2 0 1 5 E U R O P E A N M E E T I N G O F I S M P P MEDICAL PUBLICATIONS FOR BETTER PATIENT CARE: INTEGRITY, INNOVATION,AND IMPACT 20-21 January, 2015 etc.venues, St. Paul s - 200 Aldersgate London, UK 2015 EUROPEAN MEETING OF ISMPP 1
2 0 1 5 E U R O P E A N M E E T I N G O F I S M P P Speed research: oral presentations Introduction: Steven Walker MD Medical Director, Bioscript Group, London, UK 2015 EUROPEAN MEETING OF ISMPP 2
2 0 1 5 E U R O P E A N M E E T I N G O F I S M P P What s the hold up? Factors influencing manuscript development time Machin D, Bulusu S, Bárdos J, Page S Costello Medical Consulting Ltd, Cambridge, UK 2015 EUROPEAN MEETING OF ISMPP 3
DISCLOSURES Danielle Machin, Sirisha Bulusu, Julia Bárdos and Simon Page are all employees of Costello Medical Consulting 2015 EUROPEAN MEETING OF ISMPP 4
OBJECTIVE AND METHODS To investigate factors that contribute to the time taken to develop industry-sponsored manuscripts by professional medical writers 2015 EUROPEAN MEETING OF ISMPP 5
OBJECTIVE AND METHODS To investigate factors that contribute to the time taken to develop industry-sponsored manuscripts by professional medical writers Univariate linear regression analyses were used to investigate relationships between factors 11 manuscripts developed by Costello Medical were included 2015 EUROPEAN MEETING OF ISMPP 6
RESULTS Development window (weeks): initiation to first submission Time Spent by medical writers (hours): initiation to first submission 2015 EUROPEAN MEETING OF ISMPP 7
RESULTS Development window (weeks): initiation to first submission Median=45.0 (mean=42.1, range=53.7) Time Spent by medical writers (hours): initiation to first submission Median=117.5 (mean=148.9, range=208.8) 2015 EUROPEAN MEETING OF ISMPP 8
CORRELATION BETWEEN DEVELOPMENT WINDOW AND TIME SPENT 2015 EUROPEAN MEETING OF ISMPP 9
CORRELATION BETWEEN TIME SPENT AND NUMBER OF AUTHORS Each additional author was found to increase Time Spent by an average of 26 hours 2015 EUROPEAN MEETING OF ISMPP 10
CONCLUSIONS Longer manuscript development times were not observed to be associated with an increased amount of medical writing work External factors may have a greater impact A higher number of authors increases the Time Spent by medical writers on manuscript development Increased likelihood of author conflict and more comments received 2015 EUROPEAN MEETING OF ISMPP 11
CONCLUSIONS Longer manuscript development times were not observed to be associated with an increased amount of medical writing work External factors may have a greater impact A higher number of authors increases the Time Spent by medical writers on manuscript development Increased likelihood of author conflict and more comments received Perhaps these factors should be taken into account when planning timelines and to ensure communication of clinical research to healthcare professionals in a timely manner 2015 EUROPEAN MEETING OF ISMPP 12
Thank you for your attention 2015 EUROPEAN MEETING OF ISMPP 13
2 0 1 5 E U R O P E A N M E E T I N G O F I S M P P What s the hold up? Factors influencing manuscript development time Discussant: Susan Scott Scott Pharma Solutions Ltd, UK 2015 EUROPEAN MEETING OF ISMPP 14
2 0 1 5 E U R O P E A N M E E T I N G O F I S M P P An evaluation of the utility and impact of PubMed Commons during the pilot phase Glynis Davies Scientific Director, Complete HealthVizion, Macclesfield, UK 2015 EUROPEAN MEETING OF ISMPP 15
An evaluation of the utility and impact of PubMed Commons during the pilot phase Glynis Davies, Tom Grant, David McMinn, Jane Nunn and Elaine Wilson Complete HealthVizion, Macclesfield, UK
Background and aim of our research Aim of research As the monitoring of this online forum is likely to become increasingly important from a publication planning perspective, we evaluated how PubMed Commons has been used to date and the tone and impact of the comments that have been made http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedcommons What we did Undertook a search for all articles indexed on PubMed between October 2004 and October 2014 with comments on PubMed Commons
