An audit of best evidence topic reviews in the International Journal of Surgery

Time from submission to publication varied widely for biomedical journals: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

Fast dissemination of research is important for improving treatments and thus benefitting patients, caregivers, and researchers. However, getting scientific papers published may take a long time. The editorial handling time can be delayed by several processes both before and after acceptance of the paper. The aim of this study was to systematically review the editorial handling time of biomedical peer-reviewed literature (i.e. time from submission to publication).

METHODS

The protocol for this systematic review was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42020196238). PubMed and EMBASE were searched systematically on 29 May 2020. We included publications on the timespan between submission and publication for accepted articles published in biomedical journals.

RESULTS

Of the 4197 unique studies identified in the search, 69 were included in the systematic review. The mean timespan from submission to publication varied from 91 to 639 days, while the median timespan varied from 70 to 558 days. Submission to acceptance and acceptance to publication timespans showed similar disparity with means ranging from 50 to 276 and 11 to 362 days, respectively. Data were too statistically heterogeneous to perform meta-analyses.

CONCLUSION

Editorial handling times of journals varied widely from a few months to almost two years, which delays the availability of new evidence. The editorial handling time did not differ between submission-to-acceptance-time and acceptance-to-publication-time. Examining differences in editorial processes between journals with long and short editorial handling times may help uncover, which processes are frequent causes of delay and thereby where to improve.

Covering patient's perspective in case-based critical review articles to improve shared decision making in complex cases

BACKGROUND

The patient has always been at the centre of the evidence-based medicine model. Case-based critical reviews, such as best-evidence topics, however, are incomplete reflections of the evidence-based medicine philosophy, because they fail to consider the patient's perspective. We propose a new framework, called the 'Shared Decision Evidence Summary' (ShaDES), where the patient's perspective on available treatment options is explicitly included.

METHODS

Our framework is grounded in the critical appraisal of a clinical scenario, and the development of a clinical question, including patient characteristics, compared options and outcomes to be improved. Answers to the clinical question are informed by the literature, the evaluation of its quality and its potential usefulness to the clinical scenario. Finally, the evidence synthesis is presented to the patient to facilitate the formulation of an evidence-informed decision about the treatment options.

KEY RESULTS

Using three similar but contrasted clinical scenarios of patients with low back pain, we illustrate how considering the patient's preferences on the proposed treatment options impact the bottom line, a synthetic formulation of the answer to the focused question. ShaDES includes clinical and psychosocial components, transformed in a searchable question, with a full search strategy.

CONCLUSIONS

ShaDES is a practical framework that may facilitate clinical decisions adapted to psychological, social and other relevant non-clinical characteristics of patients.