%0 Journal Article
        
%@ 2562-0959
%I JMIR Publications
%V 7
%N 
%P e50396
%T Gender Representation in Authorship of Academic Dermatology Publications During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Cross-Sectional Study
%A Szeto,Mindy D
%A Laughter,Melissa R
%A Maymone,Mayra B C
%A Patel,Payal M
%A Sivesind,Torunn E
%A Presley,Colby L
%A Lada,Steven M
%A Pulsipher,Kayd J
%A De La Garza,Henriette
%A Dellavalle,Robert P
%K women
%K gender
%K representation
%K authorship
%K academic
%K leadership
%K diversity
%K equity
%K inclusion
%K dermatology
%K journals
%K publications
%K COVID-19
%K pandemic
%K bibliometric
%D 2024

%7 16.10.2024
%9 
%J JMIR Dermatol
%G English
                
%X Analyses of women dermatology literature authorship from 2018 to 2022 reveal a slight increase in total female authors, female first authors, and female senior authors with no substantial immediate impact of COVID-19 on current trends, encouraging future examination of long-term effects and ongoing promotion of systemic initiatives to support gender equity.
%R 10.2196/50396
%U https://derma.jmir.org/2024/1/e50396
%U https://doi.org/10.2196/50396

%0 Journal Article
        
%@ 2562-0959
%I JMIR Publications
%V 7
%N 
%P e57007
%T JMIR Dermatology’s 2023 Year in Review
%A Rodriguez,Ramiro
%A Dellavalle,Robert P
%+ Department of Dermatology, Minneapolis VA Medical Center, US Department of Veterans Affairs, 1 Veterans Drive, Minneapolis, MN, 55417, United States, 1 720 289 0247, robert.dellavalle@va.gov
%K rural
%K teledermatology
%K neglected tropical diseases
%K NTD
%K melanoma
%K PubMed
%K review
%K diversity
%K editorial
%K dermatology
%K review
%K JMIR
%D 2024

%7 17.9.2024
%9 Editorial
%J JMIR Dermatol
%G English
                
%X In 2023, JMIR Dermatology embraced papers treating all topics related to diseases of the skin, hair, and nails. This editorial aims to bring attention and recognize reviewers, staff, and authors for their contributions to the journal. JMIR Dermatology updated the Research Letter format and introduced the In Memorium article type to feature and celebrate highly accomplished and internationally recognized leaders in dermatology. We also summarize the 3 JMIR Dermatology publications from 2023 with the highest Altmetric scores and share what we look forward to in the coming year.
%M 39288372
%R 10.2196/57007
%U https://derma.jmir.org/2024/1/e57007
%U https://doi.org/10.2196/57007
%U http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/39288372

%0 Journal Article
        
%@ 2562-0959
%I JMIR Publications
%V 7
%N 
%P e40819
%T Gender Parity Analysis of the Editorial Boards of Influential Dermatology Journals: Cross-Sectional Study
%A Szeto,Mindy D
%A Sivesind,Torunn E
%A Kim,Lori S
%A O’Connell,Katie A
%A Sprague,Kathryn A
%A Nong,Yvonne
%A Strock,Daniel M
%A Cao,Annie L
%A Wu,Jieying
%A Toledo,Lauren M
%A Wolfe,Sophia M
%A Boothby-Shoemaker,Wyatt
%A Dellavalle,Robert P
%+ Department of Dermatology, University of Minnesota Medical School, 1-411 Phillips-Wangensteen Building, 516 Delaware St SE, MMC 98, Minneapolis, MN, 55455, United States, 1 612 625 8625, della056@umn.edu
%K diversity
%K equity
%K inclusion
%K editors
%K journals
%K publications
%K editorial board
%K women
%K gender
%K underrepresentation
%D 2024

%7 21.5.2024
%9 Research Letter
%J JMIR Dermatol
%G English
                
%X This study underscores the persistent underrepresentation of women in academic dermatology leadership positions by examining the gender composition of editorial boards across top dermatology journals, emphasizing the urgent need for proactive strategies to promote diversity, equity, and inclusion.
%M 38772024
%R 10.2196/40819
%U https://derma.jmir.org/2024/1/e40819
%U https://doi.org/10.2196/40819
%U http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/38772024

%0 Journal Article
        
%@ 2562-0959
%I JMIR Publications
%V 7
%N 
%P e56684
%T A Survey of Demographics and Treatments in Melanoma Case Reports: Retrospective Bibliometric Analysis
%A O'Hagan,Ross
%A Ngandjui,Jessie
%A Ungar,Benjamin
%A Ungar,Jonathan
%A Gulati,Nicholas
%+ Department of Dermatology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, 5 East 98th St, 5th floor, New York, NY, 10029, United States, 1 212 241 9728, nicholas.gulati@mssm.edu
%K melanoma
%K surgery
%K chemotherapy
%K immunotherapy
%K radiation therapy
%K case reports
%D 2024

%7 22.4.2024
%9 Research Letter
%J JMIR Dermatol
%G English
                
%X Melanoma case reports show variations in treatment by age and sex.
%M 38648085
%R 10.2196/56684
%U https://derma.jmir.org/2024/1/e56684
%U https://doi.org/10.2196/56684
%U http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/38648085

%0 Journal Article
        
%@ 2562-0959
%I JMIR Publications
%V 7
%N 
%P e48762
%T Themes and Topics on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion in JMIR Dermatology Publications
%A Rodriguez,Ramiro
%A Osman,Karima M
%A Anderson,Lachlan
%A Pascual,Micah
%A Dellavalle,Robert P
%+ Dermatology Service, US Department of Veterans Affairs Rocky Mountain Regional Medical Center, 1700 N Wheeling St, Aurora, CO, 80045-7211, United States, 1 303 399 8020, robert.dellavalle@cuanschutz.edu
%K diversity
%K equity
%K inclusion
%K editor
%K DEI
%K committee
%K disparity
%K underrepresented
%K dermatology
%K skin of color
%K SOC
%D 2024

%7 2.2.2024
%9 Editorial
%J JMIR Dermatol
%G English
                
%X Publications dealing with topics considered to be pertinent to diversity, equity, and inclusion are increasing. Due to the increasing trend, dermatology journals have started to implement ways to evaluate and understand these publications. Here, we discuss a keyword approach to identify and then categorize these publications. Keywords identified 43 manuscripts. Two reviewers screened the articles’ titles and abstracts, and recommended a full manuscript review for 24 publications. Through the scope of definitions from the National Institutes of Health, an editorial board member performed a full-text review and assigned a primary theme to the publications. Themes included equity (n=20) and diversity/inclusion (n=4). Topics were racial/ethnic differences in care delivery or society (n=17), incomplete understanding of gender and sex (n=3), gender identity (n=2), socioeconomic class and its impact on health (n=1), care for rural underserved communities (n=1), and religion (n=1). The results of this review demonstrate a predominance of equity-related publications, particularly emphasizing racial/ethnic differences in health care delivery, in the publications identified in JMIR Dermatology. Future research can focus on creating a review aid to assist editorial board members when providing feedback to manuscripts, refining the keywords, and using thematic analysis methodology to evaluate large sets of publications.
%M 38306177
%R 10.2196/48762
%U https://derma.jmir.org/2024/1/e48762
%U https://doi.org/10.2196/48762
%U http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/38306177

