Evaluation and Comparison of Academic Impact and Disruptive Innovation Level of Medical Journals: Bibliometric Analysis and Disruptive Evaluation.

BACKGROUND: As an important platform for researchers to present their academic findings, medical journals have a close relationship between their evaluation orientation and the value orientation of their published research results. However, the differences between the academic impact and level of disruptive innovation of medical journals have not been examined by any study yet. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to compare the relationships and differences between the academic impact, disruptive innovation levels, and peer review results of medical journals and published research papers. We also analyzed the similarities and differences in the impact evaluations, disruptive innovations, and peer reviews for different types of medical research papers and the underlying reasons. METHODS: The general and internal medicine Science Citation Index Expanded (SCIE) journals in 2018 were chosen as the study object to explore the differences in the academic impact and level of disruptive innovation of medical journals based on the OpenCitations Index of PubMed open PMID-to-PMID citations (POCI) and H1Connect databases, respectively, and we compared them with the results of peer review. RESULTS: First, the correlation coefficients of the Journal Disruption Index (JDI) with the Journal Cumulative Citation for 5 years (JCC5), Journal Impact Factor (JIF), and Journal Citation Indicator (JCI) were 0.677, 0.585, and 0.621, respectively. The correlation coefficient of the absolute disruption index (Dz) with the Cumulative Citation for 5 years (CC5) was 0.635. However, the average difference in the disruptive innovation and academic influence rankings of journals reached 20 places (about 17.5%). The average difference in the disruptive innovation and influence rankings of research papers reached about 2700 places (about 17.7%). The differences reflect the essential difference between the two evaluation systems. Second, the top 7 journals selected based on JDI, JCC5, JIF, and JCI were the same, and all of them were H-journals. Although 8 (8/15, 53%), 96 (96/150, 64%), and 880 (880/1500, 58.67%) of the top 0.1%, top 1%, and top 10% papers selected based on Dz and CC5, respectively, were the same. Third, research papers with the "changes clinical practice" tag showed only moderate innovation (4.96) and impact (241.67) levels but had high levels of peer-reviewed recognition (6.00) and attention (2.83). CONCLUSIONS: The results of the study show that research evaluation based on innovative indicators is detached from the traditional impact evaluation system. The 3 evaluation systems (impact evaluation, disruptive innovation evaluation, and peer review) only have high consistency for authoritative journals and top papers. Neither a single impact indicator nor an innovative indicator can directly reflect the impact of medical research for clinical practice. How to establish an integrated, comprehensive, scientific, and reasonable journal evaluation system to improve the existing evaluation system of medical journals still needs further research.

Gender Representation on Editorial Boards of JAMA Network Journals.

Objective: Underrepresentation of women on editorial boards of biomedical journals has occurred for decades. The JAMA Network Journals have substantial and broad impact on advances in the biomedical sciences. We sought to determine the current status of gender representation on editorial boards of the 12 JAMA Network Journals. Methods: The gender of each editorial board member of the 12 JAMA Network Journals was classified based on review of online sources. The percentage of women on each board (i.e., number of women relative to total members) was calculated and compared to gender equity and parity benchmarks. The gender equity benchmark for each journal was defined as the percentage of women physicians in the medical specialty reflecting the journal's content based on Association of American Medical Colleges data. The gender parity benchmark for all journals was defined as 50% women. Results: There was considerable variation in the representation of women on the editorial boards of the JAMA Network Journals relative to gender equity and parity benchmarks. Women were underrepresented on 50% (6 of 12) of boards relative to gender equity and 67% (8 of 12) of boards relative to gender parity. Conclusions: Women were found to be underrepresented on 50% or more of the editorial boards of the JAMA Network Journals. This finding reflects gender inequities in academic publishing and the broader biomedical enterprise, which limits advances in the biomedical sciences and health care. Those JAMA Network Journals that continue to underrepresent women on their editorial boards are urged to remediate this longstanding issue.

The use of systematic reviews for conducting new studies in physiotherapy research: a meta-research study comparing author guidelines of physiotherapy-related journals.

