Major Gastroenterology Journals Research Articles

The Patterns and Impact of Social Media Exposure of Journal Publications in Gastroenterology: Retrospective Cohort Study.

BackgroundMedical journals increasingly promote published content through social media platforms such as Twitter. However, gastroenterology journals still rank below average in social media engagement.ObjectiveWe aimed to determine the engagement patterns of publications in gastroenterology journals on Twitter and evaluate the impact of tweets on citations.MethodsThis was a retrospective cohort study comparing the 3-year citations of all full-length articles published in five major gastroenterology journals from January 1, 2012, to December 31, 2012, tweeted by official journal accounts with those that were not. Multivariate analysis using linear regression was performed to control for journal impact factor, time since publication, article type, frequency of reposting by other users (“retweets”), and media addition to tweets. Secondary analyses were performed to assess the associations between article type or subtopic and the likelihood of social media promotion/engagement.ResultsA total of 1666 articles were reviewed, with 477 tweeted by the official journal account. Tweeting an article independently predicted increased citations after controlling for potential confounders (β coefficient=13.09; P=.007). There was significant association between article type and number of retweets on analysis of variance (ANOVA) (P<.001), with guidelines/technical reviews (mean difference 1.04, 95% CI 0.22-1.87; P<.001) and meta-analyses/systemic reviews (mean difference 1.03, 95% CI 0.35-1.70; P<.001) being retweeted more than basic science articles. The manuscript subtopics most frequently promoted included motility/functional bowel disease (odds ratio [OR] 3.84, 95% CI 1.93-7.64; P<.001) and education (OR 4.69, 95% CI 1.62-13.58; P=.004), while basic science papers were less likely tweeted (OR 0.154, 95% CI 0.07-0.34; P<.001).ConclusionsTweeting of gastroenterology journal articles independently predicted higher 3-year citations. Wider adoption of social media to increase reach and measure uptake of published research should be considered.

Equal Opportunity: Women Representation on Editorial Boards and Authorship of Editorials in Gastroenterology and Hepatology Journals.

The proportion of women editorial board members and authors of editorials in major gastroenterology journals is not known. We determined the sex of editorial board members (n = 2,282) and authors of editorials (n = 1,705) across 6 journals from 1985 to 2020 at 5-year intervals. The proportion of women editorial board members increased from 2.9% in 1985 to 19.8% in 2020 (P < 0.0001) and women authors of editorials increased from 0% in 1985 to 22.2% in 2020 (P < 0.0001). The proportion of women represented over time has improved, but opportunities likely exist to improve further.

S1271 Female Participation in Editorial Boards of Major Gastroenterology Journals: An Eye-Opener

INTRODUCTION: Despite substantial progress for women in medicine, women remain underrepresented in many aspects of the scholarly publication process. Appointment to an editorial board conveys a degree of prestige that may influence hiring, tenure, or promotion decisions and provides opportunities for intellectual growth and networking that can improve the quality of a research program. Women face multiple challenges in representation in medicine and our aim was to look at the representation of women in the scholarly publication process. The purpose of this study was to analyze the proportion of female representation in editorial boards of the major gastroenterology journals. METHODS: We examined the four major gastroenterology journals, American Journal of Gastroenterology, Gastroenterology, Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, and Hepatology. The editorial boards of each journal from 2020 were included. The gender of each person, and the total number of individuals as editors and on the editorial board were abstracted. The number of females on the editorial boards were compared to the total number of individuals. RESULTS: There were a total of 511 individuals across the four major journals included as editors, associate, or deputy editors and on the editorial boards of the journals. The total number of women included as associate or deputy editors varied but remained significantly below that of men. (See Figure 1). None of the editors in chiefs of the major gastroenterology journals were females. Similarly, the representation of women on editorial boards was extremely low and significantly below that of men. (See Figure 2). CONCLUSION: There were significant disparities in female representation in editorial boards across the major gastroenterology journals. Addressing these disparities may promote academic advancement for female gastroenterologists and promote greater equality of participation in the scholarly peer-review process.Figure 1

