Shortcut citations in the methods section: Frequency, problems, and strategies for responsible reuse.

Methods sections are often missing essential details. Methodological shortcut citations, in which authors cite previous papers instead of describing the method in detail, may contribute to this problem. This meta-research study used 3 approaches to examine shortcut citation use in neuroscience, biology, and psychiatry. First, we assessed current practices in more than 750 papers. More than 90% of papers used shortcut citations. Other common reasons for using citations in the methods included giving credit or specifying what was used (who or what citation) and providing context or a justification (why citation). Next, we reviewed 15 papers to determine what can happen when readers follow shortcut citations to find methodological details. While shortcut citations can be used effectively, they can also deprive readers of essential methodological details. Problems encountered included difficulty identifying or accessing the cited materials, missing or insufficient descriptions of the cited method, and shortcut citation chains. Third, we examined journal policies. Fewer than one quarter of journals had policies describing how authors should report previously described methods. We propose that methodological shortcut citations should meet 3 criteria; cited resources should provide (1) a detailed description of (2) the method used by the citing authors', and (3) be open access. Resources that do not meet these criteria should be cited to give credit, but not as shortcut citations. We outline actions that authors and journals can take to use shortcut citations responsibly, while fostering a culture of open and reproducible methods reporting.

Digital Health Applications in the Area of Mental Health.

BACKGROUND: The introduction of digital health applications (DiGA) is a fundamental innovation in Germany. In the field of mental health, numerous applications are already available whose efficacy has been tested in clinical trials. We investigated whether, and to what extent, the use of DiGA can be recommended on the basis of the available evidence. METHODS: In this scoping review, we summarize the evidence supporting the use of DiGA in the mental health field through an examination of relevant publications that were retrieved by a systematic literature search. We provide an annotated tabular listing and discuss the current advantages of, and obstacles to, the care of mentally ill patients with the aid of DiGA. RESULTS: We identified 17 DiGA for use in depression, anxiety disorders, addiction disorders, sleep disorders, stress/burnout, vaginismus, and chronic pain. These DiGA have been evaluated to date in 3 meta-analyses, 39 randomized controlled trials (RCTs), and two single-armed intervention trials. 23 of the 36 published trials were carried out with the direct participation of the manufacturers. 29 of the 39 RCTs were not blinded or contained no information regarding blinding. Active controls were used in 6 of the 39 RCTs. The reported effect sizes, with the exclusion of pre-post analyses, ranged from 0.16 to 1.79. CONCLUSION: Most of the published studies display a high risk of bias, both because of the manufacturers' participation and because of methodological deficiencies. DiGA are an increasingly important therapeutic modality in psychiatry. The available evidence indicates that treatment effects are indeed present, but prospective comparisons with established treatments are still entirely lacking.