A descriptive study found low prevalence of presumed predatory publications in a subset of Cochrane reviews

Exercise treatments for chronic low back pain: a network meta‐analysis

This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (intervention). The objectives are as follows:

The objectives of this systematic review, conducted using a collaborative review model, are to:

Assess the effectiveness of exercise treatment (overall) in adults with chronic non‐specific low back pain on important individual health outcomes: pain, functional limitations, health‐related quality of life, depression, and adverse effects versus comparison treatments: (a) placebo, sham, or attention control, (b) no trial treatment (including waiting lists, control groups described as having no treatment provided, usual/normal care not controlled by the trial available to all treatment groups, or when the exercise and comparison groups receive the same co‐interventions, allowing the effect of exercise treatment to be isolated), and (c) other conservative treatments (eight categories).  Estimate the treatment effects and associated uncertainty for comparisons of different specific types of exercise treatment in adults with chronic non‐specific low back pain to each other, and to each comparison treatment, using direct and indirect evidence with network meta‐analysis. Estimate the treatment effects and associated uncertainty for comparisons of treatments composed of different exercise type categories, design, delivery, dose, and additional treatment components, and their combinations, using direct and indirect evidence with component network meta‐analysis. 

An analysis of dental articles in predatory journals and associated online engagement

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to assess the extent of social media sharing of presumed predatory (PP) dental journals and to compare level of engagement, type of accounts and characteristics of the articles published in presumed legitimate (PL) and PP journals.

METHODS

Six hashtags were searched across three social media platforms (Instagram, Facebook and Twitter). Data extraction was performed and journals were classified into PP or PL in a multistep approach using MEDLINE, Beall's list and Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ). A checklist was created and used for studies not found in the aforementioned recognized databases.

RESULTS

A total of 1742 posts were identified, with the majority (94%) found on Instagram. Of the identified journals, 15.6% were PP. Over one-third of articles from PP journals (35.42%) were indexed on PubMed. The majority of presumed legitimate publications were published in dental specialty only journals (56.44%), compared to 24% in the PP group. The majority of accounts were those of healthcare professionals with most publications related to prosthodontics and implantology (26.3%) and restorative and esthetic dentistry (14.4%), in PL and PP groups, respectively. Similar median number of followers/friends and comments were found among the PL and PP groups.

CONCLUSION

Our findings highlight that presumed predatory publications have comparable reach to PL journals on social media risking the sharing of unreliable and misleading information.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Researchers, students and social media users should be capable of identifying presumed predatory dental publications. Means of moderating the influence of these publications should be explored.