%0 Journal Article
        
%@ 2562-0959
%I JMIR Publications
%V 7
%N 
%P e46580
%T From the Cochrane Library: Systemic Interventions for Steven-Johnson Syndrome (SJS), Toxic Epidermal Necrolysis (TEN), and SJS/TEN Overlap Syndrome
%A Pathak,Gaurav Nitin
%A Truong,Thu Minh
%A Singal,Amit
%A Taranto,Viktoria
%A Rao,Babar K
%A Jacobsen,Audrey A
%+ Department of Dermatology, Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, 1 World’s Fair Drive, Somerset, NJ, 08873, United States, 1 732235 9895, gnp28@rwjms.rutgers.edu
%K Steven-Johnson syndrome
%K toxic epidermal necrolysis
%K necrolysis
%K fatal
%K life-threatening
%K treatment
%K dermatology
%K skin
%K dermatological
%K SJS
%K TEN
%K corticosteroids
%K intravenous immunoglobulin
%K IVIG
%K etanercept
%K prednisolone
%K systematic
%K corticosteroid
%K corticoid
%K steroid
%K steroids
%D 2024

%7 30.1.2024
%9 Research Letter
%J JMIR Dermatol
%G English
                
%X 
%M 38289652
%R 10.2196/46580
%U https://derma.jmir.org/2024/1/e46580
%U https://doi.org/10.2196/46580
%U http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/38289652

%0 Journal Article
        
%@ 2562-0959
%I JMIR Publications
%V 6
%N 
%P e43821
%T The Reporting and Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews Underpinning Clinical Practice Guidelines Focused on the Management of Cutaneous Melanoma: Cross-Sectional Analysis
%A Khalid,Mahnoor
%A Sutterfield,Bethany
%A Minley,Kirstien
%A Ottwell,Ryan
%A Abercrombie,McKenna
%A Heath,Christopher
%A Torgerson,Trevor
%A Hartwell,Micah
%A Vassar,Matt
%+ Office of Medical Student Research, Oklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences, 1111 W 17th St, Tulsa, OK, 74107, United States, 1 (918) 853 9938, mahnoor.khalid@okstate.edu
%K clinical practice guidelines
%K clinical
%K cutaneous melanoma
%K decision making
%K evidence
%K management
%K melanoma
%K practice guideline
%K review
%K systematic review
%D 2023

%7 7.12.2023
%9 Original Paper
%J JMIR Dermatol
%G English
                
%X Background: Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) inform evidence-based decision-making in the clinical setting; however, systematic reviews (SRs) that inform these CPGs may vary in terms of reporting and methodological quality, which affects confidence in summary effect estimates. Objective: Our objective was to appraise the methodological and reporting quality of the SRs used in CPGs for cutaneous melanoma and evaluate differences in these outcomes between Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional analysis by searching PubMed for cutaneous melanoma guidelines published between January 1, 2015, and May 21, 2021. Next, we extracted SRs composing these guidelines and appraised their reporting and methodological rigor using the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) and AMSTAR (A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews) checklists. Lastly, we compared these outcomes between Cochrane and non-Cochrane SRs. All screening and data extraction occurred in a masked, duplicate fashion. Results: Of the SRs appraised, the mean completion rate was 66.5% (SD 12.29%) for the PRISMA checklist and 44.5% (SD 21.05%) for AMSTAR. The majority of SRs (19/50, 53%) were of critically low methodological quality, with no SRs being appraised as high quality. There was a statistically significant association (P<.001) between AMSTAR and PRISMA checklists. Cochrane SRs had higher PRISMA mean completion rates and higher methodological quality than non-Cochrane SRs. Conclusions: SRs supporting CPGs focused on the management of cutaneous melanoma vary in reporting and methodological quality, with the majority of SRs being of low quality. Increasing adherence to PRISMA and AMSTAR checklists will likely increase the quality of SRs, thereby increasing the level of evidence supporting cutaneous melanoma CPGs. 
%M 38060306
%R 10.2196/43821
%U https://derma.jmir.org/2023/1/e43821
%U https://doi.org/10.2196/43821
%U http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/38060306

%0 Journal Article
        
%@ 2562-0959
%I JMIR Publications
%V 6
%N 
%P e47821
%T Rosacea and Its Association With Malignancy: Systematic Review
%A Thapa,Luna
%A Xia,Joyce
%A Guo,William
%A Usmani,Hunya
%A Miller,Devin
%A Lozeau,Daniel
%+ Stony Brook Dermatology Associates, Building F, Suite #200, 1320 Stony Brook Road, Stony Brook, NY, 11790, United States, 1 5164398866, devinmiller12q@gmail.com
%K rosacea
%K malignancies
%K skin cancer
%K glioma
%K breast cancer
%K hepatic cancer
%K thyroid cancer
%K systematic review
%D 2023

%7 8.11.2023
%9 Review
%J JMIR Dermatol
%G English
                
%X Background: Rosacea is a chronic inflammatory skin condition that predominantly manifests as facial flushing, irritation, and acne. Rosacea and cancer are thought to be linked by the commonality of inflammatory and immune response dysfunction. Studies that have looked into this possible association have reported mixed results. Objective: Given the conflicting literature on this topic, our study sought to evaluate the overall association between rosacea and several cancers commonly investigated in the literature. Methods: A systematic review was conducted using the Cochrane, PubMed, Embase, and Ovid databases. Studies were screened independently for inclusion of rosacea and glioma and breast, thyroid, hepatic, or skin cancers. Using information from the articles, rosacea and each cancer were categorized as having a positive, negative, or unclear association. Results: Our systematic review included 39 full-text studies that investigated the association between rosacea and various malignancies. Among the malignancies of concern, 41% (16/39) of the studies reported an association with basal cell carcinoma, with 2 cohorts revealing an adjusted risk ratio (RR) of 1.50 (95% CI 1.35-1.67) and 0.72 (95% CI 0.56-0.93). In total, 33% (13/39) of the studies reported an association with squamous cell carcinoma, with 2 cohorts revealing an adjusted RR of 1.4 (95% CI 1.02-1.93) and 1.30 (95% CI 0.90-1.88). A total of 8% (3/39) of the studies reported an association between breast cancer and melanoma, with breast cancer cohorts revealing an adjusted RR of 8.453 (95% CI 1.638-43.606), 1.03 (95% CI 0.89-1.20), and 1.36 (95% CI 1.18-1.58) and melanoma cohorts revealing an adjusted RR of 1.10 (95% CI 0.95-1.27), 0.63 (95% CI 0.47-0.85), and 0.96 (95% CI 0.57-1.62). A total of 5% (2/39) of the studies reported an association among nonmelanoma skin cancers, hepatic cancer, and thyroid carcinomas, with nonmelanoma skin cancer cohorts revealing an adjusted RR of 1.36 (95% CI 1.26-1.47) and 2.66 (95% CI 1.53-4.61), hepatic cancer cohorts revealing an adjusted RR of 1.42 (95% CI 1.06-1.90) and 1.32 (95% CI 0.89-1.95), and thyroid carcinoma cohorts revealing an adjusted RR of 1.06 (95% CI 0.68-1.65) and 1.59 (95% CI 1.07-2.36). Only 1 cohort reported an association with glioma, revealing an adjusted RR of 1.36 (95% CI 1.18-1.58). According to our review, patients with rosacea were statistically more likely to have nonmelanoma skin cancers, breast cancer, and glioma. Rosacea was not found to be substantially associated with melanoma. The associations between rosacea and hepatic and thyroid cancers were unclear because of conflicting results. Conclusions: The current literature shows that rosacea is significantly associated with increased odds of nonmelanoma skin cancers, glioma, and breast cancer. Rosacea does not appear to be associated with melanoma. Further studies should be conducted to clarify the association between thyroid and hepatic cancers and rosacea. 
%M 37938876
%R 10.2196/47821
%U https://derma.jmir.org/2023/1/e47821
%U https://doi.org/10.2196/47821
%U http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37938876

