Background The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors has published clear guidelines on the authorship of scientific papers. It is the research team’s responsibility to review and ensure those guidelines are met. Authorship ethics and practices have been examined among healthcare professionals or among particular health science students such as medical students. However, there is limited evidence to assess the knowledge of authorship roles and practices among health science students. Methods We conducted a cross-sectional study to assess the knowledge of authorship guidelines practices among health science students at King Saud bin Abdulaziz University for Health Sciences in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. A survey was developed and distributed. It covered several domains, including demographic characteristics, participant’s knowledge and attitude of authorship practices, knowledge and experience with ghost and guest authorships, and knowledge of institutional authorship policies. Moreover, a score was computed to reflect the respondents’ knowledge about authorship practices. Results Among the 321 participants who agreed to take the survey, two-thirds agreed with and supported that multi-authored articles’ credit allocation should be based on the most significant contribution and contributions to the manuscript writing. Almost 47% agreed that team relationships would influence authorship allocation. The majority of the participants were not aware of their institutional research and publication policies. Also, around 50% of participants were not aware of guest or ghost authorships. Finally, the knowledge score about authorship credits, allocation, contribution, order, and guidelines was higher among students who were assigned as corresponding authors and those who were aware of their institutional authorship guidelines and policies. Conclusion In conclusion, our findings suggest that health science students may have limited knowledge about authorship guidelines and unethical behaviors involved in a scientific publication. Universities and research centers should make more efforts to raise the awareness of health science students regarding authorship guidelines while ensuring that they comply with those guidelines.

Purpose Patients admitted with neurocritical illness are presumed to be at high risk for venous thromboembolism (VTE). The administration of chemical and/or mechanical VTE prophylaxis is a common practice in critically ill patients. Recent data did not show a significant difference in the incidence of VTE between chemical compared to a combined chemical and mechanical VTE prophylaxis in critically ill patients with limited data in neurocritically ill population. The objective of this study is to investigate the incidence of VTE between chemical alone compared to chemical and mechanical VTE prophylaxis in neurocritically ill patients. Patients and Methods This was a retrospective cohort study at a tertiary teaching hospital. Data were obtained from electronic medical records for all patients admitted with neurocritical illness from January 1, 2016, to December 31, 2020. Patients were excluded if they did not receive VTE prophylaxis during admission or were younger than 18 YO. Major outcomes were symptomatic VTE based on clinical and radiological findings, intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay (LOS), and hospital LOS. Minor outcomes included severe or life-threatening bleeding based on GUSTO criteria, and mortality at 28-days. Results Two hundred and twelve patients were included in this study. Patients did not have any significant differences in their baseline characteristics. The incidence of VTE was similar in the chemical only group compared to the combined VTE prophylaxis group (19/166 (11.3%) vs 7/46 (15.2%)); P = 0.49. No difference between groups in their ICU LOS 6 [3–16.2] vs 6.5 [3–19]; P = 0.52, nor their mortality (18/166 (10.7%) vs 3/46 (6.5%)); P = 0.38, respectively. Less bleeding events were seen in the chemical prophylaxis group compared to the combined VTE prophylaxis group (19/166 (11.3%) vs 12/46 (26.1%); P = 0.01). Conclusion Our findings observed no difference between the administration of chemical VTE prophylaxis alone compared to the combined VTE prophylaxis strategy. More data are needed to confirm this finding with more robust methodology.

Background: Patients admitted with neurocritical illness are presumed to be at high risk for venothromboembolism (VTE). The administration of chemical and/or mechanical VTE prophylaxis is a common practice in critically ill patients. Recent data did not show a significant difference in the incidence of VTE between chemical compared to chemical and mechanical VTE prophylaxis in critically ill patients with limited data in neurocritically ill population. The objective of this study is to investigate the incidence of VTE between chemical alone compared to chemical and mechanical VTE prophylaxis in neurocritically ill patients. This was a retrospective cohort study at a tertiary teaching hospital. Data were obtained from electronic medical records for all patients admitted with neurocritical illness from 1/1/2016 to 1/12/2020. Patients were excluded if they did not receive VTE prophylaxis during admission or were younger than 18 YO. Major outcomes were symptomatic VTE based on clinical and radiological findings, intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay (LOS), and hospital LOS. Minor outcomes included severe or life-threatening bleeding based on GUSTO criteria, and mortality at 28-days. Results: Two hundred and twelve patients were included in this study. Patients did not have any significant differences in their baseline characteristics. The incidence of VTE was not different between chemical only compared to chemical and mechanical VTE prophylaxis groups (19/166 (11.3%) vs 7/46 (15.2%); P=0.49. No difference between groups in their ICU LOS 6 [3 – 16.2] vs 6.5 [3 – 19]; P=0.52, nor their mortality (18/166 (10.7%) vs 3/46 (6.5%); P=0.38, respectively. Less bleeding events were seen in the chemical prophylaxis group compared to the combined VTE prophylaxis group (19/166 (11.3%) vs 12/46 (26.1%); P= 0.013. Conclusion: Our findings observed no difference between the administration of chemical prophylaxis alone compared to combined VTE prophylaxis in neurocritically ill patients. More data are needed to confirm this finding with more robust methodology.