BACKGROUND: Requiring authors to base their research on a systematic review of the existing literature prevents the generation of redundant scientific studies, thereby avoiding the deprivation of effective therapies for trial participants and the waste of research funds. Scientific medical journals could require this in their author guidelines. While this applies to all areas of research, it is also relevant to physiotherapy and rehabilitation research, which predominantly involve interventional trials in patients. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine the extent to which the use of systematic reviews to justify a new trial is already being requested by physiotherapy-related scientific medical journals (PTJs). In addition, a comparison was made between PTJs and scientific medical journals with the highest impact factor in the Science Citation Index Extended (SCIE). METHODS: This meta-research study is based on a systematic examination of the author guidelines of 149 PTJs. The journals were identified and included based on the number of publications with physiotherapy as a keyword in the databases PEDro, and Medline (Pubmed). The included author guidelines were analysed for the extent to which they specified that a new trial should be justified by a systematic review of the literature. Additionally, they were compared with 14 scientific medical journals with the highest impact factor in the SCIE (LJs). RESULTS: In their author guidelines, none of the included PTJs required or recommended the use of a systematic review to justify a new trial. Among LJs, four journals (28.57%), all associated with the Lancet group, required the study justification through a systematic review of the literature. CONCLUSION: Neither PTJs nor LJs require or recommend the use of a systematic review to justify a new trial in their author guidelines. This potentially leaves room for unethical scientific practices and should be critically considered in future research.

American Black Authorship Has Decreased Across All Clinical Specialties Despite an Increasing Number of Black Physicians Between 1990 and 2020 in the USA.

PURPOSE: Many diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives assume that attainment of a racially diverse healthcare workforce will translate to increased diversity elsewhere in the healthcare system (e.g., leadership roles or academic authorship). We sought to investigate these trends over time by examining the evolution of physician demographics in the USA, in concert with demographic changes in US authorship in US medical journals from 1990 to 2020 across 25 specialties. METHODS: We reviewed all articles indexed in PubMed, with a primary author affiliation located in the USA and limited to journals based in the USA, relative to the proportion of medical professionals in the CMS National Provider Registry. We employed a previously peer-reviewed/validated algorithm called "averaging-of-proportions" that probabilistically predicts racial identity from surname using the US Census to assess the relationship between diversity among medical professionals and diversity in medical journal authorship. RESULTS: Data reveals a sharp disconnect between the demographic breakdown of physicians and authors. Despite an increase in the number of Black physicians (from 8.5% in 2005 to 9.1% in 2020), there has been a decrease in Black early-career authorship from 7.2% in 1990 to 5.8% in 2020. The percentage of Black early-career authors across all specialties in 2020 is lower than the average per specialty in 1990. Similar trends were noted for Black senior authorship, decreasing from 7.6% in 1990 to 6.2% in 2020, as well as a plateau in Hispanic authorship over the same time interval despite an increasing number of Hispanic physicians. CONCLUSION: Modest advances in physician diversity have not translated to increased diversity in academic authorship. Increasing diversity requires initiatives focused beyond recruitment of underrepresented minorities to medical schools or residencies.

The stories about racism and health: the development of a framework for racism narratives in medical literature using a computational grounded theory approach.

INTRODUCTION: The scientific study of racism as a root cause of health inequities has been hampered by the policies and practices of medical journals. Monitoring the discourse around racism and health inequities (i.e., racism narratives) in scientific publications is a critical aspect of understanding, confronting, and ultimately dismantling racism in medicine. A conceptual framework and multi-level construct is needed to evaluate the changes in the prevalence and composition of racism over time and across journals. OBJECTIVE: To develop a framework for classifying racism narratives in scientific medical journals. METHODS: We constructed an initial set of racism narratives based on an exploratory literature search. Using a computational grounded theory approach, we analyzed a targeted sample of 31 articles in four top medical journals which mentioned the word 'racism'. We compiled and evaluated 80 excerpts of text that illustrate racism narratives. Two coders grouped and ordered the excerpts, iteratively revising and refining racism narratives. RESULTS: We developed a qualitative framework of racism narratives, ordered on an anti-racism spectrum from impeding anti-racism to strong anti-racism, consisting of 4 broad categories and 12 granular modalities for classifying racism narratives. The broad narratives were "dismissal," "person-level," "societal," and "actionable." Granular modalities further specified how race-related health differences were related to racism (e.g., natural, aberrant, or structurally modifiable). We curated a "reference set" of example sentences to empirically ground each label. CONCLUSION: We demonstrated racism narratives of dismissal, person-level, societal, and actionable explanations within influential medical articles. Our framework can help clinicians, researchers, and educators gain insight into which narratives have been used to describe the causes of racial and ethnic health inequities, and to evaluate medical literature more critically. This work is a first step towards monitoring racism narratives over time, which can more clearly expose the limits of how the medical community has come to understand the root causes of health inequities. This is a fundamental aspect of medicine's long-term trajectory towards racial justice and health equity.