%0 Journal Article
        
%@ 2562-0959
%I JMIR Publications
%V 6
%N 
%P e47252
%T Smartwatch Technology in Medicine: A Call for Future Dermatologic Research
%A Nelson,Emelie E
%A Rousseau,Morgan A
%A Black,T Austin
%A George,Mariya N
%A Rashid,Rashid M
%+ Mosaic Dermatology, 2211 Norfolk St, Suite #405, Houston, TX, 77098, United States, 1 281 941 5556, rashidmdphd@gmail.com
%K digital health
%K dermatology
%K smartwatch
%K ultraviolet radiation
%K ultraviolet
%K UV
%K skin cancer
%K pruritus
%K sunscreen
%K device
%K support
%K patient education
%K clinical management
%K cardiovascular
%K cancer prevention
%K prevention
%K cancer
%K technology
%K wearable technology
%D 2023

%7 16.10.2023
%9 Research Letter
%J JMIR Dermatol
%G English
                
%X 
%M 37843896
%R 10.2196/47252
%U https://derma.jmir.org/2023/1/e47252
%U https://doi.org/10.2196/47252
%U http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37843896

%0 Journal Article
        
%@ 2562-0959
%I JMIR Publications
%V 6
%N 
%P e46620
%T Altmetric Analysis of Dermatology Manuscript Dissemination During the COVID-19 Era: Cross-Sectional Study
%A Zhu,Harrison
%A Narayana,Vishnu
%A Zhou,Kelvin
%A Patel,Anisha B
%+ Department of Dermatology, UT MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd, Unit 1452, Houston, TX, 77030, United States, 1 7137451113, apatel11@mdanderson.org
%K altmetric
%K media dissemination
%K citation number
%K bibliometric
%K attention score
%K social media
%D 2023

%7 16.8.2023
%9 Short Paper
%J JMIR Dermatol
%G English
                
%X Background: Alternative bibliometrics or altmetrics, is a measure of an academic article’s impact on social media outlets, which is quantified by the Altmetric Attention score (AAS). Given a lack of data for altmetric trends during the COVID-19 pandemic, we conducted a comprehensive, multivariable analysis of top dermatology manuscripts published during this time period. Objective: We aim to assess (1) the relationship between traditional bibiliometrics and Altmetrics and (2) factors associated with high AAS. Methods: All abstracted articles published in the top-5 (ranked by SCImago Journal Rankings) peer-reviewed dermatology journals published in 2021 were included in our study. We collected AAS as the dependent variable and categorical predictor variables included journal title, whether a conflict of interest existed, open access status, whether the article was related to COVID-19 or skin-of-color research, and the type of research (eg, clinical, basic science, review, etc). Numerical predictor variables consisted of the impact factor of journal, total citations, and number of authors. Multivariable linear or logistic regression models were used. Results: The relationship between AAS and citation number was significant by multivariable analysis during the COVID-19 pandemic (P<.001). Numerous factors, including studies related to COVID-19, whether the article was open access, title of the journal, and journal impact factor were also independently related to higher AAS (P<.002). Conclusions: Our results validate the use of altmetrics as a complement to traditional bibliometrics, especially in times of widespread scientific interest. Despite existing in a complex realm of bibliometrics, there are also discernable patterns associated with higher AAS. This is especially relevant in the era of growing technologic importance and utility to assess the impact of scientific works within the general public. 
%M 37585241
%R 10.2196/46620
%U https://derma.jmir.org/2023/1/e46620
%U https://doi.org/10.2196/46620
%U http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37585241

%0 Journal Article
        
%@ 2562-0959
%I JMIR Publications
%V 6
%N 
%P e47118
%T Distinguishing Gender Identity From Biological Sex in Dermatologic Health Care: Methods, Harms, and Paths Forward
%A Nigro,Noah N
%A Chandnani,Neal
%A Doshi,Athena
%A Fritsch,Alexa
%A Marroquin,Nathaniel A
%A Zueger,Morgan
%A Sivesind,Torunn E
%A Dellavalle,Robert
%A Dunnick,Cory
%+ Department of Dermatology, University of Colorado School of Medicine, 13001 E 17th Place, Aurora, CO, 80045, United States, 1 8168772035, noah.nigro@cuanschutz.edu
%K gender identity
%K biological sex
%K gender differences in health
%K dermatologic health
%K literature representation
%K sex-gender bias
%K gender assessments
%K skincare
%K communication strategies
%K health care questionnaires
%K healthcare questionnaires
%K dermatology
%D 2023

%7 18.7.2023
%9 Research Letter
%J JMIR Dermatol
%G English
                
%X Accurate assessment of gender identity and biological sex in dermatology research is crucial since their conflation or poor demarcation undermines patient respect and study accuracy. Clearer guidance is needed for health care researchers, particularly in light of the notable disparities in skin disease rates, skincare practices, literature representation, and the persistent underrepresentation of transgender and nonbinary patients.
%M 37632974
%R 10.2196/47118
%U https://derma.jmir.org/2023/1/e47118
%U https://doi.org/10.2196/47118
%U http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37632974

%0 Journal Article
        
%@ 2562-0959
%I JMIR Publications
%V 6
%N 
%P e39021
%T Retractions in Dermatology Literature Between 1982 and 2022: Cross-sectional Study
%A Huang,Austin
%A Huang,Kevin Y
%A Kim,Soo Jung
%+ Department of Dermatology, Baylor College of Medicine, 1 Baylor Plaza, Houston, TX, 77030, United States, 1 713 798 6131, Austin.Huang@bcm.edu
%K publication
%K retraction
%K bibliometrics
%K dermatology
%D 2023

%7 28.3.2023
%9 Research Letter
%J JMIR Dermatol
%G English
                
%X 
%M 37632934
%R 10.2196/39021
%U https://derma.jmir.org/2023/1/e39021
%U https://doi.org/10.2196/39021
%U http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37632934

%0 Journal Article
        
%@ 2562-0959
%I JMIR Publications
%V 6
%N 
%P e41703
%T The Research Scholarly Output of Africa in Dermatology From 2012 to 2021: Focus on the Top 10 Dermatology Journals
%A Hassan,Waseem
%A Hussain,Saddam
%A da Rocha,Joao B T
%+ Institute of Chemical Sciences, University of Peshawar, Old Jamrud Road, Peshawar, 25000, Pakistan, 92 0919216652, waseem_anw@yahoo.com
%K Africa
%K dermatology
%K Scopus
%K bibliometry
%K bibliometric
%K scholarly research
%K research output
%K publish
%K academic journal
%K scientific research
%K scholarly journal
%K scientometric
%D 2023

