Matthias Fabian Berger

The companies publishing predatory journals are an emerging problem in the area of scientific literature as they only seek to drain money from authors without providing any customer service for the authors or their readership. These predatory journals try to attract new submissions by aggressive email advertising and high acceptance rates. But in turn, they do not provide proper peer review, and therefore, the scientific quality of submitted articles is questionable. This is important because more and more people, including patients, are reading such journals and rely on the information they provide. Consequently, predatory journals are a serious threat to the integrity of medical science, and it is crucial for scientists, physicians and even patients to be aware of this problem. In this review, we briefly summarize the history of the open access movement, as well as the rise of and roles played by predatory journals. In conclusion, young and inexperienced authors publishing in a predatory journal must be aware of the damage of their reputation, of inadequate peer review processes and that unprofitable journals might get closed and all published articles in that journal might be lost.

Objective: In contrast to the rising amount of financial investments for research and development in medical technology worldwide is the lack of usability and clinical readiness of the produced systems. We evaluated an augmented reality (AR) setup under development for preoperative perforator vessel mapping for elective autologous breast reconstruction. Methods: In this grant-supported research pilot, we used magnetic resonance angiography data (MR-A) of the trunk to superimpose the scans on the corresponding patients with hands-free AR goggles to identify regions-of-interest for surgical planning. Perforator location was assessed using MR-A imaging (MR-A projection) and Doppler ultrasound data (3D distance) and confirmed intraoperatively in all cases. We evaluated usability (System Usability Scale, SUS), data transfer load and documented personnel hours for software development, correlation of image data, as well as processing duration to clinical readiness (time from MR-A to AR projections per scan). Results: All perforator locations were confirmed intraoperatively, and we found a strong correlation between MR-A projection and 3D distance measurements (Spearman r = 0.894). The overall usability (SUS) was 67 ± 10 (=moderate to good). The presented setup for AR projections took 173 min to clinical readiness (=availability on AR device per patient). Conclusion: In this pilot, we calculated development investments based on project-approved grant-funded personnel hours with a moderate to good usability outcome resulting from some limitations: assessment was based on one-time testing with no previous training, a time lag of AR visualizations on the body and difficulties in spatial AR orientation. The use of AR systems can provide new opportunities for future surgical planning, but has more potential for educational (e.g., patient information) or training purposes of medical under- and postgraduates (spatial recognition of imaging data associated with anatomical structures and operative planning). We expect future usability improvements with refined user interfaces, faster AR hardware and artificial intelligence-enhanced visualization techniques.

Background: This study investigates the impact of transitioning from paper and pencil (P&P) methods to electronic patient records (EPR) on workflow and usability in surgical ward rounds. Methods: Surgical ward rounds were audited by two independent observers to evaluate the effects of transitioning from P&P to EPR. Key observations included the number of medical personnel and five critical workflow aspects before and after EPR implementation. Additionally, usability was assessed using the System Usability Scale (SUS) and the Post-Study System Usability Questionnaire (PSSUQ). Results: A total of 192 P&P and 160 EPR observations were analyzed. Physicians experienced increased administrative workload with EPR, while nurses adapted more easily. Ward teams typically consisted of two physicians and three or four nurses. Usability scores rated the system as “Not Acceptable” across all professional groups. Conclusions: The EPR system introduced usability challenges, particularly for physicians, despite potential benefits like improved data access. Usability flaws hindered system acceptance, highlighting the need for better workflow integration. Addressing these issues could improve efficiency and reduce administrative strain. As artificial intelligence becomes more integrated into clinical practice, healthcare professionals must critically assess AI-driven tools to ensure safe and effective patient care.

Objective The healthcare industry has witnessed a paradigm shift with the adoption of Electronic Patient Records (EPRs), transitioning from traditional Paper and Pencil (P&P) methods to sophisticated, technology-driven documentation systems. However, the integration of EPRs into clinical settings has introduced new challenges. This study investigates workflow consequences of switching from P&P to EPR systems. Methods In this study, two independent observers audited surgical ward rounds to assess the effects of transitioning from P&P to EPR. These audits captured number of medical personnel and five key aspects before and after EPR implementation. Additionally, the EPR system's usability was gathered through the System Usability Scale (SUS) and the Post Study System Usability Questionnaire (PSSUQ). Results A total of 192 observations using P&P and 160 with the EPR system were analyzed. Results indicated that physicians spent a lower proportion of time in patient rooms using the P&P modality (median = 0.14, IQR = [0.06, 0.24]) compared to the EPR system (median = 0.19, IQR = [0.12, 0.29]). Conversely, nurses spent more time with the P&P modality (median = 0.13, IQR = [0.08, 0.18]) than with the EPR system (median = 0.10, IQR = [0.06, 0.13]). The typical team in the P&P modality comprised two physicians and four nurses, while teams in the EPR system generally included two or three physicians and three nurses. Usability assessments yielded scores rated as "Not Acceptable." Conclusion The EPR is already known to contribute to an increased administrative burden. Our findings generally align with this view in the physician sample, whereas nurses did not encounter difficulties switching systems. However, usability scores indicated that the EPR system falls short of meeting user acceptance expectations. Given the continuous increase in administrative workload, our results suggest that ururcing administrative tasks could enhance the efficiency of medical duties performed at patient's bedside.