Core Medical Publishing
Home About Us Products & Services
Frequently Asked Questions Contact Us Privacy Policy
Publishing
Core Evidence
Editorial
Aims and Scope
Features and Benefits
Online Early
Current Issue
Previous Issues
Future Issues
Free Trial
openaccess
Permissions and Reprints
Editorial Information
Call For Papers
Continuing Medical Education
New CME Activities
MedicVision
MedicVision
Online Early
Online Early
Current Issue
Current Issue
Core Evidence
Vol. 2, No. 4
July, 2008
ISSN: 1555-1741
Free Trial
Free Trial
Sample Sample
Editorial Information
The articles in Core Evidence are prepared using the principles of evidence-based medicine and critical appraisal.
Format and content
The format and content of the articles are derived from formulary guideline requirements that focus on relevant outcomes.
Drug selection
Drugs considered for inclusion in Core Evidence are chosen on the basis of their potential impact on patient outcomes, disease management, and healthcare priorities. The Editor-in-Chief selects the drugs for review based on the following criteria:
Therapeutic area
1º care indication
2º care/specialist indication, 1º/2º care interface
Chronic condition
Outcomes clear and objective
Outcomes clear and objective
Disease-oriented
Added therapeutic value
Significant health benefit
  increase life expectancy/QOL
  decrease disability/adverse effects
Significant impact on resources
Transform treatment of a disease (current guidelines significantly affected)
Clear areas of unmet medical need (patient groups, single aspects of disease, symptoms, side effects of existing treatment)
Sufficient evidence base
Timeliness
Drug
New/novel mechanism of action/first in class
New indication existing drug
Analyst sales expectations high
Evidence review
The editorial process is a rigorous, objective, and transparent method for evidence retrieval, selection, appraisal, and synthesis.
Retrieval and selection
The English language literature is searched using terms specific to the scope of the article. The following sources are routinely searched: York University Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD) databases; Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews; Clinical Evidence; PubMed/Medline; EMBASE; BIOSIS; and National Guideline Clearing House. To limit potential publication bias, publicly accessible clinical trial registers are also searched. Evidence is selected according to the scope of the article.
Appraisal
The validity and quality of the evidence is evaluated using a hierarchy of evidence and critical appraisal.
Level
1. Strong evidence from at least one systematic review
2. Evidence from randomized controlled trials
3. Evidence from well-designed trials without randomization, single group pre-/postintervention, cohort, time series, or matched case control studies
4. Evidence from well-designed nonexperimental, observational
studies from more than one center or research group
5. Opinions of respected authorities, based on clinical experience, descriptive studies, and reports of expert committees
Adapted from Clark W, Mucklow J. Gathering and weighing the evidence. In: Panton R, Chapman S (editors). Medicines Management. London: BMJ Books and Pharmaceutical Press; 1998.
Randomized controlled trials and economic studies are appraised to assess their strengths, weaknesses, and validity. Outcomes are selected based on clinical relevance and perceived unmet medical need.
Synthesis
The weight, strength, and consistency of the evidence for a drug’s effectiveness on each outcome are evaluated to give a definitive implication for clinical practice wherever possible. Conclusions are based on the level of evidence, its quality, and its consistency. Outcome measures are defined as patient-oriented, disease-oriented, or economic.
The evidence is summarized as clear, substantial, moderate, limited, or absent depending on a combination of evidence level, its strengths and weaknesses, and its consistency.

Conflict of interest

Core Evidence complies with the guidelines issued by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) regarding conflict of interest.

Editorial staff
The editorial staff, Consultant Editor, and Editorial Board of Core Evidence, are required to disclose any financial or personal relationship that could be viewed as a potential conflict of interest that may inappropriately influence editorial decisions. This information is gathered annually. The policy of recusal operates. Whenever an individual has a potential conflict of interest, he/she must advise the Editor-in-Chief of the nature of the conflict and offer to recuse him/herself from making decisions on the journal.
The Editor-in-Chief will evaluate each case and either accept or reject the offer of recusal, based on the following guidelines. If a potential conflict is identified but is not judged of sufficient significance to warrant recusal, it will be acknowledged in an appropriate place (e.g. on the core website).
Authors
Articles published in Core Evidence are prepared by professional writers who are contracted to write either as employees of Core Medical Publishing or as freelance writers. Writers are also required to disclose any financial or personal relationship that could be viewed as a potential conflict of interest that may inappropriately influence editorial decisions. The same policy of recusal as applies to other editorial staff applies.
Peer reviewers

Individuals invited to act as peer reviewers of Core Evidence articles are also required to disclose any financial or personal relationship that could be viewed as a potential conflict of interest that may inappropriately influence editorial decisions. The same policy of recusal as applies to other editorial staff applies. If a potential conflict is identified but is not judged of sufficient significance to warrant recusal, it will be acknowledged at the end of the article.

  Editor Author Editorial board Peer reviewer
Employment Recuse Recuse Recuse Recuse

Non executive director/
management
position

Recuse Recuse Acknowledge Acknowledge
Consultancy,
opinion leader, speaker
Recuse Acknowledge Acknowledge Acknowledge
Investigator Acknowledge Acknowledge Acknowledge Acknowledge
Shareholder Acknowledge Acknowledge Acknowledge Acknowledge
Manufacturer review
Manufacturers of drugs which are the subject of Core Evidence reviews are invited to comment on the factual accuracy and completeness of the article. This step occurs in parallel with peer review.
Editorial approval

The Editor-in-Chief has final responsibility for the content of Core Evidence, and will decide which articles are acceptable for publication, taking into account the recommendations made during the review process. The Consultant Editor also judges the balance, consistency, and clinical content of each article before giving approval to publish.