%7 15.3.2023
%9 Research Letter
%J JMIR Dermatol
%G English
                
%X 
%M 37632931
%R 10.2196/41703
%U https://derma.jmir.org/2023/1/e41703
%U https://doi.org/10.2196/41703
%U http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37632931

%0 Journal Article
        
%@ 2562-0959
%I JMIR Publications
%V 6
%N 
%P e44217
%T Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion of Dermatology Journals and Their Editorial Board Members
%A Kiene,Julianne
%A Minion,Sarah
%A Rodriguez,Ramiro
%A Dellavalle,Robert
%+ School of Medicine, Georgetown University, 3900 Reservoir Road NW, Washington, DC, 20007, United States, 1 417 321 0442, julianne.kiene@gmail.com
%K diversity
%K equity
%K inclusion
%K dermatology
%D 2023

%7 10.3.2023
%9 Editorial
%J JMIR Dermatol
%G English
                
%X Dermatology as a whole suffers from minority underrepresentation. We conducted a search of the top 60 dermatology journals for mention of their approach to increasing diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) within their publication through editorial board members or peer-review processes. Of those 60, only 5 had DEI statements or editorial board members dedicated to increasing DEI. There are publications with checklists and frameworks for increasing DEI within the literature. We propose that more journals implement these resources within their peer-review process to increase diversity within their publication.
%M 37632920
%R 10.2196/44217
%U https://derma.jmir.org/2023/1/e44217
%U https://doi.org/10.2196/44217
%U http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37632920

%0 Journal Article
        
%@ 2562-0959
%I JMIR Publications
%V 5
%N 3
%P e39365
%T An Evaluation of Primary Studies Published in Predatory Journals Included in Systematic Reviews From High-Impact Dermatology Journals: Cross-sectional Study
%A Ottwell,Ryan
%A Hightower,Brooke
%A Failla,Olivia
%A Snider,Kelsey
%A Corcoran,Adam
%A Hartwell,Micah
%A Vassar,Matt
%+ Department of Dermatology, St Jospeh Mercy, 5333 McAuley Dr # 5003, Ypsilanti, MI, 48187, United States, 1 (734) 712 3376, ottwell@nsuok.edu
%K predatory journals
%K systematic review
%K general dermatology
%K dermatology
%K publishing
%K publications
%K journals
%K scientific communication
%K data
%K quality
%K meta-analysis
%K peer review
%K primary studies
%K research
%K evidence synthesis
%K articles
%D 2022

%7 14.9.2022
%9 Short Paper
%J JMIR Dermatol
%G English
                
%X Background: Predatory publishing is a deceptive form of publishing that uses unethical business practices, minimal to no peer review processes, or limited editorial oversight to publish articles. It may be problematic to our highest standard of scientific evidence—systematic reviews—through the inclusion of poor-quality and unusable data, which could mislead results, challenge outcomes, and undermine confidence. Thus, there is a growing concern surrounding the effects predatory publishing may have on scientific research and clinical decision-making. Objective: The objective of this study was to evaluate whether systematic reviews published in top dermatology journals contain primary studies published in suspected predatory journals (SPJs). Methods: We searched PubMed for systematic reviews published in the top five dermatology journals (determined by 5-year h-indices) between January 1, 2019, and May 24, 2021. Primary studies were extracted from each systematic review, and the publishing journal of these primary studies was cross-referenced using Beall’s List and the Directory of Open Access Journals. Screening and data extraction were performed in a masked, duplicate fashion. We performed chi-square tests to determine possible associations between a systematic review’s inclusion of a primary study published in a SPJ and particular study characteristics. Results: Our randomized sample included 100 systematic reviews, of which 31 (31%) were found to contain a primary study published in a SPJ. Of the top five dermatology journals, the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology had the most systematic reviews containing a primary study published in an SPJ. Systematic reviews containing a meta-analysis or registered protocol were significantly less likely to contain a primary study published in a SPJ. No statistically significant associations were found between other study characteristics. Conclusions: Studies published in SPJs are commonly included as primary studies in systematic reviews published in high-impact dermatology journals. Future research is needed to investigate the effects of including suspected predatory publications in scientific research. 
%M 37632887
%R 10.2196/39365
%U https://derma.jmir.org/2022/3/e39365
%U https://doi.org/10.2196/39365
%U http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37632887

%0 Journal Article
        
%@ 2562-0959
%I JMIR Publications
%V 5
%N 3
%P e39201
%T Social Media Impact of Articles Published by Dermatology Residents During Medical School: Cross-sectional Study
%A Huang,Austin
%A Zhu,Harrison
%A Zhou,Kelvin
%A Kirby,R Parker
%A Dasari,Nina
%A Calderara,Gianmarco A
%A Cordova,Kathryn
%A Sorensen,Ryan
%A Bhatnagar,Anshul
%A Kim,Soo Jung
%+ Department of Dermatology, Baylor College of Medicine, 1 Baylor Plaza, Houston, TX, 77030, United States, 1 713 798 6131, Austin.Huang@bcm.edu
%K Altmetric score
%K bibliometrics
%K social media
%K dermatology
%K resident
%K medical student
%K publication
%K citation
%K Altmetric
%K research quality
%K publish
%K impact factor
%K Scientometrics
%D 2022

%7 12.9.2022
%9 Short Paper
%J JMIR Dermatol
%G English
                
%X Background: The Altmetric score (AS) is a novel measure of publication impact that is calculated by the number of mentions across various social media websites. This method may have advantages over traditional bibliometrics in the context of research by medical students. Objective: This study aimed to determine whether dermatology matriculants who graduated from higher-ranked medical schools published more articles with greater impact (ie, a higher AS) than those from lower-ranked institutions. Methods: A PubMed search for articles published by dermatology residents who started medical school in 2020 was conducted. Demographic information and Altmetric data were collected, and medical schools were sorted according to US News’ top-25 and non–top-25 categories. Results: Residents who completed their medical training at a top-25 institution published more papers (mean 4.93, SD 4.18 vs mean 3.11, SD 3.32; P<.001) and accrued a significantly higher total AS (mean 67.9, SD 160 vs mean 22.9, SD 75.9; P<.001) and average AS (mean 13.1, SD 23.7 vs mean 6.71, SD 32.3; P<.001) per article than those who graduated from non–top-25 schools. Conclusions: Our results indicate that students in top-25 schools may have greater access to research resources and opportunities. With a pass/fail United States Medical Licensing Examination Step 1 exam that may increasingly shift focus toward scholarly output from medical students, further discussion on how to create a more equitable dermatology match is essential. 
%M 37632895
%R 10.2196/39201
%U https://derma.jmir.org/2022/3/e39201
%U https://doi.org/10.2196/39201
%U http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37632895

