Peer Review Panel Research Articles

Peer Review Panel and Ad Hoc Reviewers for the Journal of Periodontology.

Journal of PeriodontologyVolume 79, Issue 6 p. 969-970 News, View, and Review Peer Review Panel and Ad Hoc Reviewers for the Journal of Periodontology First published: 01 June 2008 https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.2008.086002Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat No abstract is available for this article. Volume79, Issue6June 2008Pages 969-970 RelatedInformation

HOUSE COMMITTEE PROBES ACC

THE AMERICAN Chemistry Council’s role in determining who sits on government scientific peer review panels is being investigated by the House Energy & Commerce Committee. The ACC probe is part of a larger committee investigation into ACC and chemical industry influence over EPA science panels, according to an April 2 letter to ACC from Rep. John D. Dingell (D-Mich.), chairman of the committee. Specifically, the House committee is interested in the chemical industry trade association’s request to EPA in May 2007 that Deborah C. Rice, a Maine Department of Health & Human Services scientist, be removed from a peer review panel that was examining decabromobiphenyl ether. ACC had written EPA complaining of Rice’s “appearance of a lack of impartiality” because she had previously testified to the Maine legislature on the dangers of the chemical. Rice was dropped from the panel in the summer of 2007. Committee investigators have broadened their probe, however, to include ...

CDC's research portfolio in older adult fall prevention: A review of progress, 1985-2005, and future research directions

Problem Falls are a leading cause of mortality and morbidity among adults age 65 and older. Population models predict steep increases in the 65 and older population bands in the next 10–15 years and in turn, public health is bracing for increased fall rates and the strain they place on health care systems and society. To assess progress in fall prevention, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention conducted a research portfolio review to examine the quality, relevance, outcomes and successes of the CDC fall prevention program and its impact on public health. Methods A peer review panel was charged with reviewing 20 years of funded research and conducting a SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats) analysis for extramural and intramural research activities. Information was collected from grantees (via a survey instrument), staff were interviewed, and progress reports and products were reviewed and analyzed. Results CDC has invested over $24,900,000 in fall-related research and programs over 20 years. The portfolio has had positive impacts on research, policies and programs, increasing the public health injury prevention workforce, and delivering effective fall prevention programs. Discussion Public health agencies, practitioners, and policy makers recognize that while there are some evidence-based older adult fall prevention interventions available, many remain unused or are infeasible to implement. Specific recommendations across the public health model, include: additional research in gathering robust epidemiologic data on trends and patterns of fall-related injuries at all levels; researching risk factors by setting or sub-population; developing and testing innovative interventions; and engaging in translation and dissemination research on best practices to increase uptake and adoption of fall prevention strategies. CDC has responded to a number of suggestions from the portfolio review including: funding translation research of a proven Tai Chi fall intervention; beginning to address gaps in gender, ethnic, and racial differences in falls; and collaborating with partner organizations who share in CDC's mission to improve public health by preventing falls and reducing fall-related injuries. Impact on Industry Industry has an opportunity to develop more accessible and usable devices to reduce injury from falls (for example, hip protectors and force reducing flooring). By implementing effective, evidence-based interventions to prevent falls and reduce injuries from falls, significant decreases in health care costs can be expected.

Peer Review Panel and Ad Hoc Reviewers for the Journal of Periodontology.

Peer Review Panel and Ad Hoc Reviewers for the Journal of Periodontology.

The researcher development program: how to extend the involvement of Australian general practitioners in research?

