Background and Purpose— Carotid web (CW) is a rare form of focal fibromuscular dysplasia defined as an abnormal shelf-like projection of intimal fibrous tissue into the carotid bulb. It is theorized that CW leads to ischemic stroke secondary to blood flow stasis and subsequent embolization. The natural history and optimal management of CW are unclear. To address this knowledge gap, we performed a systematic literature review (SLR) of CW. Methods— Our librarians performed a SLR for CW and related terminology. Patient-level demographics, stroke risk factors, neuroimaging findings, stroke recurrence or stroke free-duration, and treatment modality were extracted. We used descriptive statistics to characterize our results. When specific patient-level metrics were not reported, the denominators for reporting percentage calculations were adjusted accordingly. Results— Our literature search produced 1150 articles. Thirty-seven articles including 158 patients (median age 46 years [range 16–85], 68% women, 76% symptomatic) met entry criteria and were included in our SLR. Of the symptomatic CW patients: 57% did not have stroke risk factors, 56% who received medical therapy had recurrent stroke (median 12 months, range 0–97), and 72% were ultimately treated with carotid revascularization (50% carotid stenting, 50% carotid endarterectomy). There were no periprocedural complications or recurrent strokes in carotid revascularization patients. Conclusions— CW leads to ischemic stroke in younger patients without conventional stroke risk factors. We found a high stroke recurrence rate in medically managed symptomatic CW patients, whereas carotid revascularization effectively prevented recurrent stroke. Our findings should be interpreted with caution because of risk of publication and reporting bias.

Background Recruiting participants into clinical trials continues to be a challenge, which can result in study delay or termination. Recent studies have used social media to enhance recruitment outcomes. An assessment of the literature on the use of social media for this purpose is required. Objective This study aims to answer the following questions: (1) How is the use of social media, in combination with traditional approaches to enhance clinical trial recruitment and enrollment, represented in the literature? and (2) Do the data on recruitment and enrollment outcomes presented in the literature allow for comparison across studies? Methods We conducted a comprehensive literature search across 7 platforms to identify clinical trials that combined social media and traditional methods to recruit patients. Study and participant characteristics, recruitment methods, and recruitment outcomes were evaluated and compared. Results We identified 2371 titles and abstracts through our systematic search. Of these, we assessed 95 full papers and determined that 33 studies met the inclusion criteria. A total of 17 studies reported enrollment outcomes, of which 9 achieved or exceeded their enrollment target. The proportion of participants enrolled from social media in these studies ranged from 0% to 49%. Across all 33 studies, the proportion of participants recruited and enrolled from social media varied greatly. A total of 9 studies reported higher enrollment rates from social media than any other methods, and 4 studies reported the lowest cost per enrolled participant from social media. Conclusions While the assessment of the use of social media to improve clinical trial participation is hindered by reporting inconsistencies, preliminary data suggest that social media can increase participation and reduce per-participant cost. The adoption of consistent standards for reporting recruitment and enrollment outcomes is required to advance our understanding and use of social media to support clinical trial success.

Aims Over the last two decades, the existence of an open access citation advantage (OACA)—increased citation of articles made available open access (OA)—has been the topic of much discussion. While there has been substantial research to address this question, findings have been contradictory and inconclusive. We conducted a systematic review to compare studies of citations to OA and non-OA articles. Methods A systematic search of 17 databases attempted to capture all relevant studies authored since 2001. The protocol was registered in Open Science Framework. We included studies with a direct comparison between OA and non-OA items and reported article-level citation as an outcome. Both randomized and non-randomized studies were included. No limitations were placed on study design, language, or publication type. Results A total of 5,744 items were retrieved. Ultimately, 134 items were identified for inclusion. 64 studies (47.8%) confirmed the existence of OACA, while 37 (27.6%) found that it did not exist, 32 (23.9%) found OACA only in subsets of their sample, and 1 study (0.8%) was inconclusive. Studies with a focus on multiple disciplines were significantly positively associated with finding that OACA exists in subsets, and are less associated with finding that OACA did not exist. In the critical appraisal of the included studies, 3 were found to have an overall low risk of bias. Of these, one found that an OACA existed, one found that it did not, and one found that an OACA occurred in subsets. Conclusions As seen through the large number of studies identified for this review, OACA is a topic of continuing interest. Quality and heterogeneity of the component studies pose challenges for generalization. The results suggest the need for reporting guidelines for bibliometrics studies.

No abstract

INTRODUCTION Retractions are a mechanism by which science corrects itself, withdrawing statements or claims that have proven to be erroneous. However, this requires that such corrections be displayed clearly and consistently. This paper considers how retracted publications in the mental health literature are represented across different platforms. METHODS Using Retraction Watch, we identified 144 retracted articles in the mental health field. We looked across seven platforms to determine the consistency and clarity of the retracted status of these publications. RESULTS Of the 812 records for retracted publications, 40.0% (n=325) did not indicate that the paper had been retracted. Of available PDFs, 26.3% (53/201) did not indicate that the paper had been retracted. Of the 144 articles studied, only 10 were represented as being retracted across all resources through which they were available. DISCUSSION Retracted publications in this sample were inconsistently represented across library resources. While technical solutions, such as Crossmark by Crossref, may help mitigate these challenges, the inconsistent display of retractions has implications for education and outreach. CONCLUSION Our study found that the retractions in our sample were not clearly and consistently represented across sources. Libraries, which provide access to and training in these resources, have a responsibility to raise awareness of these inconsistencies and to advocate for more timely and accurate metadata.