meantime the virtual attendents including, Fang (Mike Seyfang) from Australia, AJCann, some other guys and me, chatted in Cameron Neylon’s room.

In between I followed Twitter-messages having the hashtag #sciblog (see here). I was not familiar with hashtags, but it is a predefined tag you can add to you microblogging post to easily tract what is being said about a subject (even when you don’t actually follow the persons themselves, so as a spin off you can get acquainted with some real interesting people).

Example of a twitter message on #sciblog:

#sciblog matt woods: friendfeed encourages discussion and closes feedback loop 9 minutes ago from TwitKit

However, Hashtags is an opt-in service. You must follow @hashtags -and it has to follow you- for the service to index your tweets, so it took me some time to get it done (For more information, see this twitter wiki.) Althoug the procedure in itself was very effective, the twitter messages didn’t add much value for people already attending.

Another online backchannel, the Friendfeed room appeared more lively, but I soon stopped following the threads. Furthermore I ‘m so old-fashioned that I think speakers do deserve my attention while they’re talking (but perhaps that is because I’m not yet used to chatting at the back-scene). Checking my notes afterwards with the Friendfeed comments was useful however.

Next I followed Matt Wood’s introduction to microblogging and aggregation services and Breakout 6 “Communicating Primary Research Publicly” by Heather Etchevers (Human in Science), Jean-Claude Bradley (Useful Chemistry) and Bob O’Hara (Deep Thoughts and Silliness).

I found these presentations interesting, but tracking my notes back I couldn’t see where Matt ended and the others began.

During his lively presentation with a lot of gesturing, the heavy “sequencer” Matt Wood from “Green is Good” told us he had decided not to worry to be open and just send the message out to the public. You could use blogs to communicate your scientific findings, but blogposts do not handle versioning, although you can sometimes manipulate the post’s date (WordPress blog). Another tool is microblogging services. Twitter is more of a social platform, whereas Friendfeed is more apt for more information-exchange (no 140 character-limit). A new microblogging service is identi.ca. (see for instance this readwriteweb post)

Labnote books (and wiki’s) were a recurrent subject through the 4 presentations. They are very useful to blog primary research. People should write their motives, use it as a diary (writing down all details and circumstances), recording the results (videorecording, freehand sketches, figures, prints, text), followed by periodic summing up.

Why this is useful?

• You don’t have to remember it (people tend to forget) (although some lab-scientists don’t like to take the notebook along to the bench)
• Archive of ideas, (to share with people in the lab, collaborators or even ‘the world’
  
• (If open) some results may be available direct outside the lab, which may be very useful for cooperation and exchange of thoughts or help (why did my blot fail?-how to proceed?)
  
• It may help as a bridge to the public, i.e. by showing if public money is being spent well or for direct communication of your data to the public.
  
• The info is verifiable if you link to the real data
  
• Science is far more efficient this way and results are revealed instantly. Why wait till everything is distilled out? The scientist’s approach is as Hans Ricke quoted Richard Feyman from his Nobel Lecture 1966 (at Bob o’Hara ‘s blog) :
  

“We have a habit in writing articles published in scientific journals to make the work as finished as possible, to cover up all the tracks, to not worry about the blind alleys or describe how you had the wrong idea first, and so on. So there isn’t any place to publish, in a dignified manner,what you actually did in order to get to do the work.”

As Hans said blogs may fill that hole, because they are the place to publish this!

Major Pitfall may be that journals may not accept data reported on a wiki. And another that some people may run away with your ideas. By writing it all down you make it very easy on them. Still if everybody would become open…. For Science that would be a great good.

What I liked most of these presentations is the openness and the creativity of the presenters.
As a (medical) librarian and a scientist these thoughts came to my mind:

• I’m a bit jealous that I worked as a scientist in the web 1.0 era. This way of approaching science looks very stimulating to me, but maybe that’s only a romantic look from the outside?
• How do we as librarians step in? Can we play a facilitating role? Should these primary findings be aggregated and made available in a searchable way?
  We should at least keep more in pace with the new scientific developments and the way researchers exchange and find their information. It’s entirely different to what we are used to. (we= most librarians I know, including myself)
• I wonder if such an approach could also be used in medicine and/or in EBM. Are wiki’s like this useful for CATs for instance? Question, PICO + domain, best study type, search, critical appraisal, summary, power point presentation, pdf-files, video of CAT etc??? link to video of casus perhaps?

To get an impression of the great features of such a wiki/open notebook, take a look at http://usefulchem.wikispaces.com/ (Jean Claude Bradley). You can also go to the Useful Chemistry blog and click at “UsefulChem wiki”. Note for instance the links to the notebooks of the individual scientists. Really impressive.

Below you also find the (short) presentation of Heather. Hope the others will follow soon and share their presentations

Vodpod videos no longer available.

more about “Sciblog2008 Etchevers“, posted with vodpod

Other Info

You can find the program and the attendees here.

discussions about sciblog on friendfeed.com

aggegated info via yahoo-pipes (dnwallace/sciblog)

Blogpost of Bob o’hara on blogging research (2008/08/25)

Blogpost Mike Seyfang (2008/08/31): london-science-blogging-conference-a-view-from-downunder

Blogpost of JoBadge (2008/09/01) : sciblog-conference

Blogpost of AJ Cann (2008/08/31) sciblog

Nature science blogging conference

There is official forum for Science Blogging in London, today. The event is organized by Nature Networks.

You can find the program and the attendees here.

AJCann of Science of the Invisible has summarized in this post how you can virtually follow this conference.