%0 Journal Article
        
%@ 2562-0959
%I JMIR Publications
%V 5
%N 3
%P e39948
%T The Leading Authors in Three High Impact Dermatology Journals
%A Hassan,Waseem
%A Zafar,Mehreen
%A Teixeira da Rocha,Joao Batista
%+ Institute of Chemical Sciences, University of Peshawar, University Road, Peshawar, 25000, Pakistan, 92 919216652, waseem_anw@yahoo.com
%K JAAD
%K Scopus
%K bibliometry
%K dermatology
%K research
%K publications
%K articles
%K bibliometrics
%D 2022

%7 23.8.2022
%9 Research Letter
%J JMIR Dermatol
%G English
                
%X 
%M 37632901
%R 10.2196/39948
%U https://derma.jmir.org/2022/3/e39948
%U https://doi.org/10.2196/39948
%U http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37632901

%0 Journal Article
        
%@ 2562-0959
%I JMIR Publications
%V 5
%N 2
%P e37749
%T Pharmaceutical Payments to Authors of Dermatology Guidelines After Publication
%A Sivesind,Torunn E
%A Szeto,Mindy D
%A Anderson,Jarett
%A Maghfour,Jalal
%A Matheny,Maya
%A Le,Quan Nguyen Minh
%A Kamara,Michael
%A Dellavalle,Robert
%+ Department of Dermatology, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, 1700 N Wheeling St, Aurora, CO, 80045, United States, 1 7208480500, robert.dellavalle@cuanschutz.edu
%K practice guidelines
%K conflict of interest
%K industry
%K dermatology
%K pharmaceutical
%K financial disclosures
%K guideline development
%K disclosure
%K transparency
%K bias
%K dermatologic drugs
%K dermatology guidelines
%K financial interest
%K payments
%K industry payments
%D 2022

%7 20.6.2022
%9 Research Letter
%J JMIR Dermatol
%G English
                
%X 
%M 37632871
%R 10.2196/37749
%U https://derma.jmir.org/2022/2/e37749
%U https://doi.org/10.2196/37749
%U http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37632871

%0 Journal Article
        
%@ 2562-0959
%I JMIR Publications
%V 5
%N 2
%P e37256
%T Top Skin-of-Color Publications in Dermatology
%A Cooper,Benjamin R
%A Anderson,Jaclyn B
%A Laughter,Melissa R
%A Presley,Colby L
%A Albrecht,J Mark
%A Dellavalle,Robert P
%+ Dermatology Service, Rocky Mountain Regional Veterans Affairs Medical Center, 1700 N Wheeling St, Rm E1-342, Aurora, CO, 80045, United States, 1 7208575562, robert.dellavalle@cuanschutz.edu
%K skin of color
%K dermatology
%K Web of Science
%K Altmetric
%K Altmetric Attention Score
%K decision-making
%K public attention
%K media
%K blogs
%K skin disorder
%K dermatologic conditions
%K online media
%K publication
%K citation
%K impact
%K health information
%K information exchange
%K education
%D 2022

%7 6.6.2022
%9 Research Letter
%J JMIR Dermatol
%G English
                
%X 
%M 37632864
%R 10.2196/37256
%U https://derma.jmir.org/2022/2/e37256
%U https://doi.org/10.2196/37256
%U http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37632864

%0 Journal Article
        
%@ 2562-0959
%I JMIR Publications
%V 5
%N 2
%P e34111
%T Crowdsourcing Medical Costs in Dermatology: Cross-sectional Study Analyzing Dermatologic GoFundMe Campaigns
%A Mark,Erica
%A Sridharan,Mira
%A Florenzo,Brian
%A Schenck,Olivia L
%A Noland,Mary-Margaret B
%A Barbieri,John S
%A Lipoff,Jules B
%+ Department of Dermatology, University of Virginia, 775 Walker Square, Charlottesville, VA, 22903, United States, 1 19258189733, ejm5we@virginia.edu
%K crowdfunding
%K crowdsourcing
%K fundraising
%K GoFundMe
%K social media
%K medical expenses
%K financial burden
%K health equity
%D 2022

%7 22.4.2022
%9 Original Paper
%J JMIR Dermatol
%G English
                
%X Background: Crowdfunding for medical costs is becoming increasingly popular. Few previous studies have described the fundraising characteristics and qualities associated with success. Objective: This study aimed to characterize and investigate the qualities associated with successful dermatological fundraisers. Methods: This cross-sectional study of dermatological GoFundMe campaigns collected data, including demographic variables, thematic variables using an inductive qualitative method, and quantitative information. Linear regression examined the qualities associated with success, which are defined based on funds raised when controlling for campaign goals. Logistic regression was used to examine qualities associated with extremely successful campaigns, defined as those raising >1.5 times the IQR. Statistical significance was set at P<.05. Results: A total of 2008 publicly available campaigns at the time of data collection were evaluated. Nonmodifiable factors associated with greater success included male gender, age 20-40 years, and White race. Modifiable factors associated with success included more updates posted to the campaign page, non–self-identity of the campaign creator, mention of a chronic condition, and smiling in campaign profile photographs. Conclusions: Understanding the modifiable factors of medical crowdfunding may inform future campaigns, and nonmodifiable factors may have policy implications for improving health care equity and financing. Crowdfunding for medical disease treatment may have potential implications for medical privacy and exacerbation of existing health care disparities. This study was limited to publicly available GoFundMe campaigns. Potential limitations for this study include intercoder variability, misclassification bias because of the data abstraction process, and prioritization of campaigns based on the proprietary GoFundMe algorithm. 
%M 37632862
%R 10.2196/34111
%U https://derma.jmir.org/2022/2/e34111
%U https://doi.org/10.2196/34111
%U http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37632862

%0 Journal Article
        
%@ 2562-0959
%I JMIR Publications
%V 5
%N 1
%P e33996
%T Spin in Abstracts of Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses of Melanoma Therapies: Cross-sectional Analysis
%A Nowlin,Ross
%A Wirtz,Alexis
%A Wenger,David
%A Ottwell,Ryan
%A Cook,Courtney
%A Arthur,Wade
%A Sallee,Brigitte
%A Levin,Jarad
%A Hartwell,Micah
%A Wright,Drew
%A Sealey,Meghan
%A Zhu,Lan
%A Vassar,Matt
%+ Office of Medical Student Research, Oklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences, 1111 W 17th St, Tulsa, OK, 74107, United States, 1 918 561 8449, ross.nowlin@okstate.edu
%K melanoma
%K spin
%K melanoma treatment
%K skin conditions
%K skin
%K misinterpreting data
%K misinterpretation
%K skin cancer
%D 2022

