bims-librar 2018-04-22 papers

Issue of 2018–04–22
three papers selected by
Thomas Krichel, Open Library Society

Drug Alcohol Depend. 2018 Apr 11. pii: S0376-8716(18)30183-2. [Epub ahead of print]187 116-122

Media portrayal of prenatal and postpartum marijuana use in an era of scientific uncertainty.

Marian Jarlenski, Jonathan W Koma, Jennifer Zank, Lisa M Bodnar, Jill A Tarr, Judy C Chang.

BACKGROUND: Objectives were to characterize how scientific information about prenatal and postpartum marijuana use was presented in online media content, and to assess how media portrayed risks and benefits of such marijuana use.
METHODS: We analyzed online media items (n = 316) from March 2015 to January 2017. A codebook was developed to measure media content in 4 domains: scientific studies, information about health and well-being, mode of ingestion, and portrayal of risks and benefits. Content analysis was performed by two authors, with high inter-rater reliability (mean ĸ = 0.82). Descriptive statistics were used to characterize content, and regression analyses were used to test for predictors of media portrayal of the risk-benefit ratio of prenatal and postpartum marijuana use.
RESULTS: 51% of the media items mentioned health risks of prenatal and postpartum marijuana use. Nearly one-third (28%) mentioned marijuana use for treatment of nausea and vomiting in pregnancy. Most media items mentioned a specific research study. More than half of media (59%) portrayed prenatal or postpartum marijuana risks > benefits, 10% portrayed benefits> risks, and the remainder were neutral. While mention of a scientific study was not predictive of the portrayal of the risk-benefit ratio of marijuana use in pregnancy or postpartum, discussion of health risks and health benefits predicted portrayals of the risk-benefit ratio.
CONCLUSIONS: Online media content about prenatal and postpartum marijuana use presented health risks consistent with evidence, and discussed a health benefit of marijuana use for nausea and vomiting in pregnancy. Portrayal of risks and benefits was somewhat equivocal, consistent with current scientific debate.

Keywords: Communications; Marijuana; Media; Pregnancy

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2018.02.021

Vet Ophthalmol. 2018 Apr 14.

Factors affecting publication in peer-reviewed journals of abstracts presented from 2008 to 2012 ACVO meetings.

Ellison Bentley, Megan Koester, Tali Bdolah-Abram, Nadav Yair, Ron Ofri.

PURPOSE: To examine variables that affect publication of ACVO meeting abstracts in peer-reviewed journals and compare results to ECVO publication rate (PR).
METHODS: Published papers were identified via online searches for abstracts from 2008 to 2012 ACVO/ECVO meetings. Variables analyzed (via Pearson's chi-Squared test) included the following: oral presentation/poster, type of abstract (clinical/basic science/case report), species, ocular tissue, nationality, funding, first/last/any author a diplomate, resident as first author, and author affiliation (private practice/university).
RESULTS: One hundred and eighty-six of 577 ACVO abstracts were published within 608 ± 479 days, with 103 published in Veterinary Ophthalmology. Significant factors included the following: nationality of first/last authors (P = .005); English as first language (P < .001); presentation type (P < .001, oral 40% PR, poster 22% PR); type of study (P = .037, clinical study 35% PR, basic science 30% PR, case report 16% PR); resident as first author (P < .001); diplomate as any author except first/last (P < .001); first author affiliation (P = .001, university 37% PR, practice 21% PR); last author affiliation (P = .003, university 36% PR, practice 22% PR); and species (P < .001, horses 53% PR, multiple species 50% PR, cats 35% PR, food animals 31% PR, exotics/wildlife 31% PR, dogs 27% PR, laboratory animals/in vitro 24%). Nonsignificant factors were as follows: diplomate as first/last author, funding, and ocular tissue. Presentation type, resident as first author, university affiliation of first author, and species had the greatest effect on publication probability. For the same period, ECVO PR was 87 of 299, which was not significantly different from ACVO PR (P = .342).
CONCLUSION: At 32%, ACVO PR for the study years is similar to ECVO PR of 29%.

Keywords: American College of Veterinary Ophthalmologists; abstract; oral paper; poster; publication rate; scientific meeting

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/vop.12573