Cochrane Collaboration

About: Cochrane Collaboration is a nonprofit organization based out in Oxford, United Kingdom. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Systematic review & Randomized controlled trial. The organization has 1995 authors who have published 3928 publications receiving 382695 citations.

Conflicts of interest at medical journals: the influence of industry-supported randomised trials on journal impact factors and revenue - cohort study.

Abstract: Background Transparency in reporting of conflict of interest is an increasingly important aspect of publication in medical journals. Publication of large industry-supported trials may generate many citations and journal income through reprint sales and thereby be a source of conflicts of interest for journals. We investigated industry-supported trials' influence on journal impact factors and revenue. Methods and Findings We sampled six major medical journals (Annals of Internal Medicine, Archives of Internal Medicine, BMJ, JAMA, The Lancet, and New England Journal of Medicine [NEJM]). For each journal, we identified randomised trials published in 1996–1997 and 2005–2006 using PubMed, and categorized the type of financial support. Using Web of Science, we investigated citations of industry-supported trials and the influence on journal impact factors over a ten-year period. We contacted journal editors and retrieved tax information on income from industry sources. The proportion of trials with sole industry support varied between journals, from 7% in BMJ to 32% in NEJM in 2005–2006. Industry-supported trials were more frequently cited than trials with other types of support, and omitting them from the impact factor calculation decreased journal impact factors. The decrease varied considerably between journals, with 1% for BMJ to 15% for NEJM in 2007. For the two journals disclosing data, income from the sales of reprints contributed to 3% and 41% of the total income for BMJ and The Lancet in 2005–2006. Conclusions Publication of industry-supported trials was associated with an increase in journal impact factors. Sales of reprints may provide a substantial income. We suggest that journals disclose financial information in the same way that they require them from their authors, so that readers can assess the potential effect of different types of papers on journals' revenue and impact. Please see later in the article for the Editors' Summary

Pre-hospital tracheal intubation in patients with traumatic brain injury: systematic review of current evidence

Abstract: Background We reviewed the current evidence on the benefit and harm of pre-hospital tracheal intubation and mechanical ventilation after traumatic brain injury (TBI). Methods We conducted a systematic literature search up to December 2007 without language restriction to identify interventional and observational studies comparing pre-hospital intubation with other airway management (e.g. bag-valve-mask or oxygen administration) in patients with TBI. Information on study design, population, interventions, and outcomes was abstracted by two investigators and cross-checked by two others. Seventeen studies were included with data for 15 335 patients collected from 1985 to 2004. There were 12 retrospective analyses of trauma registries or hospital databases, three cohort studies, one case–control study, and one controlled trial. Using Brain Trauma Foundation classification of evidence, there were 14 class 3 studies, three class 2 studies, and no class 1 study. Six studies were of adults, five of children, and three of both; age groups were unclear in three studies. Maximum follow-up was up to 6 months or hospital discharge. Results In 13 studies, the unadjusted odds ratios (ORs) for an effect of pre-hospital intubation on in-hospital mortality ranged from 0.17 (favouring control interventions) to 2.43 (favouring pre-hospital intubation); adjusted ORs ranged from 0.24 to 1.42. Estimates for functional outcomes after TBI were equivocal. Three studies indicated higher risk of pneumonia associated with pre-hospital (when compared with in-hospital) intubation. Conclusions Overall, the available evidence did not support any benefit from pre-hospital intubation and mechanical ventilation after TBI. Additional arguments need to be taken into account, including medical and procedural aspects.