Reflection on Ramadan Fasting Research Related to Sustainable Development Goal 3 (Good Health and Well-Being): A Bibliometric Analysis.

There is a large body of research on Ramadan intermittent fasting (RIF) and health in Muslim communities, that can offer insights to promote the achievement of Sustainable Development Goal 3 (SDG 3), which encompasses good health and well-being. Based on recent bibliometric evidence, we hypothesized that RIF research is highly relevant to SDG 3, particularly Targets 3.1, 3.2, 3.4, and 3.5. Therefore, this bibliometric study quantified RIF literature supporting SDG 3 and associated targets over the past seven decades and explored themes and trends. All types of research articles were extracted from the Scopus database from inception to March 2022. Microsoft Excel, Biblioshiny, and VOSviewer were used to qualitatively and quantitatively examine RIF research trends supporting SDG 3 and associated targets. We identified 1729 relevant articles. The number of publications notably increased since 1986, with a dramatic increase in 2019-2020. RIF research predominantly supported Target 3.4 (reducing risk for non-communicable diseases), with research hotspots being diabetes, diabetes medications, pregnancy, physiology, metabolic diseases, and obesity and metabolism. This target was also the most commonly supported by dedicated authors and institutions publishing on RIF, whereas other SDG 3 targets were negligibly addressed in comparison. Our comprehensive bibliometric analysis of RIF literature showed growing support for SDG 3 through positive contributions to half of the SDG 3 targets, although Target 3.4 received the most attention. We also identified knowledge gaps that may shape further research directions on RIF and promote the achievement of SDG 3 in Muslim communities.

Gender Representation of Editors at Journals Affiliated with Major U.S. Medical Societies.

Objectives: To assess the gender composition of upper-level specialty-specific editor positions among United States (U.S.) medical society-affiliated journals and to evaluate the equitable inclusion of women and women physicians. Materials and Methods: The gender composition of upper-level (e.g., editor-in-chief, deputy) specialty-specific editor positions among 39 U.S. medical society-affiliated journals as of January 5, 2023, was analyzed. Editor positions below the level of associate editor were excluded. Parity (50:50 representation) and equity (compared with the proportion of practicing physicians in each medical specialty) benchmarks were utilized to determine if women are underrepresented in editor positions. Results: A total of 862 editor positions among 39 journals were assessed. Women held 32.9% (284/862) of positions (95% confidence interval [CI]: 29.9%-36.2%), significantly less than expected based on the U.S. population (p < 0.001). Physicians comprised 90.8% (783/862) of positions, of whom 30.4% (238/783) were women physicians (95% CI: 27.3%-33.7%), significantly less than expected (p < 0.001). Thirty-three (84.6%, 95% CI: 70.3%-92.8%) journals were below parity for women overall, whereas 34 (87.2%, 95% CI: 73.3%-94.4%) were below parity for women physicians. Fourteen (35.9%, 95% CI: 22.7%-51.6%) journals were below equity for women physicians. Notably, 13 (33.3%, 95% CI: 20.6%-49.0%) journals were below both parity and equity for women overall and women physicians. Conclusions: This study reveals mixed results in the equitable inclusion of women in editor positions of journals affiliated with U.S. medical societies. Despite the equitable inclusion of women in editorial roles being a remediable issue, approximately one third of journals affiliated with major U.S. medical societies remain inequitable.

Medical journals and advertiser tracking-Consequences for patients, clinicians, and editors.

Medical journal websites frequently contain tracking code that transfers data about journal readers to third parties. These data give drug, device, and other medical product companies a potentially powerful resource for targeting advertisements and other marketing materials to journal readers based on unique attributes and medical interests that can be inferred from the articles they read. Thus, while editors may strictly regulate the content of advertisements that such companies place in their journals' pages, they simultaneously provide those companies with the means to target readers in other forums, possibly in ways that subvert editorial guidelines. We examine the implications of third-party tracking on medical journal webpages, and recommend actions that publishers, editors, and academic societies can take to curb it.

