• Login
    View Item 
    •   UMB Digital Archive
    • UMB Open Access Articles
    • UMB Open Access Articles 2018
    • View Item
    •   UMB Digital Archive
    • UMB Open Access Articles
    • UMB Open Access Articles 2018
    • View Item
    JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.

    Browse

    All of UMB Digital ArchiveCommunitiesPublication DateAuthorsTitlesSubjectsThis CollectionPublication DateAuthorsTitlesSubjects

    My Account

    LoginRegister

    Statistics

    Display statistics

    Peer-Reviewed Journal Editors' Views on Real-World Evidence

    • CSV
    • RefMan
    • EndNote
    • BibTex
    • RefWorks
    Author
    Oehrlein, E.M.
    Graff, J.S.
    Perfetto, E.M.
    Date
    2018
    Journal
    International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care
    Publisher
    Cambridge University Press
    Type
    Article
    
    Metadata
    Show full item record
    See at
    https://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0266462317004408
    Abstract
    Objectives: Peer-review publication is a critical step to the translation and dissemination of research results into clinical practice guidelines, health technology assessment (HTA) and payment policies, and clinical care. The objective of this study was to examine current views of journal editors regarding: (i) The value of real-world evidence (RWE) and how it compares with other types of studies; (ii) Education and/or resources journal editors provide to their peer reviewers or perceive as needed for authors, reviewers, and editors related to RWE. Methods: Journal editors' views on the value of RWE and editorial procedures for RWE manuscripts were obtained through telephone interviews, a survey, and in-person, roundtable discussion. Results: In total, seventy-nine journals were approached, resulting in fifteen telephone interviews, seventeen survey responses and eight roundtable participants. RWE was considered valuable by all interviewed editors (n = 15). Characteristics of high-quality RWE manuscripts included: novelty/relevance, rigorous methodology, and alignment of data to research question. Editors experience challenges finding peer reviewers; however, these challenges persist across all study designs. Journals generally do not provide guidance, assistance, or training for reviewers, including for RWE studies. Health policy/health services research (HSR) editors were more likely than specialty or general medicine editors to participate in this study, potentially indicating that HSR researchers are more comfortable/interested in RWE. Conclusions: Editors report favorable views of RWE studies provided studies examine important questions and are methodologically rigorous. Improving peer-review processes across all study designs, has the potential to improve the evidence base for decision making, including HTA. Copyright Cambridge University Press 2018.
    Keyword
    Decision Making
    Editorial policies
    Epidemiologic research design
    Observational studies as topic
    Peer review
    Research--standards
    Identifier to cite or link to this item
    https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85043259128&doi=10.1017%2fS0266462317004408&partnerID=40&md5=b648f0e135b638f7b892d882e6406859; http://hdl.handle.net/10713/9271
    ae974a485f413a2113503eed53cd6c53
    10.1017/S0266462317004408
    Scopus Count
    Collections
    UMB Open Access Articles 2018

    entitlement

    Related articles

    • Journal editors' perspectives on the roles and tasks of peer reviewers in biomedical journals: a qualitative study.
    • Authors: Glonti K, Boutron I, Moher D, Hren D
    • Issue date: 2019 Nov 24
    • Editorial peer reviewers' recommendations at a general medical journal: are they reliable and do editors care?
    • Authors: Kravitz RL, Franks P, Feldman MD, Gerrity M, Byrne C, Tierney WM
    • Issue date: 2010 Apr 8
    • Views of Iranian medical journal editors on medical research publication.
    • Authors: Etemadi A, Raiszadeh F, Alaeddini F, Azizi F
    • Issue date: 2004 Jan
    • Authors' and editors' perspectives on peer review quality in three scholarly nursing journals.
    • Authors: Shattell MM, Chinn P, Thomas SP, Cowling WR 3rd
    • Issue date: 2010 Mar
    • Common statistical and research design problems in manuscripts submitted to high-impact psychiatry journals: what editors and reviewers want authors to know.
    • Authors: Harris AH, Reeder R, Hyun JK
    • Issue date: 2009 Oct
    DSpace software (copyright © 2002 - 2021)  DuraSpace
    Quick Guide | Policies | Contact Us | UMB Health Sciences & Human Services Library
    Open Repository is a service operated by 
    Atmire NV
     

    Export search results

    The export option will allow you to export the current search results of the entered query to a file. Different formats are available for download. To export the items, click on the button corresponding with the preferred download format.

    By default, clicking on the export buttons will result in a download of the allowed maximum amount of items.

    To select a subset of the search results, click "Selective Export" button and make a selection of the items you want to export. The amount of items that can be exported at once is similarly restricted as the full export.

    After making a selection, click one of the export format buttons. The amount of items that will be exported is indicated in the bubble next to export format.