A
review must rely on solid data, be objective and deliver the ‘state of the art’
of the argument. The quest is a seemingly endless process. Writing is a
solitary endeavor but data depend on the work of many individuals and
institutions. We started a goal-oriented search in English and German with the
engines BioMedSearch.com, Cardio source, Center Watch, ClinicalTrials.gov,
Cochrane, Google Scholar, Med Watch, Research Gate and PubMed. We settled atime-window 2000-2016 with key words: RA, arthritis, cardiovascular risk in RA,and treatment of RA. Our search delivered more than 1 million of references.
The filter was restricted to guidelines and meta-analyses. This search
delivered more than 80,000 references. Using a plagiarism’s software we found
that few centers published more than 60% of the collected references, usually
changing authors’ order, deleting or adding some authors. Many papers present
strikingly similar data. Many authors quote their previous publications. One
might maliciously say that these authors repeated data in different journals
using their references in order to increase their scientific impact factor. We
selected papers with large numbers of cases and ended with a total of 340
references. From the abstracts we selected 166 full-text papers. Ninety-three
papers sufficed to get the ‘state of the art’ of cardiovascular complications
(CV) in RA. It is unavoidable that we may have either selected or omitted same
papers by chance. Read more.............
No comments:
Post a Comment