%7 24.2.2022
%9 Original Paper
%J JMIR Dermatol
%G English
                
%X Background: Spin is defined as the misrepresentation of a study’s results, which may lead to misperceptions or misinterpretation of the findings. Spin has previously been found in randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews of acne vulgaris treatments and treatments of various nondermatological conditions. Objective: The purpose of this study was to quantify the presence of spin in abstracts of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of melanoma therapies and identify any related secondary characteristics of these articles. Methods: We used a cross-sectional approach on June 2, 2020, to search the MEDLINE and Embase databases from their inception. To meet inclusion criteria, a study was required to be a systematic review or meta-analysis pertaining to the treatment of melanoma in human subjects, and reported in English. We used the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) definition of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Data were extracted in a masked, duplicate fashion. We conducted a powered bivariate linear regression and calculated odds ratios for each study characteristic. Results: A total of 200 systematic reviews met the inclusion criteria. We identified spin in 38% (n=76) of the abstracts. The most common type of spin found was type 3 (selective reporting of or overemphasis on efficacy outcomes or analysis favoring the beneficial effect of the experimental intervention), occurring 40 times; the least common was type 2 (title claims or suggests a beneficial effect of the experimental intervention not supported by the findings), which was not present in any included abstracts. We found that abstracts pertaining to pharmacologic interventions were 3.84 times more likely to contain spin. The likelihood of an article containing spin has decreased annually (adjusted odds ratio 0.91, 95% CI 0.84-0.99). No significant correlation between funding source or other study characteristics and the presence of spin was identified. Conclusions: We have found that spin is fairly common in the abstracts of systematic reviews of melanoma treatments, but the prevalence of spin in these abstracts has been declining from 1992-2020. 
%M 37632865
%R 10.2196/33996
%U https://derma.jmir.org/2022/1/e33996
%U https://doi.org/10.2196/33996
%U http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37632865

%0 Journal Article
        
%@ 2562-0959
%I JMIR Publications
%V 4
%N 2
%P e30015
%T Publication Trends and Their Relationship With Academic Success Among Dermatology Residents: Cross-sectional Analysis
%A Anderson,J Michael
%A Wenger,David
%A Johnson,Austin L
%A Walters,Corbin
%A Adewumi,Mopileola Tomi
%A Esmond,Lindy
%A Waddell,Jourdan
%A Vassar,Matt
%+ Oklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences, 1111 W 17th St, Tulsa, OK, 74107, United States, 1 19185218774, jande31@okstate.edu
%K publication trends
%K dermatology residency
%K academic medicine
%D 2021

%7 6.10.2021
%9 Original Paper
%J JMIR Dermatol
%G English
                
%X Background: Involvement in scholarly activities is considered to be one of the foundational pillars of medical education. Objective: This study aims to investigate publication rates before, during, and after residency to determine whether research productivity throughout medical training correlates with future academic success and research involvement. Methods: We successfully identified a list of 296 graduates from 25 US dermatology residency programs from the years 2013-2015. The publication history for each graduate was compiled using Scopus, PubMed, and Google Scholar. The Pearson correlation test and linear regression were used to assess the relationship between research productivity and continued academic success after residency graduation. Results: Before residency, graduates published a mean of 1.9 (SD 3.5) total publications and a mean of 0.88 (SD 1.5) first-author publications. During residency, graduates published a mean of 2.7 (SD 3.6) total publications and a mean of 1.39 (SD 2.0) first-author publications. Graduates who pursued a fellowship had more total publications (t294=−4.0; P<.001), more first-author publications (t294=−3.9; P<.001), and a higher h-index (t294=−3.8; P=.002). Graduates who chose to pursue careers in academic medicine had more mean total publications (t294=−7.5; P<.001), more first-author publications (t294=−5.9; P<.001), and a higher mean h-index (t294=−6.9; P<.001). Graduates with one or more first-author publications before residency were 1.3 times more likely to pursue a career in academic medicine (adjusted odds ratio 1.3, 95% CI 1.1-1.5). Graduates who pursued a fellowship were also 1.9 times more likely to pursue a career in academic medicine (adjusted odds ratio 1.9, 95% CI 1.2-3.2). Conclusions: Our results suggest that research productivity before and during residency training are potential markers for continued academic success and research involvement after completing dermatology residency training. 
%M 37632805
%R 10.2196/30015
%U https://derma.jmir.org/2021/2/e30015
%U https://doi.org/10.2196/30015
%U http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37632805

%0 Journal Article
        
%@ 2562-0959
%I JMIR Publications
%V 4
%N 2
%P e29282
%T Global Burden of Skin Disease Representation in the Literature: Bibliometric Analysis
%A Pulsipher,Kayd J
%A Szeto,Mindy D
%A Rundle,Chandler W
%A Presley,Colby L
%A Laughter,Melissa R
%A Dellavalle,Robert P
%+ Dermatology Service, Rocky Mountain Regional Medical Center, US Department of Veteran Affairs, 1700 N Wheeling St, Rm E1-342, Aurora, CO, 80045, United States, 1 720 857 5562, robert.dellavalle@cuanschutz.edu
%K global burden of disease
%K global health
%K global dermatology
%K disability-adjusted life years
%K GBD
%K DALYs
%K journalology
%K dermatology
%K skin disorders
%D 2021

%7 31.8.2021
%9 Original Paper
%J JMIR Dermatol
%G English
                
%X Background: The global burden of skin disease may be reduced through research efforts focused on skin diseases with the highest reported disability-adjusted life years. Objective: This study evaluates the representation of dermatologic conditions comprising the highest disability-adjusted life years in dermatology literature to identify areas that could benefit from greater research focus. Methods: The top 10 skin disorders according to their respective disability-adjusted life years as per the 2013 Global Burden of Disease were identified using previous studies. The top 5 dermatology journals ranked by the 2019 h-index were also identified. A PubMed search of each journal was performed using individual skin disease terms. From 2015 to 2020, all indexed publications pertaining to each disease were recorded and compared to the total number of publications for each journal surveyed. Results: A total of 19,727 papers were published in the 5 journals over the span of 2015-2020. Although melanoma ranked as the eighth highest in disability-adjusted life years, it had the highest representation in the literature (1995/19,727, 10.11%). Melanoma was followed in representation by psoriasis (1936/19,727, 9.81%) and dermatitis (1927/19,727, 9.77%). These 3 conditions comprised a total of 29.69% (5858/19,727) of the total publications, while the remaining 7 skin conditions were represented by a combined 6.79% (1341/19,727) of the total publications. Conclusions: This research identifies gaps in the literature related to the top skin diseases contributing to the global burden of disease. Our study provides insight into future opportunities of focused research on less-studied skin diseases to potentially aid in reducing the global burden of skin disease. 
%M 37632830
%R 10.2196/29282
%U https://derma.jmir.org/2021/2/e29282
%U https://doi.org/10.2196/29282
%U http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37632830

%0 Journal Article
        
%@ 2562-0959
%I JMIR Publications
%V 4
%N 2
%P e30126
%T Conflicts of Interest in “Throwaway” Dermatology Publications: Analysis of the Open Payments Database
%A Roman,Jorge
%A Elpern,David J
%+ The Ronald O. Perelman Department of Dermatology, New York University Grossman School of Medicine, 11th Fl, 240 East 38th St, New York, NY, 10016, United States, 1 2122635889, jorge.roman@nyulangone.org
%K pharmaceutical industry
%K continuing medical education
%K dermatology
%K influence
%K payments
%K Open Payments database
%K publications
%K medical education
%K compensation
%K consulting
%K dermatologists
%D 2021