Sa1129 - Equal Opportunity: The Trend in Women Authorship of Invited Articles in Four Major Gastroenterology Journals

Sa1129 - Equal Opportunity: The Trend in Women Authorship of Invited Articles in Four Major Gastroenterology Journals

“Listing author contribution” does not alter the author inflation in the publications in basic research in four major gastroenterology journals in 10 years

The number of authors and their contributions in original research publications have drawn the attention of editors for years. Some journals specifically ask that the authors list their contributions on the title page. However, whether this requirement is useful remains unclear. The present study was to elucidate the author number trend over the past 10 years in four major gastroenterology journals. Four major journals in gastroenterology (Gastroenterology, Gut, Journal of Hepatology and Hepatology) between January 1, 2005 and December 31, 2014 were searched. We limited the papers to basic research. The average number of authors of papers published in each journal were calculated and any changes in author numbers over the search period were compared. We found that Gastroenterology and Gut began to require the authors to list contributions in 2010 and Journal of Hepatology and Hepatology did the same in 2012. We therefore also investigated whether authorship numbers changed in studies published in Gastroenterology and Gut before and after 2010, and before and after 2012 in Journal of Hepatology and Hepatology. There has been an increase in author numbers over the past 10 years. This number was significantly increased in the papers published between 2010 and 2014 compared with those between 2005 and 2009 (p < 0.05 in all of the four journals). Author contribution requirements have not deterred the trend of increasing author numbers. The number of authors in basic science papers are increasing; the new requirement of listing authorship contributions has not affected this trend.

Female authorship in major academic gastroenterology journals: a look over 20 years

Authorship in peer-reviewed medical journals is a marker for success in academic medicine. To determine the representation of female physicians among authors of original research in U.S. gastroenterology journals. Retrospective. All first and senior U.S. authors of original research published in the years 1992, 1997, 2002, 2007, and 2012 in the following journals: Gastroenterology, Hepatology, American Journal of Gastroenterology, Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology (CGH), and Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (GIE). The percentage of female first and senior authors compared with the percentage of women practicing in academic gastroenterology. We evaluated 6490 articles, of which 2275 original research articles and 455 editorials were eligible for inclusion. Author gender was determined for 98.5% of the 3792 authors. Overall, female first authors increased from 9.1±2.9% in 1992 to 29.3±4.9% in 2012 (P<.0001), and female senior authors increased from 4.8±2.3% in 1992 to 14.5±3.6% in 2012 (P<.0001). Female first and senior authors increased significantly in all journals (P for trend<.05), except for CGH, and CGH and GIE, respectively. For each of the years examined with the exception of 1997, the proportion of women in the senior author position was less than expected based on the proportion of women among academic gastroenterologists (P<.004; P=.18 for 1997). Descriptive study. The percentage of U.S. female physician authors of original research in major gastroenterology journals has increased over time, yet the percentage of women in the senior author position remains lower than expected. Further research should explore potential reasons for this gender gap.

Early precut sphincterotomy and the risk of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography related complications: An updated meta-analysis.

To study the cannulation and complication rates of early pre-cut sphincterotomy vs persistent attempts at cannulation by standard approach. Systematic search of PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library for relevant studies published up to February 2013. The main outcome measurements were cannulation rates and post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) complications. A comprehensive systematic search of the Cochrane library, PubMed, Google scholar, Scopus, National Institutes of Health, meta-register of controlled trials and published proceedings from major Gastroenterology journals and meetings until February 2013 was conducted using keywords. All Prospective randomized controlled trials (RCT) studies which met our inclusion criteria were included in the analysis. Prospective non-randomized studies and retrospective studies were excluded from our meta-analysis. The main outcomes of interest were post-ERCP pancreatitis, overall complication rates including cholangitis, ERCP-related bleeding, perforation and cannulation success rates. Seven RCTs with a total of 1039 patients were included in the meta-analysis based on selection criteria. The overall cannulation rate was 90% in the pre-cut sphincterotomy vs 86.3% in the persistent attempts group (OR = 1.98; 95%CI: 0.70-5.65). The risk of post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) was not different between the two groups (3.9% in the pre-cut sphincterotomy vs 6.1% in the persistent attempts group, OR = 0.58, 95%CI: 0.32-1.05). Similarly, there was no statistically significant difference between the groups for overall complication rate including PEP, cholangitis, bleeding, and perforation (6.2% vs 6.9%, OR = 0.85, 95%CI: 0.51-1.41). This meta-analysis suggests that pre-cut sphincterotomy and persistent attempts at cannulation are comparable in terms of overall complication rates. Early pre-cut implementation does not increase PEP complications.

