Cochrane Db Syst Rev
-
Cochrane Db Syst Rev · Apr 2007
ReviewEditorial peer review for improving the quality of reports of biomedical studies.
Scientific findings must withstand critical review if they are to be accepted as valid, and editorial peer review (critique, effort to disprove) is an essential element of the scientific process. We review the evidence of the editorial peer-review process of original research studies submitted for paper or electronic publication in biomedical journals. ⋯ At present, little empirical evidence is available to support the use of editorial peer review as a mechanism to ensure quality of biomedical research. However, the methodological problems in studying peer review are many and complex. At present, the absence of evidence on efficacy and effectiveness cannot be interpreted as evidence of their absence. A large, well-funded programme of research on the effects of editorial peer review should be urgently launched.
-
Grant giving relies heavily on peer review for the assessment of the quality of proposals but the evidence of effects of these procedures is scarce. ⋯ There is little empirical evidence on the effects of grant giving peer review. No studies assessing the impact of peer review on the quality of funded research are presently available. Experimental studies assessing the effects of grant giving peer review on importance, relevance, usefulness, soundness of methods, soundness of ethics, completeness and accuracy of funded research are urgently needed. Practices aimed to control and evaluate the potentially negative effects of peer review should be implemented meanwhile.
-
Fungating wounds arise from primary, secondary or recurrent malignant disease and are associated with advanced cancer. A small proportion of patients may achieve healing following surgical excision but treatment is usually palliative. Fungating wound management usually aims to slow disease progression and optimise quality of life by alleviating physical symptoms, such as copious exudate, malodour, pain and the risk of haemorrhage, through appropriate dressing and topical agent selection. ⋯ There is weak evidence from one small trial that 6% miltefosine solution applied topically to people with superficial fungating breast lesions (smaller than 1cm) who have received either previous radiotherapy, surgery, hormonal therapy or chemotherapy for their breast cancer may slow disease progression. There is insufficient evidence in this review to give a clear direction for practice with regard to improving quality of life or managing wound symptoms associated with fungating wounds. More research is needed.