A few interesting tidbits from around the web:
Development of Quality Criteria To Evaluate Nontherapeutic Studies of Incidence, Prevalence, or Risk Factors of Chronic Diseases: Pilot Study of New Checklists
This research report from AHRQ reports the results of a project to develop two checklists to assess the quality of observational studies of incidence or risk factors of disease.
The All Results Journals: Biology
According to an email from editor David Alcantara, The All Results Journals: Biology is a peer-reviewed journal that:
“focuses on publishing the grey literature that has never been published. It is our goal to compile and publish those experiments that led to negative results or to outcomes that were not expected and were not before considered for publication. We of The All Results Journals feel that it is equally important to publish these results together with interpretations of the scientists involved and in this way offer a solution to the problem that publication bias is causing, because of a strong emphasis on positive results.”
It will be fully open access, with no fees to publish or read articles, and will be indexed by PubMed and Web of Knowledge.
“Each year, the American Cancer Society estimates the numbers of new cancer cases and deaths expected in the United States in the current year and compiles the most recent data on cancer incidence, mortality, and survival based on incidence data from the National Cancer Institute, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the North American Association of Central Cancer Registries and mortality data from the National Center for Health Statistics.”
Robinson, Karen A. and Steven N. Goodman (2011). A Systematic Examination of the Citation of Prior Research in Reports of Randomized, Controlled Trials. Annals of Internal Medicine 155(4): 50-55.
The authors evaluated 227 meta-analyses published in 2004, which comprised 1523 trials published from 1963-2004. They found that the published reports cited fewer than 25% of preceding trials with potential implications including “ethically unjustifiable trials, wasted resources, incorrect conclusions, and unnecessary risks for trial participants.”