Results overview 1958 comments on 1617 articles in 771 journals 16.9% of first comments were made by an author of the article 1 22 (mean 1.2) comments per article Significant positive association between journal impact factor and total number of comments The 68% 1958 16.9% Individuals number of The of comments number first of made of on comments between clinical 1617 per month articles 1 / added has were and fluctuated, with no evidence of per pharmacological increasing trend in made 109 771 month comments by journals an has fluctuated, articles author of with no evidence (868 the article comments of an increasing on 733 articles) trend were positive or neutral 68% of comments on clinical / pharmacological articles (868 comments on 733 articles) were positive or neutral 55% of comments were made on articles that had been published before the introduction of PubMed Commons Journal commenting facility used more than PubMed Commons Individuals made between 1 and 109 comments Relatively low activity about PubMed Commons on Twitter 18
Conclusions Uptake of PubMed Commons has been relatively low The platform has not been used to overtly criticise publications and has the potential to positively impact on the integrity of publications Allowing a wider audience to comment could increase its utility 19
2 0 1 5 E U R O P E A N M E E T I N G O F I S M P P An evaluation of the utility and impact of PubMed Commons during the pilot phase Discussant: Karen King Managing Scientific Director, Complete Medical Communications, Glasgow, UK 2015 EUROPEAN MEETING OF ISMPP 20
2 0 1 5 E U R O P E A N M E E T I N G O F I S M P P A review of open access clinical trials published in leading hybrid journals Neil Adams Publishing Manager, Pharma Solutions, Nature Publishing Group, New York, USA 2015 EUROPEAN MEETING OF ISMPP 21
A review of open access clinical trials published in leading hybrid journals Objective: Many of the top-ranked journals in Thomson Reuters Journal Citation Reports (JCR) are specialty journals which offer an option to publish clinical trial studies (CTs) in open access (OA) format. Given the increase in OA content across STM publishing, we reviewed characteristics of OA CTs published in these journals within six therapeutic areas to determine whether and how this option is being adopted as a means of publishing CTs. Research design and methods: We used the JCR to identify the top five journals ranked by Impact Factor and offering an OA option in oncology, cardiology, gastroenterology, psychiatry, dermatology and rheumatology. Journals that do not generally publish CTs were excluded. We used PubMed to identify CTs published in 2013 and Web of Science for citation data. Results: The most OA CTs were published in rheumatology (20.78% of CTs) and the fewest in dermatology (2.70%). Industry sponsored the majority of OA CTs in all areas except oncology and psychiatry. The type of Creative Commons license used was inconsistent across therapeutic areas. For many journals, the average number of citations for OA CTs was higher than the journal s 2013 Immediacy Index. Conclusions: Characteristics of OA CTs published in leading hybrid journals vary by therapeutic area and by journal within each area sometimes significantly. As OA publishing continues to grow within STM, new trends may emerge within this group of journals and within these therapeutic areas. 2015 EUROPEAN MEETING OF ISMPP 22
2015 EUROPEAN MEETING OF ISMPP 23