This article reviews the Researcher Development Program (RDP) component of the Australian Government's Primary Health Care Research, Evaluation, and Development (PHC RED) strategy, examining critical aspects of program performance and suggesting strategies that might increase the involvement of rural GPs in research. Primary health care research capacity can only be built by providing sustainable, dedicated funding and a dedicated redistribution of workload from practice to research. The PHC RED funds and program supports only provide incentives to redirect existing capacity within primary health care from patient care to research for the time during which incentives are in place, generally as a part-time funded position for less than one-year's duration. The one-year time constraint is the most serious impediment to the success of the program. There is no formal provision for the continuing status of clinician/researchers. Continuation depends on the capacity of the mentor agencies, academic departments of general practice or university departments of rural health, to continue to support them, and on the time they can make available from their practice. Existing measures of program success, published research and new knowledge incorporated into practice settings, are too ambitious for researchers given a one-year time frame, working part time. Clinician/researchers have a demonstrated willingness to devote time to developing and answering a research question, but often lack the time and administrative support to get through the processes required, including ethics application and writing for publication. A better way to capture success of the RDP program might be through a multi-objective composite set of measures of research performance that captures different types of outputs, with weighting factors assigned to different measures of research output. Development of peer-review panels to replace or augment annual reporting to assess the progress of PHC RED programs might also serve both to measure success and to promote collaborative ventures. Small scale research projects are more conducive to practising GPs than randomised controlled trials or large scale observational studies. Smaller projects can still lead to important discoveries and improvements to the healthcare system. Examples include guideline development, descriptive studies, and small-number analytical epidemiological studies. In order to engage the rural primary care community in redirecting clinical time to research, the needs of clinicians must be met, as well as those of funders, academic mentors and collaborators. Structures and systems that can be developed through PHC RED, including research networks, will determine whether efforts to increase research in primary-care settings succeed and are sustainable. Sustainable networks need sustainable funding.

Peer Review Panel

Peer Review Panel

P2: Surfin’ Bone Safari Web-based Osteoporosis Education Program

This web-based osteoporosis education program (WB) targeting college-aged men and women is based on a prior workplace osteoporosis prevention program delivered in a face-to-face format for mid-age women (Happy Bones [HB]). Two risk factors for osteoporosis are targeted: dietary intake and exercise behavior. The Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA) and the Health Belief Model (HBM) provide frameworks for both programs. The HB program was developed as 8 sessions, each addressing at least 1 variable in either the TRA or the HBM; the WB program mirrors this but expands to topics identified through focus group discussion identifying concerns of this younger age group. Whereas the HB program focused on calcium, the WB also includes vitamin D, vitamin K, magnesium, and other bone-related nutrients in a food-based format with guidance concerning supplements. Online interactive application is included to allow for practice and enhancing self-efficacy in areas such as choosing higher calcium foods, varying exercise routines, identifying vitamin D sources. Flash software is used to provide visual action and opportunity for activity/practice. The WB program content review by an expert panel of educators/researchers is balanced by a peer review panel for style, ease of use, and face validity. Web-based evaluation for both process and content includes HBM, TRA, and knowledge components. Self-efficacy is reflected by correct responses on activities and number of attempts to successfully complete the activity. Access to the WB program will be through departmental, Extension, and university wellness program websites, representing the physical aspect of the 6 dimensions of wellness.

Captan: Transition from ‘B2’ to ‘not likely’. How pesticide registrants affected the EPA Cancer Classification Update

On 24 November 2004 EPA changed the cancer classification of captan from a 'probable human carcinogen' (Category B2) to 'not likely' when used according to label directions. The new cancer classification considers captan to be a potential carcinogen at prolonged high doses that cause cytotoxicity and regenerative cell hyperplasia. These high doses of captan are many orders of magnitude above those likely to be consumed in the diet, or encountered by individuals in occupational or residential settings. This revised cancer classification reflects EPA's implementation of their new cancer guidelines. The procedures involved in the reclassification effort were agreed upon with EPA and involved an Independent Transparent Review as it related to four components that formed the basis of the original 1986 B2 classification: mouse tumors; rat tumors; mutagenicity; and structural similarity to other carcinogens. A Peer Review Panel organized and administered by Toxicology Excellence for Risk Assessment (TERA) met on 2-3 September 2003. The Panel concluded that captan acted through a non-mutagenic threshold mode of action that required prolonged irritation of the duodenal villi as the initial key event. EPA's Cancer Assessment Review Committee (CARC) met on 9 June 2004 and endorsed the Peer Review findings. EPA intended to have the FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel (SAP) consider the basis for this reclassification but found the science was robust and judged that a SAP review was not warranted. Using the revised classification, the margin of exposure is approximately 1,200,000, supporting the 'not likely' characterization.

Peer Review Panel and Ad Hoc Reviewers for the Journal of Periodontology.