%7 22.7.2021
%9 Original Paper
%J JMIR Dermatol
%G English
                
%X Background: Dermatology journals, periodicals, editorials, and news magazines are influential resources that are not uniformly regulated and subject to influence from the pharmaceutical industry. This study evaluates industry payments to physician editorial board members of common dermatology publications, including “throwaway” publications. Objective: The aim of this study was to characterize the extent and nature of industry payments to editorial board members of different dermatologic publications in order to ascertain differences in payments between different types of publications. Methods: A list of editorial board members was compiled from a collection of clinical dermatology publications received over a 3-month period. Data from the Open Payments database from 2013 to 2019 were collected, and analysis of payments data was performed. Results: Ten publications were evaluated, and payments data for 466 physicians were analyzed. The total compensation across all years was US $75,622,369.64. Consulting, services other than consulting, and travel or lodging payments constituted most of the payments. A fraction of dermatologists received the majority of payments. The top payers were manufacturers of biologic medications. Payment amounts were higher for throwaway publications compared to peer-reviewed journals. Conclusions: Editorial board members of dermatology publications received substantial payments from the pharmaceutical industry. A minority of physicians receive the lion’s share of payments from industry. “Throwaway” publications have more financial conflict of interest than do peer-reviewed journals. The impact of these conflicts of interest on patient care, physicians' practice patterns, and patient perception of physicians is noteworthy. 
%M 37632829
%R 10.2196/30126
%U https://derma.jmir.org/2021/2/e30126
%U https://doi.org/10.2196/30126
%U http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37632829

%0 Journal Article
        
%@ 2562-0959
%I JMIR Publications
%V 4
%N 1
%P e25858
%T Conflicts of Interest Among Authors of Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses Investigating Interventions for Melanoma: Cross-sectional Literature Study
%A Rulon,Zane
%A Powers,Kalyn
%A Anderson,J Michael
%A Weaver,Michael
%A Johnson,Austin
%A Hartwell,Micah
%A Vassar,Matt
%+ Center for Health Sciences, Oklahoma State University, 1111 W 17th St N, Tulsa, OK, 74107, United States, 1 9185218774, jande31@okstate.edu
%K conflicts of interest
%K industry sponsorship
%K melanoma
%K cross-sectional analysis
%K systematic review
%K meta-analysis
%D 2021

%7 7.6.2021
%9 Original Paper
%J JMIR Dermatol
%G English
                
%X Background: Previous studies have highlighted the potential influence that industry relationships may have on the outcomes of medical research. Objective: We aimed to determine the prevalence of author conflicts of interest (COIs) in systematic reviews focusing on melanoma interventions, as well as to determine whether the presence of these COIs were associated with an increased likelihood of reporting favorable results and conclusions. Methods: This cross-sectional study included systematic reviews with or without meta-analyses focusing on interventions for melanoma. We searched MEDLINE and Embase for eligible systematic reviews published between September 1, 2016, and June 2, 2020. COI disclosures were cross-referenced with information from the CMS (Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services) Open Payments database, Dollars for Profs, Google Patents, the United States Patent and Trademark Office, and previously published COI disclosure statements. Results were quantified using descriptive statistics, and relationships were evaluated by Fisher exact tests. Results: Of the 23 systematic reviews included in our sample, 12 (52%) had at least one author with a COI. Of these 12 reviews, 7 (58%) reported narrative results favoring the treatment group and 9 (75%) reported conclusions favoring the treatment group. Of the 11 systematic reviews without a conflicted author, 4 (36%) reported results favoring the treatment group and 5 (45%) reported conclusions favoring the treatment group. We found no significant association between the presence of author COIs and the favorability of results (P=.53) or conclusions (P=.15). Conclusions: Author COIs did not appear to influence the outcomes of systematic reviews regarding melanoma interventions. Clinicians and other readers of dermatology literature should be cognizant of the influence that industry may have on the nature of reported outcomes, including those from systematic reviews and meta-analyses. 
%M 37632810
%R 10.2196/25858
%U https://derma.jmir.org/2021/1/e25858
%U https://doi.org/10.2196/25858
%U http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37632810

%0 Journal Article
        
%@ 2562-0959
%I JMIR Publications
%V 3
%N 1
%P e10508
%T Cutaneous Bacteria in the Gut Microbiome as Biomarkers of Systemic Malodor and People Are Allergic to Me (PATM) Conditions: Insights From a Virtually Conducted Clinical Trial
%A Gabashvili,Irene S
%+ Aurametrix, MEBO Research, 13220 SW 35th Terrace, Miami, FL, 33175, United States, 1 408 341 9355, irene@aurametrix.com
%K microbiome
%K idiopathic body odor
%K systemic malodor
%K PATM
%K TMAU
%K MEBO
%K bromhidrosis
%K halitosis
%K body dysmorphic disorder
%K virtual care
%K decentralized clinical trials
%K diagnosis
%K management
%K patient-reported outcome
%K PRO
%K at-home test
%D 2020

%7 4.11.2020
%9 Original Paper
%J JMIR Dermatol
%G English
                
%X Background: The skin is a dynamic ecosystem of microbes and the source of many chemical compounds that affect human health. Skin-microbiome interactions can cause persistent, psychosocially devastating body smell despite good hygiene. Since odor production is often transient, malodors may not be perceptible during medical examinations. Therefore, having odor complaints can be diagnosed as body dysmorphic disorder and referred for psychological evaluations. Development of simple at-home tests and virtual care programs could improve the diagnosis and management of socially debilitating malodor conditions. Objective: The aim of this study was to assess potential effectiveness of at-home gut microbiome testing in the diagnosis and management of idiopathic body and breath odor and in people are allergic to me (PATM) syndrome. Methods: We contacted participants of prior metabolic body odor (MEBO) and PATM studies and online support groups by email or social media. Individuals who consented to participate were mailed test kits for at-home collection of gut microbiome samples. Participants completed an online survey (specially developed for this study) addressing their symptoms and other quality-of-life indicators at baseline and after sampling. Participants collected stool samples after flare-ups or symptom improvements and mailed them to the laboratory to be processed and analyzed. We evaluated between-group differences in symptom severity, as well as symptom improvement observations for the same individuals. For differential abundance testing of microbial taxa, we performed nonparametric statistical analyses using Mann-Whitney U tests for unpaired samples and Wilcoxon signed rank test for paired samples. Results: A total of 112 individuals from 21 countries consented to participate. About half the participants had been tested for the metabolic disorder trimethylaminuria, and about half of those tested were diagnosed with the disorder. The levels of bacteria previously associated with cutaneous body odor were significantly elevated in gut samples. For the combination of species from Anaerococcus, Corynebacterium, Campylobacter, and Propionibacterium genera, the differences were P=.002 for active (73 participants, 182 samples) versus regression or remission groups (30 participants, 51 samples); P=.01 for those experiencing symptoms most or all of the time (46 participants, 88 samples) versus those who had symptoms sometimes, rarely, or never (25 participants, 74 samples); and P<.001 for improvement of symptoms in the same individuals (22 participants, 43 sets of matched samples). Changes in microbial diversity were significant for between- but not within-participant comparisons. Conclusions: Changes in the gut microbiome composition affect MEBO and PATM severity. In particular, an increase in intestinal bacteria producing odor when in skin flexures was associated with increased intensity of self-reported symptoms. The changes were consistent in the within-group and between-group analyses. Our findings support the feasibility of remote and decentralized clinical studies of malodor conditions. Supplementary sample collection procedures may help to meet established research quality standards. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03582826; http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03582826 International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID): RR2-10.1101/2020.08.21.20179242 
%R 10.2196/10508
%U http://derma.jmir.org/2020/1/e10508/
%U https://doi.org/10.2196/10508