An Exploratory Study of Medical Journal's Twitter Use: Metadata, Networks, and Content Analyses.

BACKGROUND: An increasing number of medical journals are using social media to promote themselves and communicate with their readers. However, little is known about how medical journals use Twitter and what their social media management strategies are. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to understand how medical journals use Twitter from a global standpoint. We conducted a broad, in-depth analysis of all the available Twitter accounts of medical journals indexed by major indexing services, with a particular focus on their social networks and content. METHODS: The Twitter profiles and metadata of medical journals were analyzed along with the social networks on their Twitter accounts. RESULTS: The results showed that overall, publishers used different strategies regarding Twitter adoption, Twitter use patterns, and their subsequent decisions. The following specific findings were noted: journals with Twitter accounts had a significantly higher number of publications and a greater impact than their counterparts; subscription journals had a slightly higher Twitter adoption rate (2%) than open access journals; journals with higher impact had more followers; and prestigious journals rarely followed other lesser-known journals on social media. In addition, an in-depth analysis of 2000 randomly selected tweets from 4 prestigious journals revealed that The Lancet had dedicated considerable effort to communicating with people about health information and fulfilling its social responsibility by organizing committees and activities to engage with a broad range of health-related issues; The New England Journal of Medicine and the Journal of the American Medical Association focused on promoting research articles and attempting to maximize the visibility of their research articles; and the British Medical Journal provided copious amounts of health information and discussed various health-related social problems to increase social awareness of the field of medicine. CONCLUSIONS: Our study used various perspectives to investigate how medical journals use Twitter and explored the Twitter management strategies of 4 of the most prestigious journals. Our study provides a detailed understanding of medical journals' use of Twitter from various perspectives and can help publishers, journals, and researchers to better use Twitter for their respective purposes.

The Under-representation and Stagnation of Female, Black, and Hispanic Authorship in the Journal of the American Medical Association and the New England Journal of Medicine.

Publication in leading medical journals is critical to knowledge dissemination and academic advancement alike. Leveraging a novel dataset comprised of nearly all articles published in JAMA and NEJM from 1990 to 2020, along with established reference works for name identification, we explore changing authorship demographics in two of the world's leading medical journals. Our main outcomes are the annual proportion of male and female authors and the proportion of racial/ethnic identities in junior and senior authorship positions for articles published in JAMA and NEJM since 1990. We found that women remain under-represented in research authorship in both JAMA (at its peak, 38.1% of articles had a female first author in 2011) and NEJM (peaking at 28.2% in 2002). The rate of increase is so slow that it will take more than a century for both journals to reach gender parity. Black and Hispanic researchers have likewise remained under-represented as first and last authors in both journals, even using the best-case scenario. Their appearance as authors has remained stagnant for three decades, despite attention to structural inequalities in medical academia. Thus, analysis of authorship demographics in JAMA and NEJM over the past three decades reveals the existence of inequalities in high-impact medical journal authorship. Gender and racial/ethnic disparities in authorship may both reflect and further contribute to disparities in academic advancement.

Investigaciones sobre COVID-19 y su influencia en el factor de impacto de las revistas médicas latinoamericanas / Research on COVID-19 and its influence on Latin American medical journals impact factor

Resumen Introducción: La llegada de la pandemia de la enfermedad por coronavirus (COVID-19) incrementó exponencialmente la producción científica. Objetivo: Analizar la influencia de la producción científica acerca de COVID-19 en los valores del factor de impacto de revistas médicas latinoamericanas. Métodos: Se emplearon las revistas de categorías relacionadas con la medicina del Journal Citation Reports (JCR). Se utilizaron los datos del factor del impacto de las ediciones de 2020 y 2021 para establecer una comparación respecto a las citas recibidas por los documentos relativos a COVID-19. Resultados: Se observó un descenso en los valores del factor de impacto de las revistas evaluadas cuando se eliminan las citas recibidas por los documentos relativos a COVID-19. Conclusiones: El volumen de la información publicada sobre COVID-19 y las citas recibidas influyeron en el aumento del impacto en el JCR de 2021.