Key Findings Across ALL JOURNALS: 188 out of 1,811 studies were published OA in 2013 (10%) Most of the OA studies were Phase 3 studies (48%) Most of the OA studies were published under a CC BY-NC-SA Share-alike license (46%) Within SPECIALTY AREAS: Industry sponsored the majority of OA CTs in all specialty areas except Oncology and Psychiatry The most OA CTs were published in Rheumatology (21% of all CTs) while the fewest were published in Dermatology (3%) Among INDIVIDUAL TITLES: Annals of Rheumatic Diseases published 47 OA CTs out of 140 studies (34%) while Journal of the American College of Cardiology published only 6 out of 193 (3%) 2015 EUROPEAN MEETING OF ISMPP 24
2 0 1 5 E U R O P E A N M E E T I N G O F I S M P P THANK YOU 2015 EUROPEAN MEETING OF ISMPP 25
2 0 1 5 E U R O P E A N M E E T I N G O F I S M P P A review of open access clinical trials published in leading hybrid journals Discussant: Susan Scott Scott Pharma Solutions Ltd, UK 2015 EUROPEAN MEETING OF ISMPP 26
2 0 1 5 E U R O P E A N M E E T I N G O F I S M P P Few medical researchers and healthcare professionals use social media to discover publications Tom Rees PAREXEL International, East Sussex, UK 2015 EUROPEAN MEETING OF ISMPP 27
2 0 1 5 E U R O P E A N M E E T I N G O F I S M P P FEW MEDICAL RESEARCHERS AND HEALTHCARE PROFESSIONALS USE SOCIAL MEDIA TO DISCOVER PUBLICATIONS Tom Rees, Carol Richter and Sheelah Smith PAREXEL International, Worthing, UK 2015 EUROPEAN MEETING OF ISMPP 28
The NPG survey: Why academics use Twitter Van Noorden, R. Nature. August 14, 2014;512:126-129 doi:10.1038/512126a. Used with permission 2015 EUROPEAN MEETING OF ISMPP 29
The NPG survey An online survey conducted by May 2014 Emailed to 110,353 researchers and other professionals on 3 mailing lists 3509 researchers responded Data are available at http://dx.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.1132584 We extracted data on those whose primary area of interest was medicine (n=459) 2015 EUROPEAN MEETING OF ISMPP 30
The survey population 55-64 65+ Age 18-24 25-34 35-44 North America South America Region Asia Australasia Africa 45-54 Research Institute University Other Place of Work Medical School Hospital Europe 2015 EUROPEAN MEETING OF ISMPP 31
Are you a regular visitor? Yes (% of sample) Number of services Twitter Facebook Frontiers Academia.edu 20% ResearchGate LinkedIn BioMedExperts Google+ Mendeley 0% 20% 40% 60% 5+ 4 3 2 1 0 2015 EUROPEAN MEETING OF ISMPP 32
Use to discover recommended research papers? % of service users % of full sample* Twitter Facebook Frontiers Academia.edu ResearchGate LinkedIn BioMedExperts Google+ Mendeley 0% 20% 40% 60% 0% 20% 40% 60% * Extrapolation 2015 EUROPEAN MEETING OF ISMPP 33
Other research shows a similar picture 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Ever Consume 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Ever Make Survey of 2000 UK academics Tenopir C, et al. Online Inform Rev. 2014;37:193-216. 2015 EUROPEAN MEETING OF ISMPP 34
Number of page views in 30 days Social media campaign did not increase page views 800 Randomized controlled trial conducted in Circulation 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 Social media No social media Tenopir C, et al. Social media and scholarly reading. Online Inform Rev. 2014;37:193-216. 2015 EUROPEAN MEETING OF ISMPP 35
Take home Although most researchers use social media, few use it to discover new publications or to comment on them This is broadly in line with the full sample across all disciplines, and with other research Science-oriented sites are more likely to be used to discover new publications than general-use sites such as Facebook 2015 EUROPEAN MEETING OF ISMPP 36
Why academics REALLY use Twitter 2015 EUROPEAN MEETING OF ISMPP 37
2 0 1 5 E U R O P E A N M E E T I N G O F I S M P P Few medical researchers and healthcare professionals use social media to discover publications Discussant: Karen King Managing Scientific Director, Complete Medical Communications, Glasgow, UK 2015 EUROPEAN MEETING OF ISMPP 38