Global, regional, and national survey on burden and Quality of Care Index (QCI) of orofacial clefts: Global burden of disease systematic analysis 1990–2019

by Ahmad Sofi-Mahmudi, Erfan Shamsoddin, Sahar Khademioore, Yeganeh Khazaei, Amin Vahdati, Marcos Roberto Tovani-Palone

Background

Orofacial clefts are the most common craniofacial anomalies that include a variety of conditions affecting the lips and oral cavity. They remain a significant global public health challenge. Despite this, the quality of care for orofacial clefts has not been investigated at global and country levels.

Objective

We aimed to measure the quality-of-care index (QCI) for orofacial clefts worldwide.

Methods

We used the 2019 Global Burden of Disease data to create a multifactorial index (QCI) to assess orofacial clefts globally and nationally. By utilizing data on incidence, prevalence, years of life lost, and years lived with disability, we defined four ratios to indirectly reflect the quality of healthcare. Subsequently, we conducted a principal component analysis to identify the most critical variables that could account for the observed variability. The outcome of this analysis was defined as the QCI for orofacial clefts. Following this, we tracked the QCI trends among males and females worldwide across various regions and countries, considering factors such as the socio-demographic index and World Bank classifications.

Results

Globally, the QCI for orofacial clefts exhibited a consistent upward trend from 1990 to 2019 (66.4 to 90.2) overall and for females (82.9 to 94.3) and males (72.8 to 93.6). In the year 2019, the top five countries with the highest QCI scores were as follows: Norway (QCI = 99.9), Ireland (99.4), France (99.4), Germany (99.3), the Netherlands (99.3), and Malta (99.3). Conversely, the five countries with the lowest QCI scores on a global scale in 2019 were Somalia (59.1), Niger (67.6), Burkina Faso (72.6), Ethiopia (73.0), and Mali (74.4). Gender difference showed a converging trend from 1990 to 2019 (optimal gender disparity ratio (GDR): 123 vs. 163 countries), and the GDR showed a move toward optimization (between 0.95 and 1.05) in the better and worse parts of the world.

Conclusion

Despite the positive results regarding the QCI for orofacial clefts worldwide, some countries showed a slight negative trend.

COVID-19-related research data availability and quality according to the FAIR principles: A meta-research study

by Ahmad Sofi-Mahmudi, Eero Raittio, Yeganeh Khazaei, Javed Ashraf, Falk Schwendicke, Sergio E. Uribe, David Moher

Background

According to the FAIR principles (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable), scientific research data should be findable, accessible, interoperable, and reusable. The COVID-19 pandemic has led to massive research activities and an unprecedented number of topical publications in a short time. However, no evaluation has assessed whether this COVID-19-related research data has complied with FAIR principles (or FAIRness).

Objective

Our objective was to investigate the availability of open data in COVID-19-related research and to assess compliance with FAIRness.

Methods

We conducted a comprehensive search and retrieved all open-access articles related to COVID-19 from journals indexed in PubMed, available in the Europe PubMed Central database, published from January 2020 through June 2023, using the metareadr package. Using rtransparent, a validated automated tool, we identified articles with links to their raw data hosted in a public repository. We then screened the link and included those repositories that included data specifically for their pertaining paper. Subsequently, we automatically assessed the adherence of the repositories to the FAIR principles using FAIRsFAIR Research Data Object Assessment Service (F-UJI) and rfuji package. The FAIR scores ranged from 1–22 and had four components. We reported descriptive analysis for each article type, journal category, and repository. We used linear regression models to find the most influential factors on the FAIRness of data.

Results

5,700 URLs were included in the final analysis, sharing their data in a general-purpose repository. The mean (standard deviation, SD) level of compliance with FAIR metrics was 9.4 (4.88). The percentages of moderate or advanced compliance were as follows: Findability: 100.0%, Accessibility: 21.5%, Interoperability: 46.7%, and Reusability: 61.3%. The overall and component-wise monthly trends were consistent over the follow-up. Reviews (9.80, SD = 5.06, n = 160), articles in dental journals (13.67, SD = 3.51, n = 3) and Harvard Dataverse (15.79, SD = 3.65, n = 244) had the highest mean FAIRness scores, whereas letters (7.83, SD = 4.30, n = 55), articles in neuroscience journals (8.16, SD = 3.73, n = 63), and those deposited in GitHub (4.50, SD = 0.13, n = 2,152) showed the lowest scores. Regression models showed that the repository was the most influential factor on FAIRness scores (R² = 0.809).

Conclusion

This paper underscored the potential for improvement across all facets of FAIR principles, specifically emphasizing Interoperability and Reusability in the data shared within general repositories during the COVID-19 pandemic.