%0 Journal Article
        
%@ 2562-0959
%I JMIR Publications
%V 3
%N 1
%P e16978
%T Evaluation of Spin in the Abstracts of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Focused on the Treatment of Acne Vulgaris: Cross-Sectional Analysis
%A Ottwell,Ryan
%A Rogers,Taylor C
%A Anderson,J Michael
%A Johnson,Austin
%A Vassar,Matt
%+ Oklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences, 1111 W 17th St, Tulsa, OK, 74107, United States, 1 9189918718, ryan.ottwell@okstate.edu
%K acne vulgaris
%K systematic review
%K abstracts
%K dermatology
%D 2020

%7 20.3.2020
%9 Original Paper
%J JMIR Dermatol
%G English
                
%X Background: Spin is the misrepresentation of study findings, which may positively or negatively influence the reader’s interpretation of the results. Little is known regarding the prevalence of spin in abstracts of systematic reviews, specifically systematic reviews pertaining to the management and treatment of acne vulgaris. Objective: The primary objective of this study was to characterize and determine the frequency of the most severe forms of spin in systematic review abstracts and to evaluate whether various study characteristics were associated with spin. Methods: Using a cross-sectional study design, we searched PubMed and EMBASE for systematic reviews focusing on the management and treatment of acne vulgaris. Our search returned 316 studies, of which 36 were included in our final sample. To be included, each systematic review must have addressed either pharmacologic or nonpharmacologic treatment of acne vulgaris. These studies were screened, and data were extracted in duplicate by two blinded investigators. We analyzed systematic review abstracts for the nine most severe types of spin. Results: Spin was present in 31% (11/36) of abstracts. A total of 12 examples of spin were identified in the 11 abstracts containing spin, with one abstract containing two instances of spin. The most common type of spin, selective reporting of or overemphasis on efficacy outcomes or analysis favoring the beneficial effect of the experimental intervention, was identified five times (5/12, 42%). A total of 44% (16/36) of studies did not report a risk of bias assessment. Of the 11 abstracts containing spin, six abstracts (55%) had not reported a risk of bias assessment or performed a risk of bias assessment but did not discuss it. Spin in abstracts was not significantly associated with a specific intervention type, funding source, or journal impact factor. Conclusions: Spin is present in the abstracts of systematic reviews and meta-analyses covering the treatment of acne vulgaris. This paper raises awareness of spin in abstracts and emphasizes the importance of its recognition, which may lead to fewer incidences of spin in future studies. 
%R 10.2196/16978
%U http://derma.jmir.org/2020/1/e16978/
%U https://doi.org/10.2196/16978

%0 Journal Article
        
%@ 2562-0959
%I JMIR Publications
%V 3
%N 1
%P e15643
%T Comparison of Traditional Citation Metrics and Altmetrics Among Dermatology Journals: Content and Correlational Analysis Study
%A Murray,Gregg
%A Hellen,Rebecca
%A Ralph,James
%A Ni Raghallaigh,Siona
%+ Beaumont Hospital, Beaumont Road, Dublin, , Ireland, 353 813000, murrgr@gmail.com
%K dermatology
%K altmetrics
%K impact factor
%K citations
%K medical informatics
%D 2020

%7 12.2.2020
%9 Original Paper
%J JMIR Dermatol
%G English
                
%X Background: Research impact has traditionally been measured using citation count and impact factor (IF). Academics have long relied heavily on this form of metric system to measure a publication’s impact. A higher number of citations is viewed as an indicator of the importance of the research and a marker for the impact of the publishing journal. Recently, social media and online news sources have become important avenues for dissemination of research, resulting in the emergence of an alternative metric system known as altmetrics. Objective: We assessed the correlation between altmetric attention score (AAS) and traditional scientific impact markers, namely journal IF and article citation count, for all the dermatology journal and published articles of 2017. Methods: We identified dermatology journals and their associated IFs available in 2017 using InCites Journal Citation Reports. We entered all 64 official dermatology journals into Altmetric Explorer, a Web-based platform that enables users to browse and report on all attention data for every piece of scholarly content for which Altmetric Explorer has found attention. Results: For the 64 dermatology journals, there was a moderate positive correlation between journal IF and journal AAS (rs=.513, P<.001). In 2017, 6323 articles were published in the 64 dermatology journals. Our data show that there was a weak positive correlation between the traditional article citation count and AAS (rs=.257, P<.001). Conclusions: Our data show a weak correlation between article citation count and AAS. Temporal factors may explain this weak association. Newer articles may receive increased online attention after publication, while it may take longer for scientific citation counts to accumulate. Stories that are at times deemed newsworthy and then disseminated across the media and social media platforms border on sensationalism and may not be truly academic in nature. The opposite can also be true. 
%R 10.2196/15643
%U https://derma.jmir.org/2020/1/e15643
%U https://doi.org/10.2196/15643

%0 Journal Article
        
%@ 2562-0959
%I JMIR Publications
%V 2
%N 1
%P e16078
%T Transparent, Reproducible, and Open Science Practices of Published Literature in Dermatology Journals: Cross-Sectional Analysis
%A Anderson,J Michael
%A Niemann,Andrew
%A Johnson,Austin L
%A Cook,Courtney
%A Tritz,Daniel
%A Vassar,Matt
%+ Oklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences, 1111 W 17th St, Tulsa, OK, 74107, United States, 1 918 582 1972, jande31@okstate.edu
%K reproducibility of findings
%K data sharing
%K publishing, open access
%K dermatology
%D 2019

%7 7.11.2019
%9 Original Paper
%J JMIR Dermatol
%G English
                
%X Background: Reproducible research is a foundational component for scientific advancements, yet little is known regarding the extent of reproducible research within the dermatology literature. Objective: This study aimed to determine the quality and transparency of the literature in dermatology journals by evaluating for the presence of 8 indicators of reproducible and transparent research practices. Methods: By implementing a cross-sectional study design, we conducted an advanced search of publications in dermatology journals from the National Library of Medicine catalog. Our search included articles published between January 1, 2014, and December 31, 2018. After generating a list of eligible dermatology publications, we then searched for full text PDF versions by using Open Access Button, Google Scholar, and PubMed. Publications were analyzed for 8 indicators of reproducibility and transparency—availability of materials, data, analysis scripts, protocol, preregistration, conflict of interest statement, funding statement, and open access—using a pilot-tested Google Form. Results: After exclusion, 127 studies with empirical data were included in our analysis. Certain indicators were more poorly reported than others. We found that most publications (113, 88.9%) did not provide unmodified, raw data used to make computations, 124 (97.6%) failed to make the complete protocol available, and 126 (99.2%) did not include step-by-step analysis scripts. Conclusions: Our sample of studies published in dermatology journals do not appear to include sufficient detail to be accurately and successfully reproduced in their entirety. Solutions to increase the quality, reproducibility, and transparency of dermatology research are warranted. More robust reporting of key methodological details, open data sharing, and stricter standards journals impose on authors regarding disclosure of study materials might help to better the climate of reproducible research in dermatology. 
%R 10.2196/16078
%U http://derma.jmir.org/2019/1/e16078/
%U https://doi.org/10.2196/16078