At this moment (saturday 11.45 am) you can follow the forum live here

HATTIP: Twitter : @AJCann, @Jobadge

———————————-

Vandaag is er een conferentie voor ‘wetenschapsbloggers’ in Londen.

het wordt georganiseerd door Nature Networks

Hier kunt u het programma bekijken.

Op dit moment (zaterdag 11.45 uur) kunt u het programma hier live volgen.

AJCann van Science of the Invisible heeft hier samengevat hoe u deze conferentie kunt volgen.

HATTIP: Twitter : @AJCann, @Jobadge

Farmaceutische industrie & wetenschap: je zou er depressief van worden.

Ook in de Psychiatrie een nauwe verstrengeling tussen farmaceutische industrie en wetenschap.

Beluister hier het interview met Trudy Dehue in het radioprogramma Argos (de Ochtenden) van de VPRO/VARA (vrijdag 6 juni 2008), over haar boek De Depressie Epidemie
[ISBN: 9789045700953] .

In dit interview komt vooral de invloed van de industrie op het (te vaak) voorschrijven van depressiva (prozac e.d.) en het verdoezelen van bijwerkingen aan de orde.

In deze audio-opname wordt er ook op gewezen dat editors van vooraanstaande engelstalige tijdschriften (Lancet, BMJ) regelmatig de verstrengeling van geneesmiddelenindustie en wetenschappelijk onderzoek stevig aan de kaak stellen.

Klik hier voor zo’n editorial van Fiona Godlee BMJ 2008;336: “Editor’s Choice – Doctors and the drug industry” en hier voor een editorial van RE Ferner – BMJ 2005; 330: 855-856: “The influence of big pharma”.

Toevallig speelt nu ook de kwestie van het ADHD-medicijn Strattera, dat volgens het Nederlands Comité voor de Rechten van de Mens (NCRM) het risico op suïcidaal gedrag, hartaandoeningen en leverbeschadigingen zou verhogen. De NCRM beschikt over een gedeelte van het evaluatierapport over dit medicijn ‘Strattera Risk Benefit Assessment’ (2006). In de 67 beschikbare pagina’s zijn o.a. de volgende gegevens te vinden:

• 130 meldingen van suicidaal gedrag in één maand
• 766 spontane meldingen van hartaandoeningen
• 172 meldingen van leverbeschadigingen
• 20 geslaagde zelfmoorden

Morgen [9 juni 2008] is er een zitting van de Bestuursrechtbank in Amsterdam aangaande de openbaarmaking van het hele rapport in het kader van de Wet Openbaarheid Bestuur. Het Nederlands College ter Beoordeling van Geneesmiddelen (CBG) wilde het rapport namelijk niet vrijgeven.

Bronnen:

• Spits vrijdag 6 juni (papieren versie) , 5 juni e-versie: klik hier
• http://ncrm.nl/nieuws.htm
  

Week #11: Podcast

Everything You Always Wanted to Know About the Platypus (duck bill) Genome, But Were Afraid to Ask?

Or just want to hear Robin (not Robbie) Williams??

Then listen to the following 60-Second Science daily podcast show!

The full transcript, other podcasts, and the possibility to subscribe (RSS, iTunes) can be found here .

Original idea of Scientific American to bring some daily science to the public. But in my view it remains very superficial. I rather read the whole story in a scientific journal or this piece in Scientific American itself.

(podcast seen at: http://brown.edu/ the link is shown under: research at their homepage)

***************

Altijd al willen weten hoe het nou zat met dat vogelbekdier? Het lijkt op een bever met poten en een bek van een eend. Maar hoe zit het nu genetisch?

Beluister dan even deze swingende 60 seconden science podcast show van Scientific American.

Het volledige transcript en links naar andere 60sec. podcasts zijn hier te vinden, alsmede de mogelijkheid om je via RSS of iTunes op deze dagelijkse podcast te abonneren.

Wel origineel van Scientific American om zo het dagelijks nieuws naar het volk te brengen, maar het blijft wel wat oppervlakkig en populair. Ik lees zelf toch lever gewoon de feitjes in het oorspronkelijke tijdschrift, de wetenschapsbijlage (NRC, Volkskrant) of in dit geval op de site van Scientific American zelf.

(podcast gezien op http://brown.edu/, de link bevindt zich onder het kopje research op hun homepage.)

p.s. En brughagedis, alweer een biologie-tip voor jou, maar ik zag dat jij op jouw beurt op iets medisch in PubMed gezocht had.

Met losse handen publicaties scoren

(naar Bericht in “Status”, maart 2008, Ernst Koelman)

De UvA is doorgedrongen tot de top 50 van ‘s werelds meest productieve universiteiten. Dat komt mede doordat de ‘output’ van het AMC voor het eerst is meegeteld.

Dit heeft alles te maken met de nieuwe electronische registratie van onze Medische Bibliotheek.

Voorheen moesten afdelingen elk jaar zelf een lijst met publicaties aanleveren. Dat gebeurde ‘handmatig’ door Pubmed af te struinen. Overzichten waren zelden compleet of werden soms niet eens ingeleverd. Een volledige registratie is belangrijk, omdat aan de hand van die gegevens in- en extern de wetenschappelijke output bepaald wordt.

Sinds 2007 verzamelt de bibliotheek de gegevens zelf. Met een programma worden automatisch publicaties met het AMC-adres uit PubMed en Web of Science gevist. 85% van de 3000 publicaties wordt daarmee gevangen. De publicaties die gemist zijn, kunnen door de afdeling handmatig worden toegevoegd. Op de bibliotheek-homepage (intern) zijn de recente publicaties te vinden, te rangschikken per auteur of afdeling.

Hulde aan mijn collega’s Cees, Geert en Lieuwe!