495061
research-article2014
PEN38110.1177/0148607113495061Journal of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition / Vol. XX, No. X, Month XXXXAugust
Editorial
Resolving to Ensure the Data Lead the Way
Evidence-based practice relies on the prudent interpretation of data. We trust the fidelity of the peer-review process to safeguard against improper communication of the evidence. Indeed, erroneous interpretation of data can inappropriately influence clinicians, hospital administrators, and the public, while impeding scientific advancement. As consumers of the published literature, can we abdicate our responsibility to the peer-review process, or must we critically evaluate the data ourselves? A recent study reveals prevalent overstatement of results in leading nutrition and obesity peer-reviewed journals.1 Menachemi and colleagues sought to determine the extent to which authors present overreaching statement in the obesity and nutrition literature and whether journal, author, or study characteristics are associated with this practice. To do so, 937 papers on nutrition or obesity published in 2001 and 2011 in leading specialty, medical, and public health journals were systematically studied to determine the extent of overstated results. In the abstracts alone, 8.9% of the studies contained at least one overreaching statement: 3.5 % reported an associative relationship as causal; 3.9% made policy recommendations based on crosssectional observational data; and 2.9% generalized to populations not represented by the study sample. Such overstatements were less likely to occur in published articles stemming from funded projects and those with 4 or more authors, supporting the concept that additional contributors safeguard against this serious problem. The problem of inaccuracy in published research articles is neither new nor unique to the nutrition and obesity literature. In 1999, Pitkin and colleagues2 reported that information within published abstracts was inconsistent with or even absent from the article’s body in 18-68% of a consecutive sample from large-circulation general medical journals. Prasad and colleagues3 empirically evaluated authors’ statements in a subset of 2010 publications in major medical journal publications, finding that 56% inappropriately made recommendations concerning a medical practice based on observational studies. Data such as these have resulted in appropriate pressures to revolutionize the peer-review process and publishing practices to reduce publication errors.
Journal of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition Volume 38 Number 1 January 2014 10 © 2014 American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition DOI: 10.1177/0148607113519062 jpen.sagepub.com hosted at online.sagepub.com
As a subspecialty journal, JPEN was not included in the analysis conducted by Menachemi and colleagues. However, we should not naively view ourselves as immune to this problem, but rather be vigilant in our efforts to safeguard against it. In the coming year, the JPEN editorial team will be evaluating our current practices and identifying opportunities to fortify the quality of our peer-review processes while maintaining our exceptionally strong time to decision and publication rates. We also seek to ensure that as a community we hold the published literature accountable to authentic publication of the data. To this end, each of us must commit to critically read the literature and carefully evaluate the stated results and recommendations. With this goal in mind, we are very pleased to announce the introduction of the Journal Club as a regular feature, beginning in this issue of JPEN with an “Introduction to Critical Reading.” This program will use published papers to demonstrate fundamental concepts essential to critically interpreting the literature. We envision these papers to be used to form journal club discussions within institutions and challenge JPEN readers to engage with colleagues to further develop these important skills. For a detailed discussion regarding how to optimally use the Journal Club, please listen to the podcast accompanying the inaugural article by Dr Koretz. With 2014 upon us, let’s renew our resolve to ensure that the data lead the way.
JPEN, Editor-in-Chief
References 1. Menachemi N, Tajeu G, Sen B, et al. Overstatement of results in the nutrition and obesity peer-review literature. Am J Prev Med 2013;45(5):615621. 2. Pitkin RM, Branagan MA, Burmeister LF. Accuracy of data in abstracts of published research articles. JAMA 1999;281:1110-1111. 3. Prasad V, Jorgenson J, Ioannidis JPA, Cifu A. Observational studies often make clinical practice recommendations: an empirical evaluation of authors’ attitudes. J Clin Epidemiol 2013;66:361–366.