Histological, Molecular and Immunohistologic Phenotype of IBD Related Colorectal Cancer

Introduction: Cytomegalovirus (CMV) has been widely implicated in the aetiopathogenesis, exacerbation and treatment-refractoriness of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). In addition, recent research showing that NOD2 and TLR2 (genes in which germline mutations give rise to increased IBD susceptibility) both act as viral pattern recognition receptors has stimulated a renewed interest in the role of this common virus in IBD. Methods: To study the evidence for the role of CMV in IBD by formal systematic review. An electronic database search of the Cochrane Library, Medline, Embase and the British Nursing Index and Archive was performed with keywords related to IBD and cytomegalovirus in addition to searches on PubMed, other online indexes and foreign language periodical databases. A hand search of reference lists of articles was also performed along with reviews of major gastroenterology journals and meeting abstracts. The papers identified were then reviewed and the level of evidence (EL) was assessed using the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) methodology (www.sign.ac.uk). Results: The initial database searches produced 264 hits and after review of their abstracts a total of 69 papers were identified; a further 77 papers were sourced from their reference lists. A total of 108 were included and comprised 3 systematic reviews, 12 case-control studies (EL 2-), 5 cohort studies (EL 2-), 20 case series (EL 3) and 68 case reports. The literature search in the only methodological robust systematic review (EL 1+) ended in 2002 with the two subsequent systematic reviews demonstrating major weaknesses (EL 1-). The remaining studies varied widely with regard to the population studied, the method of CMV detection and the clinical details presented. Analysing the casecontrol studies that tested biopsy or surgical specimens the overall incidence of CMV detection was 32/100 in IBD and 12/100 in controls (p=0.001). There was some consensus that CMV contributed to steroid-refractory disease and anecdotal evidence that the treatment of CMV-related relapses with antiviral therapy may be beneficial. Conclusion: The evidence surrounding the role of CMV in IBD is poor. Few studies have been of sufficient quality to provide convincing evidence of CMV as an aetiopathological factor in active IBD or that the use of antivirals should be routinely used in those in which CMV disease is suspected. A prospective randomised controlled trial of antiviral therapy for those found to have active CMV, by a variety of accurate investigations, should be considered to ascertain the benefits of treating this prevalent pathogen.

The Role of Cytomegalovirus in Inflammatory Bowel Disease: A Systematic Review

Introduction Cytomegalovirus (CMV) has been widely implicated in the aetiopathogenesis, exacerbation and treatment-refractoriness of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). In addition, recent research showing that NOD2 and TLR2 (genes in which germline mutations give rise to increased IBD susceptibility) both act as viral pattern recognition receptors has stimulated a renewed interest in the role of this common virus in IBD. Methods To study the evidence for the role of CMV in IBD by formal systematic review. An electronic database search of the Cochrane Library, Medline, Embase and the British Nursing Index and Archive was performed with keywords related to IBD and cytomegalovirus in addition to searches on PubMed, other online indexes and foreign language periodical databases. A hand search of reference lists of articles was also performed along with reviews of major gastroenterology journals and meeting abstracts. The papers identified were then reviewed and the level of evidence (EL) was assessed using the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) methodology (http://www.sign.ac.uk). Results The initial database searches produced 264 hits and after review of their abstracts a total of 69 papers were identified; a further 77 papers were sourced from their reference lists. A total of 108 were included and comprised 3 systematic reviews, 12 case–control studies (EL 2-), 5 cohort studies (EL 2-), 20 case series (EL 3) and 68 case reports. The literature search in the only methodological robust systematic review (EL 1+) ended in 2002 with the two subsequent systematic reviews demonstrating major weaknesses (EL 1-). The remaining studies varied widely with regard to the population studied, the method of CMV detection and the clinical details presented. Analysing the case–control studies that tested biopsy or surgical specimens the overall incidence of CMV detection was 32/100 in IBD and 12/100 in controls (p=0.001). There was some consensus that CMV contributed to steroid-refractory disease and anecdotal evidence that the treatment of CMV-related relapses with antiviral therapy may be beneficial. Conclusion The evidence surrounding the role of CMV in IBD is poor. Few studies have been of sufficient quality to provide convincing evidence of CMV as an aetiopathological factor in active IBD or that the use of antivirals should be routinely used in those in which CMV disease is suspected. A prospective randomised controlled trial of antiviral therapy for those found to have active CMV, by a variety of accurate investigations, should be considered to ascertain the benefits of treating this prevalent pathogen.