Abstract Introduction: The arrival of the pandemic caused by coronavirus disease (COVID-19) exponentially increased scientific production. Objective: To analyze the influence of COVID-19-related scientific production on the impact factor values of Latin American medical journals. Methods: Journals related to the Medicine categories included in Journal Citation Reports (JCR) were used. Impact factor data from the 2020 and 2021 editions were used to compare the citations received by documents related to COVID-19. Results: A decrease in the impact factor values of the evaluated journals was observed when the citations received by works related to COVID-19 were eliminated. Conclusions: The volume of information published on COVID-19 and the citations received influenced the impact increase in 2021 JCR.

Reading habits of medical practitioners: Young doctors in Pakistan, a case study.

Objective: This study attempted to investigate the reading preferences and habits among young Pakistani medical doctors. The reading time, preferred source of information, preferred medical journals, and ways of reading medical journals were explored. Methods: A survey approach was used for data collection. The study participants were young medical professionals in Pakistan. An online survey was sent to more than 300 individuals through various physicians and their professional groups/bodies. A total of 155 responded to the questionnaire, and 128 of the questionnaires were considered worthy of data analysis. Results: Among respondents, 40% read printed journals, 49% read online journals, 60% read case reports, and 55% read newspapers for 1-5 h per week. Continuing medical education was the preferred source of information, and the Pakistan Journal of Cardiology & Thoracic Surgery was the preferred medical journal. Reading the abstract and the conclusion was the preferred way of reading journal articles. Conclusion: Young physicians are enthusiastic in participating in research activities and spending time gaining updated information. Physicians read articles methodically. Online sources of information are preferred over printed sources.

Medicina y cultura visual: la fotografía en revistas científicas y la producción de conocimiento médico experimental en Argentina, 1890-1915 / Medicine and visual culture: photography in scientific journals and the production of experimental medical knowledge in Argentina, 1890-1915

Resumen En el presente artículo se abordan las maneras en que la fotografía fue parte de las estrategias argumentativas y expositivas de los profesionales de la medicina y su rol en la producción de conocimiento experimental entre 1890 y 1915. Para dar cuenta de estas cuestiones se relevaron revistas médicas representativas del período siempre teniendo en cuenta los avances en las técnicas de reproducción de imágenes. El análisis realizado permite dar cuenta de cómo las fotografías fueron parte de las explicaciones presentadas ante la comunidad científica para persuadir de la eficacia de tratamientos experimentales y procedimientos quirúrgicos novedosos, en un contexto de profesionalización de la medicina y necesidad de legitimación de una "cultura de laboratorio".

Abstract This article addresses how photography was part of the argumentative and expository strategies of medical professionals and its role in the production of experimental knowledge between 1890 and 1915. To investigate these issues, representative medical journals of the period were surveyed, always considering the advances in image reproduction techniques. The analysis carried out allows us to observe how the photographs were part of the explanations presented to the scientific community to persuade the efficacy of experimental treatments and novel surgical procedures, in the context of the professionalization of medicine and the need to legitimize a "culture of the laboratory."

Seven decades of Ramadan intermittent fasting research: Bibliometrics analysis, global trends, and future directions.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: There is a large body of research focused on various aspects related to Ramadan intermittent fasting (RIF) and human health and disease. This study aimed to quantify the bibliometric data of RIF medical research over the past seven decades and explore these variables qualitatively via text mining analysis. METHODS: We used the Scopus search engine to identify published articles related to RIF from inception to December 31, 2021. All types of research articles were included. Scientometric and bibliometric measures were determined using Excel, Biblioshiny, and VOSviewer. This study proposed a bibliometric and text mining method to qualitatively and quantitatively recognize the RIF research trend. RESULTS: The Scopus search returned 1915 relevant articles. Most citations pertained to publications from the last two decades, and most publications were original research articles. These publications had received around 27,000 citations, and the 20 most prolific publishing journals had an average h-index of 112.25. More than one-third of all medical publications were in open-access journals. There was a 13-fold increase in medical research on RIF over the past few decades. We identified the 10 most prolific publishing countries, institutes, journals, and authors. We also identified five scientific hotspots of RIF scientific literature, which were: diabetes, metabolic health, public health, physiology, and maternity. CONCLUSION: This is the first comprehensive bibliometric analysis of medical research related to RIF. The research gaps identified will shape future research directions and foster collaborative research activities toward enhanced medical nutrition research revolving around RIF.

