ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION:We present data from a systematic survey on conflict of interest (COI) disclosure and its interpretation by the doctors participating in continuing medical education (CME).METHODS:A brief 12 question online Google survey with multiple choice options (read, select, and click) was done among Indian practicing doctors using links shared through WhatsApp through the internet over a 72 h period.RESULTS:Of the 386 replies, 373 unique replies were eligible for evaluation. The majority found CME activities beneficial. About 73% of participants would watch out for bias, even if the speaker shows COI disclosure slide. The use of brand/trade names was considered as a flag for bias by the majority. About 99% wanted the speaker to show a final take home message slide. Cross verification of the data presented by comparing to published data was done in more than 75% of instances by only 25% of the participating doctors. A significantly higher number of doctors found bias when CME activities were being organized by the health-care industry as compared to programs of medical bodies/societies/organizations.DISCUSSION:COI considerations are given due to the importance of medical professionals. However, doctors are smart enough to understand the limitations of such disclosures and remain alert to ensure they are not influenced by any bias. Take home message slide gives the presenters opportunity to share their insights and allows the audience to make their own judgment on the impartiality of the data presented. The doctors are aware that bias could be more when CME activities are organized by healthcare industry and take appropriate precautions.CONCLUSION:COI is is given due importance by the medical professionals. COI disclosures are often incomplete. Doctors remain alert to ensure they are not influenced by biased presentations. Concluding take home message slide is unanimously recommended. Presentation bias is more when healthcare industry is directly organizing educational and promotional activities.
ABSTRACT
Abstract Dated or calibrated phylogenetic trees, in which branch lengths correspond to evolutionary divergence times between nodes, are important requirements for computing measures of phylogenetic diversity or phylogenetic community structure. The increasing knowledge about the diversification and evolutionary divergence times of vascular plants requires a revision of the age estimates used for the calibration of phylogenetic trees by the bladj algorithm of the Phylocom 4.2 package. Comparing the recently released megatree R20120829.new with two calibrated vascular plant phylogenies provided in the literature, we found 242 corresponding nodes. We modified the megatree (R20120829mod.new), inserting names for all corresponding nodes. Furthermore, we provide files containing age estimates from both sources for the updated calibration of R20120829mod.new. Applying these files consistently in analyses of phylogenetic community structure or diversity serves to avoid erroneous measures and ecological misinterpretation.
Resumo Árvores filogenéticas datadas, ou calibradas, em que os comprimentos dos ramos correspondem ao tempo evolutivo de divergência entre os nós, são importantes requisitos para calcular medidas de diversidade filogenética ou de estrutura filogenética de comunidades. O conhecimento crescente sobre a diversificação e sobre o tempo de divergência evolutiva das plantas vasculares fez necessária uma revisão das estimativas de idades dos nós que são utilizadas para a calibração de árvores filogenéticas por meio do algoritmo bladj do pacote Phylocom 4.2. Comparando a mega-árvore R20120829.new, recentemente publicada, e outras duas filogenias calibradas de plantas vasculares, encontramos 242 nós correspondentes. Modificamos esta mega-árvore (R20120829mod.new), inserindo todos os nomes dos nós correspondentes. Além disso, providenciamos dois arquivos com todas as estimativas das idades para uma calibração mais atualizada. Utilizando esses arquivos de maneira consistente nas análises de diversidade ou de estrutura filogenética de comunidades, evita-se incorreções nas datações e imprecisões na interpretação de informações ecológicas.
Subject(s)
Phylogeny , Plants/classification , Biodiversity , Algorithms , Biological EvolutionABSTRACT
This article made comments on the English translation of acupoints inA Practical Dictionary of Chinese Medicine. It found that its main translation strategy was literal translation supplemented with transliteration and free translation, which made contributions to the reservation of the features of TCM culture and helped western learners grasp the knowledge of acupuncture and moxibustion. It proposed unification of the translation of the same word in different acupoints, and analyzed some misinterpretations due to polysemy and Chinese interchangeable characters, with a purpose to promote the establishment of an international standard for the translation of acupoints.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: In reporting results of case-control studies, odds ratios are useful methods of reporting findings. However, odds ratios are often misinterpreted in the literature and by general readers. METHODS: We searched all original articles which were published in the Korean Journal of Family Medicine from 1980 to May 2011 and identified those that report "odds ratios." Misinterpretation of odds ratios as relative risks has been identified. Estimated risk ratios were calculated when possible and compared with odds ratios. RESULTS: One hundred and twenty-eight articles using odds ratios were identified. Among those, 122 articles were analyzed for the frequency of misinterpretation of odds ratios as relative risks. Twenty-two reports out of these 122 articles misinterpreted odds ratios as relative risks. The percentage of misinterpreting reports decreased over years. Seventy-seven reports were analyzed to compare the estimated risk ratios with odds ratios. In most of these articles, odds ratios were greater than estimated risk ratios, 60% of which had larger than 20% standardized differences. CONCLUSION: In reports published in the Korean Journal of Family Medicine, odds ratios are frequently used. They were misinterpreted in part of the reports, although decreasing trends over years were observed.