The role of cytomegalovirus in inflammatory bowel disease: a systematic review

IntroductionCytomegalovirus (CMV) has been widely implicated in the aetiopathogenesis, exacerbation and treatment-refractoriness of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). In addition, recent research showing that NOD2 and TLR2 (genes in which germline...

Small-bowel endoscopy.

This review of the literature on endoscopy of the small bowel focuses on published reports, and does not include abstracts. The literature was reviewed for the period September 2001 to September 2002. MEDLINE was searched under the topics of "small-bowel endoscopy", "small bowel", "enteroscopy", "obscure bleeding", and "wireless endoscopy", and a hand search was also carried out of the major gastroenterology journals, along with a review of the tables of contents of all journals that could be identified as being related to gastroenterology or gastrointestinal endoscopy. Sonde small-bowel enteroscopy is no longer an option, and has been rightfully retired as an investigation tool for the small bowel. There is still a place for further evaluation of push enteroscopy, as evidenced by the 11 papers published since the last review of small-bowel endoscopy in 2002. In the field of intraoperative enteroscopy, only one series and a handful of case reports have appeared. By contrast, wireless capsule endoscopy of the small bowel has captured the imagination of gastroenterologists throughout the world. Up to 2003, there have not been many published papers concerning this new diagnostic modality, since patients with obscure gastrointestinal bleeding or suspected small-bowel disease are relatively scarce. Large numbers of abstracts concerning capsule endoscopy have been submitted for presentation at major gastroenterology and gastrointestinal endoscopy meetings over the past 2 years, and the enthusiasm for this new technique of small-bowel imaging has increased with reports of its successful application.

Use and misuse of cost-effectiveness terminology in the gastroenterology literature: a systematic review

The increased popularity of economic analyses for evaluating medical interventions has given rise to concern about the rigor with which economic constructs and terminology are used. True cost-effectiveness analysis considers both the costs and outcomes of alternative interventions. A systematic review of the gastroenterology literature was undertaken to evaluate how appropriately cost-effectiveness is assessed. A structured MEDLINE search identified all studies published in major gastroenterology journals between 1980 and 1998 that claimed in their abstracts to have assessed the cost-effectiveness of an intervention. Blinded copies of eligible studies were assessed by two independent reviewers who used standard criteria to evaluate the use of economic terminology and key economic constructs. Discrepancies were resolved by consensus. Studies met a "broad criterion" for appropriateness by evaluating both costs and effects and a "strict criterion" by demonstrating dominance of one strategy or considering both incremental costs and incremental effects. Of 110 eligible studies, 77 (70.0%) met the broad criterion and 62 (56.4%) met the strict criterion for appropriateness. This did not seem to vary with either journal impact factor or publication year. Only eight of 18 studies reporting an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio compared its value to an external standard. Few studies explicitly stated their analytic perspective, and a minority of those with time horizons longer than 1 yr had discounted future costs or effects. Although most studies seem to use cost-effectiveness terminology well, there remains room to improve the rigor with which economic terminology and constructs are applied.