Downloaded from pen.sagepub.com at UNIV OF CALIFORNIA SANTA CRUZ on January 3, 2015
research-article2014
PEN38110.1177/0148607113495061Journal of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition / Vol. XX, No. X, Month XXXXAugust
Editorial
Resolving to Ensure the Data Lead the Way
Evidence-based practice relies on the prudent interpretation of data. We trust the fidelity of the peer-review process to safeguard against improper communication of the evidence. Indeed, erroneous interpretation of data can inappropriately influence clinicians, hospital administrators, and the public, while impeding scientific advancement. As consumers of the published literature, can we abdicate our responsibility to the peer-review process, or must we critically evaluate the data ourselves? A recent study reveals prevalent overstatement of results in leading nutrition and obesity peer-reviewed journals.1 Menachemi and colleagues sought to determine the extent to which authors present overreaching statement in the obesity and nutrition literature and whether journal, author, or study characteristics are associated with this practice. To do so, 937 papers on nutrition or obesity published in 2001 and 2011 in leading specialty, medical, and public health journals were systematically studied to determine the extent of overstated results. In the abstracts alone, 8.9% of the studies contained at least one overreaching statement: 3.5 % reported an associative relationship as causal; 3.9% made policy recommendations based on crosssectional observational data; and 2.9% generalized to populations not represented by the study sample. Such overstatements were less likely to occur in published articles stemming from funded projects and those with 4 or more authors, supporting the concept that additional contributors safeguard against this serious problem. The problem of inaccuracy in published research articles is neither new nor unique to the nutrition and obesity literature. In 1999, Pitkin and colleagues2 reported that information within published abstracts was inconsistent with or even absent from the article’s body in 18-68% of a consecutive sample from large-circulation general medical journals. Prasad and colleagues3 empirically evaluated authors’ statements in a subset of 2010 publications in major medical journal publications, finding that 56% inappropriately made recommendations concerning a medical practice based on observational studies. Data such as these have resulted in appropriate pressures to revolutionize the peer-review process and publishing practices to reduce publication errors.
Journal of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition Volume 38 Number 1 January 2014 10 © 2014 American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition DOI: 10.1177/0148607113519062 jpen.sagepub.com hosted at online.sagepub.com
As a subspecialty journal, JPEN was not included in the analysis conducted by Menachemi and colleagues. However, we should not naively view ourselves as immune to this problem, but rather be vigilant in our efforts to safeguard against it. In the coming year, the JPEN editorial team will be evaluating our current practices and identifying opportunities to fortify the quality of our peer-review processes while maintaining our exceptionally strong time to decision and publication rates. We also seek to ensure that as a community we hold the published literature accountable to authentic publication of the data. To this end, each of us must commit to critically read the literature and carefully evaluate the stated results and recommendations. With this goal in mind, we are very pleased to announce the introduction of the Journal Club as a regular feature, beginning in this issue of JPEN with an “Introduction to Critical Reading.” This program will use published papers to demonstrate fundamental concepts essential to critically interpreting the literature. We envision these papers to be used to form journal club discussions within institutions and challenge JPEN readers to engage with colleagues to further develop these important skills. For a detailed discussion regarding how to optimally use the Journal Club, please listen to the podcast accompanying the inaugural article by Dr Koretz. With 2014 upon us, let’s renew our resolve to ensure that the data lead the way.
JPEN, Editor-in-Chief
References 1. Menachemi N, Tajeu G, Sen B, et al. Overstatement of results in the nutrition and obesity peer-review literature. Am J Prev Med 2013;45(5):615621. 2. Pitkin RM, Branagan MA, Burmeister LF. Accuracy of data in abstracts of published research articles. JAMA 1999;281:1110-1111. 3. Prasad V, Jorgenson J, Ioannidis JPA, Cifu A. Observational studies often make clinical practice recommendations: an empirical evaluation of authors’ attitudes. J Clin Epidemiol 2013;66:361–366.
Downloaded from pen.sagepub.com at UNIV OF CALIFORNIA SANTA CRUZ on January 3, 2015
