Multiple Publications From the Same Dataset: Is It Acceptable?

Altay, Servet; Koçak, Zafer

doi:10.5152/balkanmedj.2021.21008

Cited by 8 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Analyses of other types of physical harm associated with CRCSPs are planned for separate publications. Based on the literature in the area, we judged that the benefits of separating reporting of the review’s findings into more than one publication outweigh the caveats and ethical concerns of this practice [ 68 , 69 ]. Another limitation within the best-available evidence and hence our findings, is that only 5 studies (4%) had an unscreened control group with measurement of the outcomes of interest, physical harm.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Deaths and cardiopulmonary events following colorectal cancer screening—A systematic review with meta-analyses

Martiny,

Bie,

Jauernik

et al. 2024

PLoS ONE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Colorectal cancer screening programmes (CRCSPs) are implemented worldwide despite recent evidence indicating more physical harm occurring during CRCSPs than previously thought. Therefore, we aimed to review the evidence on physical harms associated with endoscopic diagnostic procedures during CRCSPs and, when possible, to quantify the risk of the most serious types of physical harm during CRCSPs, i.e. deaths and cardiopulmonary events (CPEs). Methods Systematic review with descriptive statistics and random-effects meta-analyses of studies investigating physical harms following CRCSPs. We conducted a systematic search in the literature and assessed the risk of bias and the certainty of the evidence. Results We included 134 studies for review, reporting findings from 151 unique populations when accounting for multiple screening interventions per study. Physical harm can be categorized into 17 types of harm. The evidence was very heterogeneous with inadequate measurement and reporting of harms. The risk of bias was serious or critical in 95% of assessments of deaths and CPEs, and the certainty of the evidence was very low in all analyses. The risk of death was assessed for 57 populations with large variation across studies. Meta-analyses indicated that 3 to 23 deaths occur during CRCSPs per 100,000 people screened. Cardiopulmonary events were assessed for 55 populations. Despite our efforts to subcategorize CPEs into 17 distinct subtypes, 41% of CPE assessments were too poorly measured or reported to allow quantification. We found a tendency towards lower estimates of deaths and CPEs in studies with a critical risk of bias. Discussion Deaths and CPEs during CRCSPs are rare, yet they do occur during CRCSPs. We believe that our findings are conservative due to the heterogeneity and low quality of the evidence. A standardized system for the measurement and reporting of the harms of screening is warranted. Trial registration PROSPERO Registration number CRD42017058844.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Deaths and cardiopulmonary events following colorectal cancer screening—A systematic review with meta-analyses

Martiny,

Bie,

Jauernik

et al. 2024

PLoS ONE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…If two reviewers are not available, then one would screen articles and another person would verify the list of excluded studies. Another concern is the potential for selection of the same data published in multiple scholarly manuscripts (Altay & Koc ¸ak, 2021) and then used to justify an inflated prominence in the literature. Limiting searches to peerreviewed manuscripts and excluding reports can help remedy this concern, though careful assessment is needed to discern if more than one article is published based on the same data (Carneiro-Barrera et al, 2020;Foster & Jewell, 2017).…”

Section: Curationmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Systematic Approach to Evidence-Based Design for Measurable Health and Wellness Outcomes: Curating and Translating Evidence to Practice

Harris,

Baker,

Svacina

et al. 2023

HERD

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: Evaluating evidence from peer-review literature for use in evidence-based design is often challenging for the design disciplines, requiring access to the peer-reviewed literature, expertise in evaluating methods and findings, and translating the results into actionable design and operational recommendations. Purpose: The purpose of this methods paper is to elucidate the process for systematic evaluation of research to translate evidence into practical application to improve design for occupant health and wellness. Background: Researchers have found strong connections in environmental design influence on health and wellness that have proven to be substantiative in the effort to improve health and well-being. Design has the capacity to encourage healthy choices and decisions within the built environment. Translation of evidence into applied design solutions may improve public health. Methods: A protocol is presented that culminates in the translation of evidence into design recommendations focused on improving occupant health. The protocol includes preparation for the literature search and review, search strategy, study selection, data analysis, and development of the literature review. Results: After evaluation of the evidence is completed, there were several positive findings in the example that stakeholders could utilize to improve the health of building occupants with programs and design to support nutrition, physical activity, and circadian entrainment. Conclusions: There are a variety of software tools and processes to utilize in the curation of evidence to improve the built environment with relevant design recommendations and operational considerations affecting the personal, social, and economic health of our society.

show abstract

“…Pese a lo mencionado y que este último formato constituye un desvío ético importante, cuando el conjunto de datos de base contiene múltiples subconjuntos, cuando los resultados son demasiado grandes para ser incluidos en un solo escrito o cuando un hallazgo secundario no fue abordado en el primer trabajo publicado, se reconoce como útil y adecuada la generación de varios estudios, siempre buscando no se solapen entre sí. (15,16) Las publicaciones en salami se han hecho cada vez más frecuentes, no solo motivadas por el afán de aumentar la producción del investigador, sino también, por la cantidad cada vez menor de texto que se acepta en las revistas científicas.…”

Section: Publicación Múltiple Y Redundanteunclassified

Ethical aspects in the publication of scientific manuscripts: A literature review

Barrios

2022

Salud, Ciencia y Tecnología

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

La publicación científica sigue siendo el pilar para la difusión del conocimiento, y en el caso de las profesiones de la salud, tiene como objetivo el reporte de experiencias que permitan mejorar la calidad de los cuidados que son brindados a los pacientes. Sin embargo, en las últimas décadas se ha visto un aumento en las conductas antiéticas ligadas a la producción y publicación de manuscritos científicos, lo cual hace indispensable concientizar a los investigadores en formación, nóveles y experimentados, de cuáles son estas conductas y realizar algunas sugerencias para prevenirlas. Basados en lo anterior, el presente artículo realiza una revisión narrativa de literatura con el objetivo de agrupar en un único documento, los aspectos éticos troncales en la difusión del conocimiento a través de la publicación de artículos científicos.

show abstract

Multiple Publications From the Same Dataset: Is It Acceptable?

Cited by 8 publications

References 7 publications

Deaths and cardiopulmonary events following colorectal cancer screening—A systematic review with meta-analyses

Deaths and cardiopulmonary events following colorectal cancer screening—A systematic review with meta-analyses

A Systematic Approach to Evidence-Based Design for Measurable Health and Wellness Outcomes: Curating and Translating Evidence to Practice

Ethical aspects in the publication of scientific manuscripts: A literature review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About