Journal of PeriodontologyVolume 78, Issue 6 p. 963-964 Peer Review Panel Peer Review Panel and Ad Hoc Reviewers for the Journal of Periodontology First published: 01 June 2007 https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.2007.076001Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditWechat No abstract is available for this article. Volume78, Issue6June 2007Pages 963-964 RelatedInformation

Workshop Overview: Reassessment of the Cancer Risk of Dichloromethane in Humans

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) classifies dichloromethane (DCM) as a "probable human carcinogen," based upon its risk assessment conducted in the late 1980s (http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0070.htm). Since that time, cancer risk-assessment practices have evolved, leading to improved scientifically based methods for estimating risk and for illuminating as well as reducing residual uncertainties. A new physiologically based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) model has been developed, using data from human volunteers exposed to low DCM levels, that provides new information on the human to human variability in DCM metabolism and elimination (L. M. Sweeney et al., 2004, Toxicol. Lett. 154, 201-216). This information, along with data from other published human studies, has been used to develop a new cancer risk estimation model utilizing probabilistic methodology similar to that employed recently by U.S. EPA for other chemicals (ENVIRON Health Sciences Institute, 2005, Development of population cancer risk estimates for environmental exposure to dichloromethane using a physiologically based pharmacokinetic model. Final Report to Eastman Kodak Company). This article summarizes the deliberations of a scientific peer-review panel convened on 3 and 4 May 2005 at the CIIT Centers for Health Research in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, to review the "state of the science" for DCM and to critically evaluate the new information for its utility in assessing potential human cancer risks from DCM exposure. The panel (Melvin E Andersen, CIIT Centers for Health Research, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709; A. John Bailer, Miami University, Scripps Gerontology Center, Oxford, OH 45056; Kenneth S. Crump, ENVIRON Health Sciences Institute, Ruston, LA 71270; Clifford R. Elcombe, University of Dundee, Biomedical Research Centre, Dundee DD1 9SY, United Kingdom; Linda S. Erdreich, Exponent, 420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1740, New York, NY 10170; Jeffery W. Fisher, University of Georgia, Department of Environmental Health Science, Athens, GA 30602; David Gaylor, Gaylor and Associates, LLC, Eureka Springs, AR 72631; F Peter Guengerich, Vanderbilt University, Department of Biochemistry, Nashville, TN 37232; Kenneth Mundt, ENVIRON Health Sciences Institute, Amherst, MA 01004; Lorenz R Rhomberg, Gradient Corporation, Cambridge, MA 021138; Charles Timchalk, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, WA 99352), chaired by M.E.A., was composed of experts in xenobiotic metabolism and carcinogenic mechanisms, PBPK modeling, epidemiology, biostatistics, and quantitative risk assessment. Observers included representatives from U.S. EPA, CIIT, and Eastman Kodak Company (Kodak), as well as several consultants to Kodak. The workshop was organized and sponsored by Kodak, which employs DCM as a solvent in the production of imaging materials. Overall, the panel concluded that the new models for DCM risk assessment were scientifically and technically sound and represented an advance over those employed in past assessments.

Summary of Recommendations from Travel Model Improvement Program's Peer Review Program

The U.S. Department of Transportation, through FHWA, sponsors the Travel Model Improvement Program (TMIP) to help planning agencies improve their travel analysis techniques. As an integral part of TMIP, the Peer Review Program provides state and local planning agencies the ability to solicit input from experts in the field of travel demand modeling. The purpose of the Peer Review Program is allow experts in the field of modeling offer guidance to ensure that technical products, procedures, and processes are being developed to meet an agency's specific needs, as well as state, federal, and local planning requirements. Between June 2003 and December 2004, the TMIP Peer Review Program sponsored 12 peer review panels that occurred across a broad spectrum of metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) and state departments of transportation (DOTs) throughout the United States. The peer review panel members included representatives from MPOs, state DOTs, private consulting firms, education institutions, and environmental interest groups. While the results of each peer review were documented individually and posted to the TMIP website, TMIP sponsored an additional study on the common issues and trends that arose within the peer reviews. The results of the peer reviews have been compiled and analyzed in a TMIP Peer Review Program synthesis report that will be a useful tool for planning practitioners interested in the experiences and lessons learned from peer agencies across the nation. Common issues and trends documented in the synthesis report and in subsequent TMIP peer reviews are summarized.