Completeness of reporting and outcome switching in trials published in Indian journals from 2017 to 2019: A cross-sectional study.

Context: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are among the cornerstones for generation of high-quality clinical evidence. However, incomplete or biased reporting of trials can hamper the process of review of trials and their results. Outcome switching, intentional, or otherwise leads to biased reporting and can result in false inferences. Aims: The aim of this study was to analyze the completeness of reporting Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) 2010 checklist items and detect if outcome switching had occurred. Settings and Design: This cross-sectional study was conducted in the department of pharmacology. Methods: Online editions of journals published by the Indian association of medical specialties from 2017 to 2019 were accessed, and the full-text versions of the published RCTs in them were downloaded. Reporting of each item in the CONSORT checklist was recorded. The effect of trial registration and CONSORT endorsement on reporting of key methodological parameters was also determined. Protocols of registered trials were accessed, and the outcome switching was assessed. Statistical Analysis Used: Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the data. Results: Average completeness of reporting has significantly improved from 2017 to 2019. Major areas of underreporting were generalizability, protocol availability, trial registration, date of recruitment, allocation concealment, and the patient flow diagram. CONSORT endorsing journals had worse, whereas registered trials had better reporting of key methodological indicators. No overt switching of outcomes was observed in 84 out of 86 registered trials where trial protocols were available online for comparison. Conclusions: Quality of clinical trial reporting in the Indian medical journals has improved but remains inadequate. CONSORT nonendorsement prevents completeness of trial reporting.

An investigation into the pharmaceutical advertising in Iranian medical journals.

BACKGROUND: Pharmaceutical advertising is not only considered a key factor in the successful launch of pharmaceutical products, but is also an important source of public health information with a significant impact on consumer choice and behavior. Nowadays, advertising has become the broadest dissemination channel for various products, including medicines, which may ultimately lead to the generalization of self-treatment or mistreatment. Improper drug promotion can exacerbate unhealthy outcomes by making false or misleading claims, using inferior references, and failing to meet international standards. This study aimed to examine the requirements for pharmaceutical advertising from regulatory perspective and the compliance of Iranian pharmaceutical advertisements to related standards and guidelines. It is limited to print advertisements in Iranian national medical journals and magazines. METHOD: The present study is a descriptive-analytical study using bibliometric methods. As a first step, a comprehensive review of the national and international regulations on drug advertising was conducted and a comparison of different regulations was provided. In the second step, a checklist was created to evaluate the compliance of drug advertising with the extracted regulations. RESULT: The results of the present study show that the claims made in Iranian drug advertisements are 29.10% valid, 27.67% exaggerated, 23.10% controversial, 12.62% misleading, and 6.8% invalid. In general, we found that most medical advertisements in Iranian journals and magazines comply with national laws and regulations. However, many international requirements are not met in these advertisements. CONCLUSIONS: Although we found that printed medical advertisements in Iran are roughly compliant with national regulations, there is still a long way to achieve full compliance. Monitoring processes should be improved and clearly defined penalties should be set to avoid misleading claims and their likely health consequences. It is very important in Iran to update the existing rules and regulations for medical advertisements according to international guidelines. More careful monitoring of the content of advertising and the accuracy of claims are also needed.

Use of core outcome sets was low in clinical trials published in major medical journals.

OBJECTIVES: To examine current practices in late-phase trials published in major medical journals and examine trialists' views about core outcome set (COS) use. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: A sequential multi-methods study was conducted. We examined late-phase trials published between October 2019 and March 2020 in JAMA, NEJM, The Lancet, BMJ, and Annals of Internal Medicine. The COMET database was searched for COS potentially relevant to trials not reporting using a COS; overlap of trial and COS outcomes was examined. An online survey examined awareness of, and decisions to search for and use a COS. RESULTS: Ninety-five trials were examined; 93 (98%) did not report using a COS. Relevant COS were identified for 31 trials (33%). Core outcomes were measured in 9 (23%) studies; all trials measured at least one core outcome. Thirty-one trialists (33%) completed our survey. The most common barrier to COS use was trialist's own outcome preferences and choice (68%). The most common perceived facilitator was awareness and knowledge about COS (90%). CONCLUSION: COS use in this cohort of trials was low, even when relevant COS were available. Increased use of COS in clinical trials can improve evaluation of intervention effects and evidence synthesis and reduce research waste.