Background Scholarly publishing system relies on external peer review. However, the duration of publication process is a major concern for authors and funding bodies. Objective To evaluate the duration of the publication process in pharmacy practice journals compared with other biomedical journals indexed in PubMed. Methods All the articles published from 2009 to 2018 by the 33 pharmacy practice journals identified in Mendes et al. study and indexed in PubMed were gathered as study group. A comparison group was created through a random selection of 3000 PubMed PMIDs for each year of study period. Articles with publication dates outside the study period were excluded. Metadata of both groups of articles were imported from PubMed. The duration of editorial process was calculated with three periods: acceptance lag (days between ‘submission date’ and ‘acceptance date’), lead lag (days between ‘acceptance date’ and ‘online publication date’), and indexing lag (days between ‘online publication date’ and ‘Entry date’). Null hypothesis significance tests and effect size measures were used to compare these periods between both groups. Results The 33 pharmacy practice journals published 26,256 articles between 2009 and 2018. Comparison group random selection process resulted in a pool of 23,803 articles published in 5,622 different journals. Acceptance lag was 105 days (IQR 57–173) for pharmacy practice journals and 97 days (IQR 56–155) for the comparison group with a null effect difference (Cohen’s d 0.081). Lead lag was 13 (IQR 6–35) and 23 days (IQR 9–45) for pharmacy practice and comparison journals, respectively, which resulted in a small effect. Indexing lag was 5 days (IQR 2–46) and 4 days (IQR 2–12) for pharmacy practice and control journals, which also resulted in a small effect. Slight positive time trend was found in pharmacy practice acceptance lag, while slight negative trends were found for lead and indexing lags for both groups. Conclusions Publication process duration of pharmacy practice journals is similar to a general random sample of articles from all disciplines.

Background: Different antithrombotic treatments, from vitamin K antagonists to direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs), are available to reduce ischemic risks in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Objective: To synthetize evidence about the benefit–risk ratio of antithrombotic treatments and their combinations in patients with AF and PCI. Methods: A network meta-analysis and a stochastic multicriteria acceptability analysis (SMAA) were performed including randomized controlled trials (RCT) that evaluate antithrombotic treatments in adults with AF and PCI. Searches were conducted in PubMed and Scopus (updated November-2019). Outcomes compared included bleeding, stroke, and death (Prospero registration: CRD42019146813). Results: Five RCTs were included (11 532 patients). Vitamin K antagonists + dual antiplatelet therapy was associated with major bleeding (odds ratio: 0.52 [95% CI: 0.32-0.86]) compared to DOAC + P2Y12. No statistical differences were found among DOAC regimens for the main outcomes, including bleeding, stroke, and death. Surface under the cumulative ranking curve analysis (SUCRA) and SMAA demonstrated edoxaban 60 mg + P2Y12 inhibitor as the worst option (28%). Apixaban 5 mg + P2Y12 inhibitor was the safest alternative (63%) in all scenarios. Conclusions: Insufficient evidence on the clinical superiority among anticoagulant regimens exists, although apixaban slightly stands out. Edoxaban was associated with more adverse events. To strength this evidence, well-designed, low risk of bias clinical trials are needed. Cost-minimization analyses are required to provide further information for clinical decision-making.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract