ArticleJournal of general internal medicine2023
Community Members as Reviewers of Medical Journal Manuscripts: a Randomized Controlled Trial.
Article in Journal of general internal medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03432143 (Community Members as Reviewers of Medical Journal Manuscripts), which is not on this map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Community Members as Reviewers of Medical Journal Manuscripts
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCommunity members may provide useful perspectives on manuscripts submitted to medical journals.
objectiveTo determine the impact of community members reviewing medical journal manuscripts.
designRandomized controlled trial involving 578 original research manuscripts submitted to two medical journals from June 2018 to November 2021.
participantsTwenty-eight community members who were trained, supervised, and compensated.
interventionsA total of 289 randomly selected control manuscripts were reviewed by scientific reviewers only. And 289 randomly selected intervention manuscripts were reviewed by scientific reviewers and one community member. Journal editorial teams used all reviews to make decisions about acceptance, revision, or rejection of manuscripts. MAIN MEASURES: Usefulness of reviews to editors, content of community reviews, and changes made to published articles in response to community reviewer comments. KEY
resultsEditor ratings of community and scientific reviews averaged 3.1 and 3.3, respectively (difference 0.2, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.1 to 0.3), on a 5-point scale where a higher score indicates a more useful review. Qualitative analysis of the content of community reviews identified two taxonomies of themes: study attributes and viewpoints. Study attributes are the sections, topics, and components of manuscripts commented on by reviewers. Viewpoints are reviewer perceptions and perspectives on the research described in manuscripts and consisted of four major themes: (1) diversity of study participants, (2) relevance to patients and communities, (3) cultural considerations and social context, and (4) implementation of research by patients and communities. A total of 186 community reviewer comments were integrated into 64 published intervention group articles. Viewpoint themes were present more often in 66 published intervention articles compared to 54 published control articles (2.8 vs. 1.7 themes/article, difference 1.1, 95% CI 0.4 to 1.8).
conclusionsWith training, supervision, and compensation, community members are able to review manuscripts submitted to medical journals. Their comments are useful to editors, address topics relevant to patients and communities, and are reflected in published articles.
trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT03432143.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.