[Experimental] List of manuscripts available for review volunteers
2 manuscripts available for review volunteers
December 14, 2017
Background: Little is known about how to achieve enduring improvements in physical activity (PA), sedentary behaviour (SB) and sleep for people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). This study aimed to: 1. identify what people with COPD from South Australia and the Netherlands, and experts from COPD- and non-COPD-specific backgrounds considered as important to improve behaviours; and 2. identify areas of dissonance between these different participant groups.

Methods: A four-round Delphi study was conducted, analysed separately for each group. Free-text responses (Round 1) were collated into items within themes and rated for importance on a 9-point Likert scale (Rounds 2-3). Items meeting a priori criteria from each group were retained for rating by all groups in Round 4. Items and themes achieving a median Likert score of ≥7 and an interquartile range of ≤2 across all groups at Round 4 were judged important. Analysis of variance with Tukey’s post-hoc tested for statistical differences between groups for importance ratings.

Results: 73 participants consented to participate in this study, of which 62 (85%) completed Round 4. In Round 4, 81 items (PA n=54; SB n=24; sleep n=3) and 18 themes (PA n=9; SB n=7; sleep n=2) were considered as important across all groups concerning: 1. disease management, 2. targeting behavioural factors, and less commonly 3. adapting the social/physical environments. There were few areas of dissonance between groups.

Conclusion: Important to our Delphi participants is a multifactorial approach to improve PA, SB and sleep. Recognising and addressing important factors may provide a basis for developing interventions to improve these behaviours long-term.
December 1, 2017
Objectives: Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS) is a highly heterogeneous syndrome which exhibits significant differences in the underlying causes, responses to treatment and prognosis. It is mandatory to make subtypes of ARDS to guideline clinical treatment and trial design. The study aimed to identify subtypes of ARDS using latent class analysis. Design: The study was a secondary analysis of the EDEN study which was a randomized, controlled, multicenter trial conducted from January 2, 2008 to April 12, 2011. The primary study endpoint was death through 90-day follow up. Latent class analysis was performed incorporating variables on day 1 after enrollment. The number of classes was chosen by maximum log-likelihood, Akaike Information Criterion and the number of patients in each class. Setting: secondary analysis of a multicenter randomized controlled trial. Patients: patients within 48 hours of developing ARDS requiring mechanical ventilation. Interventions: none. Measurements and main results: A total of 1000 patients were enrolled in the study, including 233 non-survivors and 767 survivors. The latent class analysis identified three classes of ARDS. Class 1 (hemodynamically stable type) had significantly higher survival rate (p=0.015) and cumulative incidence of unassisted breathing (p=0.016) than class 2 (non-SIRS type) and 3 (SIRS type) through 90 days follow up. There was significant interaction between cumulative fluid balance and the class (p=0.03). While more fluid balance was beneficial for class 2, it was harmful for class 1 and 3. Conclusions: The study identified three classes of ARDS, which showed different clinical presentations, responses to fluid therapy and prognosis. The classification system used simple clinical variables and could help to design ARDS trials in the future. Trial registration: NCT00609180. Registered February 6, 2008.


Is this open peer review?

No, peer review is still single-blind and all recommendations are private between the authors and Academic Editor. However, any reviewer has the option to sign their report, and once accepted for publication then that review can be shown publicly - again this is optional.

Will I be guaranteed to review if I volunteer?

No. Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. This is for many reasons. For one, reviewers must have relevant qualifications for any manuscript and void of any conflicts of interest. Additionally, it could be that enough reviewers have accepted an invitation to review already, in which case we would not invite any more.

Why aren't there more manuscripts available?

Manuscripts are shown when authors have opted-in for obtaining reviewers through the reviewer-match service. Additionally, there may already be enough reviewers found through other means, for example, invitations sent by the Academic Editor in charge.

What are the editorial criteria?

Please visit the editorial criteria page for initial guidance. You will also be given additional information if invited to review.