Summary of Recommendations from Travel Model Improvement Program's Peer Review Program

The U.S. Department of Transportation, through FHWA, sponsors the Travel Model Improvement Program (TMIP) to help planning agencies improve their travel analysis techniques. As an integral part of TMIP, the Peer Review Program provides state and local planning agencies the ability to solicit input from experts in the field of travel demand modeling. The purpose of the Peer Review Program is allow experts in the field of modeling offer guidance to ensure that technical products, procedures, and processes are being developed to meet an agency's specific needs, as well as state, federal, and local planning requirements. Between June 2003 and December 2004, the TMIP Peer Review Program sponsored 12 peer review panels that occurred across a broad spectrum of metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) and state departments of transportation (DOTs) throughout the United States. The peer review panel members included representatives from MPOs, state DOTs, private consulting firms, education institutions, and envi...

Report of an independent peer review of an acrylonitrile risk assessment

A peer review panel made up of experts in toxicology, epidemiology, cancer mode of action (MOA), cancer mechanisms, carcinogenicity, genotoxicity, dose-response, US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) cancer and noncancer methods, pharmacokinetic modeling and acrylonitrile, met on 22-23 September 2003 in Cincinnati, OH. The purpose of the meeting was to provide an independent review of a risk assessment of acrylonitrile that had been prepared by the Acrylonitrile Group (AN Group). Toxicology Excellence for Risk Assessment (TERA) organized the peer review and selected the panel. The panel discussed the toxicity and epidemiology literature of acrylonitrile and MOA information, and reached conclusions regarding its MOA, weight of evidence (WOE) for carcinogenicity, preferred approach for dose-response assessment and risk values. This paper summarizes the discussion and conclusions of the panel regarding the acrylonitrile assessment. Subsequent to the peer review, the authors of the acrylonitrile assessment revised their report and the panel reviewed the revised report. A manuscript of the revised assessment is being published in Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology.

TO FORMULATE GAMBLING POLICIES ON THE PREMISE THAT PROBLEM GAMBLING IS AN ADDICTION MAY BE PREMATURE

TO FORMULATE GAMBLING POLICIES ON THE PREMISE THAT PROBLEM GAMBLING IS AN ADDICTION MAY BE PREMATURE

Genotoxicity testing on the international space station: Preparatory work on the SOS-LUX test as part of the space experiment TRIPLE-LUX

Harmful environmental factors – namely ionizing radiation – will continue to influence future manned space missions. The Radiation Biology Unit at the German Aerospace Center (DLR) develops cellular monitoring systems, which include bacterial and mammalian cell systems capable of recognizing DNA damage as a consequence of the presence of genotoxic conditions. Such a bioassay is the SOS-LUX test, which represents the radiobiological part of the German space experiment “Gene, immune and cellular responses to single and combined space flight conditions (TRIPLE-LUX)” which has been selected by the IDI/USRA Peer Review Panel for NASA/ESA to be performed on the International Space Station (ISS). It will supply basic information on the genotoxic response to radiation applied in microgravity. The biological end-point under investigation will depend on the bacterial SOS response brought about by genetically modified bacteria that are transformed with the pSWITCH plasmid (constructed from the plasmids pPLS-1 and pGFPuv). The luminescent/fluorescent bioassay SWITCH (SWITCH: Salmonella Weighting of Induced Toxicity Cyto/GenoTox for Human Health) as successor of the SOS-LUX test for rapid toxicity (genotoxicity and cytotoxicity) testing, makes use of two sensing and reporting systems for the two biological endpoints under investigation: the SOS-LUX test and the LAC- Fluoro test. The SWITCH plasmid carries the promoterless lux operon of Photobacterium leiognathi as reporter element under the control of the DNA-damage-dependent SOS promoter of ColD as sensor element (for genotoxicity testing) and the sequences for a hybrid protein consisting of β-galactosidase and GFPuv of Aequorea victoria as reporter element under the control of the (in Salmonella constitutively active) LAC promoter of Escherichia coli as sensor element (for cytotoxicity testing). The system has worked properly for terrestrial applications during the first experiments. Experiments using X-rays and UV radiation of various qualities (from UVC to UVA) have given insights into cellular mechanisms relevant for estimation of health risks, resulting from exposure of astronauts to the extraordinary radiation environment of space.

