Top 10 infodemiology.jmir.org Competitors

harmreductionjournal.biomedcentral.com

Background Worsening of the overdose crisis in the USA has been linked to the continuing proliferation of non-pharmaceutical fentanyl (NPF). The recent wave of NPF spread in the USA has been fueled by an increased presence of counterfeit pills that contain NPF. This qualitative study aims to characterize the motivation and practices of counterfeit NPF pill initiation and use among individuals using illicit opioids in Arizona. Methods Between October 2020 and May 2021, semi-structured interviews were conducted with 22 individuals meeting the following eligibility criteria: (1) 18 years or older; (2) residence in Arizona; and (3) use of illicit opioids in the past 30 days and/or opioid use disorder treatment in the past 12 months. Participants were recruited through referrals by a harm reduction organization, craigslist ads, and referrals by other participants. Interviews were conducted virtually via Zoom. Qualitative interviews were transcribed and analyzed thematically using NVivo. Results Out of 22 participants, 64% were male, and 45% were ethnic minorities. Age ranged between 25 and 51 years old. Participants noted significant recent increases in the availability of counterfeit NPF pills (“blues,” “dirty oxys”) that were most commonly used by smoking. The majority indicated first trying NPF pills in the past year, and the first use often occurred in situations of reduced access to heroin or pharmaceutical opioids. Participant decisions to switch over to more frequent NPF pill use or to maintain some levels of heroin use were shaped by local drug availability trends and personal experiences with NPF effects. They were also influenced by conflicting views of social acceptability of pharmaceutical-like drugs, perceived harms of NPF in terms of overdose risks and increased difficulty of quitting, and perceived benefits of switching to the non-injection route of opioid administration (e.g., from injecting heroin to smoking NPF pills). Conclusion Our findings highlight

pharmacytimes.com

Pharmacy Times offers the latest news and insights for the pharmacy professional and solutions that impact the everyday practice of pharmacy.

ebm.bmj.com

Inconsistency is a key domain that determines the certainty of evidence. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach specifically defines inconsistency as the variability in results across studies, and not variability in study characteristics, eligibility criteria or design.1 Statistical measures of heterogeneity are often used to assess inconsistency, however, major limitations of such measures have been described. For example, Cochran’s Q test for homogeneity is usually underpowered to detect heterogeneity. The I2 index which is the most commonly used measure, underestimate true statistical heterogeneity when there are fewer than 10 studies in a meta-analysis, which is a common scenario, and is correlated with the sample size of the included studies.2 The I2 index is also often misunderstood as an indicator of the spread of the effect size. Borenstein demonstrates how a meta-analysis with I2 index of 25% can have more spread of the effect size than a meta-analysis with I2 index of 75%.3 Therefore, GRADE guidance on inconsistency recommended less reliance on statistical measures and instead, instructed to make judgements about whether studies in a meta-analysis provide estimates that are clinically importantly different from each other.1 However, there are no existing tools to facilitate this process making it highly subjective. Users are instructed to look at a forest plot and evaluate the similarity of point estimates of the included studies and the overlap of their CIs, and make a judgement based on values that they consider clinically important. Merely counting studies does not work because some studies can be outliers but may have a very small weight within the pooled effect estimate. Having multiple thresholds makes this task even more difficult. Furthermore, in the case of binary outcomes, decision thresholds are based on absolute treatment effects4 5 whereas …

journalofcognition.org

the journal of cognition, the official journal of the european society for cognitive psychology, publishes reviews, empirical articles (including registered reports), data reports, stimulus development reports, comments, and methodological notes relevant to all areas of cognitive psychology, including attention, memory, perception, psycholinguistics, and reasoning. we also publish cross-disciplinary research if we judge that it has clear implications for development of cognitive psychological theories. as a signatory of the center for open science's transparency and openness promotion guidelines, we value methodological rigour and transparent scientific practices. we welcome submissions from scholars working anywhere in the world.

rep.bioscientifica.com

Reproduction is a society-owned, peer-reviewed journal publishing research articles and topical reviews on the subject of reproductive and developmental biology, and reproductive medicine

bjid.org.br

ObjectiveTo estimate the costs associated with the hospitalization of patients with Severe Acute

jfsdigital.org

Hi and welcome to the JFS Perspectives podcast! We’re excited to have you tuning in. This podcast is a new venture for JFS, aimed at reaching more people and giving you a glimpse of the incredible content featured in our quarterly publication. We can’t wait to share some highlights and hopefully inspire you to check