Peer Review Panel, 1984–2004. Journal of School Health

Peer Review Panel, 1984–2004. <i>Journal of School Health</i>

The Fox River Risk Assessment Teaching Tool

ABSTRACT In 1999 and 2000, two environmental consulting companies independently prepared risk assessments of the Lower Fox River waste site in Wisconsin. Because the two assessments produced somewhat different risk characterizations, the Association for Environmental Health & Sciences was asked by the site's Potentially Responsible Party to form a peer review panel to critique and compare the two assessments. The panel found interesting differences between the two risk assessments and recommended that their observations, together with the two risk assessments, be made available as a Teaching Tool for persons interested in conducting human and ecological risk assessments. An accompanying CD contains these and other materials useful for teaching purposes.

What is Originality in the Humanities and the Social Sciences?

Drawing on interviews with peer-review panelists from five multidisciplinary fellowship competitions, this paper analyzes one of the main criteria used to evaluate scholarship in the humanities and the social sciences: originality. Whereas the literature in the sociology of science focuses on the natural sciences and defines originality as the production of new findings and new theories, we show that in the context of fellowship competitions, peer reviewers in the social sciences and humanities define originality much more broadly: as using a new approach, theory, method, or data; studying a new topic; doing research in an understudied area; or producing new findings. Whereas the literature has not considered disciplinary variation in the definition of originality, we identified significant differences. Humanists and historians clearly privilege originality in approach, and humanists also emphasize originality in the data used. Social scientists most often mention originality in method, but they also appreciate a more diverse range of types of originality. Whereas the literature tends to equate originality with substantive innovation and to consider the personal attributes of the researcher as irrelevant to the evaluation process, we show that panelists often view the originality of a proposal as an indication of the researcher's moral character, especially of his/her authenticity and integrity. These contributions constitute a new approach to the study of peer review and originality that focuses on the meaning of criteria of evaluation and their distribution across clusters of disciplines.

Quality assessment of a collaborative approach for decreasing drug-related morbidity and achieving therapeutic goals.

Collaboration between physicians and pharmacists is one approach to address drug-related morbidity and achieve therapeutic goals. A collaborative practice of pharmaceutical care has been used in the Fairview Clinics System of Minneapolis-St Paul since 1999. The quality of therapeutic determinations made by pharmacists within this collaborative practice of pharmaceutical care was studied by a 12-member panel of physicians and pharmacists who used randomly selected patient records. This was a quality improvement and care process validation component of a study evaluating the effects of drug therapy management in patients receiving prepaid medical assistance. An implicit review process was used to evaluate the clinical credibility of therapeutic determinations made by pharmaceutical care practitioners. A total of 5780 drug therapy problems were resolved for 2524 patients receiving pharmaceutical care. The rate of therapeutic goals achieved increased from 74% at the time of patients' initial pharmaceutical care encounters to 89% at patients' latest encounters. In this quality assessment analysis panel members performed a total of 4779 evaluations of clinical decisions. Panelists indicated agreement with the evaluations in 94.2% of cases, expressed a neutral opinion in 3.6% of cases, and disagreed in 2.2% of cases. Intraclass correlation coefficients ranged from 0.73 to 0.85. The decisions made by pharmaceutical care practitioners working in collaboration with physicians to provide drug therapy management services are clinically credible based on the evaluations and comments of a peer review panel. This study provides information on the quality of care provided by pharmacists when collaborating with physicians to provide drug therapy management services.

A TPQ Interview: Tim Miller on Autobiographical Storytelling

Tim Miller has worked as a performer and writer for over twenty years. In the early 1990s, he received international recognition as one of “the NEA Four,” four performance artists whose controversial work led the leadership of the NEA to deny grant funds after approval by a peer review panel. Since that time, Miller has created an impressive body of work as a performer of autobiographical narratives speaking directly about gay issues. He has become one of the most in.uential and signi.cant voices in queer performance today. During the premier of his latest work, Us, Miller agreed to an interview with TPQ. In the interview, Miller discusses both his latest work and his general process of working as a solo performing artist.