Ranking of universities and institutions has attracted wide attention recently. Several systems have been proposed that attempt to rank academic institutions worldwide.

To evaluate whether the V Leiden mutation is consistently associated with hypertension in pregnancy across populations of pregnant women. Meta-analysis of studies comparing women with and without hypertension in pregnancy for the V Leiden mutation. Studies were identified with MEDLINE and EMBASE searches complemented with perusal of bibliographies of retrieved articles and communication with investigators. Data were evaluated with random effects models and between-study heterogeneity was estimated. Sensitivity analyses examined the effect of population and study characteristics. Bias diagnostics evaluated the evolution of the postulated effect over time and the potential for publication bias. RESULTS Across 19 studies (2742 hypertensive women, 2403 controls), V Leiden mutation increased the odds of hypertensive disease of pregnancy by 2.25-fold [95% confidence interval (CI), 1.50-3.38], but there was large between-study heterogeneity (P = 0.002). The results were similar and heterogeneity persisted when sensitivity analyses were limited to studies with Caucasians, proteinuria, diastolic hypertension threshold > 110 mmHg, specified selection of cases, and matching. While studies published up to 2000 showed an odds ratio of 3.16 (95% CI, 2.04-4.92), no association was seen in studies published in 2001-2002 (odds ratio 0.97; 95% CI, 0.61-1.54). There was also evidence of potential publication bias: the five largest studies showed no association (odds ratio 1.21; 95% CI, 0.84-1.74). Although modest effects of V Leiden mutation on the risk of hypertension in pregnancy cannot be excluded, the association observed in early and small studies may be typical of bias, in particular time-lag bias and publication bias.

Authors assessed systematically the effectiveness of interventions aiming at health professionals’ increase of empathic responses. Authors searched Pubmed, Cochrane Database of Clinical Trials, Scopus, and PsycInfo for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) (latest search on November 2012). They included trials in English that evaluated interventions, which may promote empathy in health professionals. Studies were categorized according to the type of the outcome on empathy (attitude or opinion, knowledge or skills, and behavior). Authors considered change in empathy as the main outcome. Standardized mean differences (SMD) with 95 % confidence interval (95 % CI) were calculated for the studies that provided adequate data. Primary analysis included all the studies that provided adequate data per outcome category. In addition, authors proceeded in subgroup analyses for the following groups (a) type of intervention (experiential vs. non-experiential; (b) training specifically for promoting empathy vs. other; (c) type of assessor (external observer, health professional participants, and patients); and (d) type of process used for empathy evaluation, (simulated interview, actual interview, and questionnaire completion without interview). Out of 722 items, 17 articles were eligible. Trials were highly heterogeneous in terms of participants, interventions, and outcome measures. Interventions usually covered a broad training on communication skills. Thirteen studies used experiential while four non-experiential learning approaches. There were only two studies that evaluated interventions specifically aiming at promoting empathy; one of these trials reported significant increase in residents’ empathy related knowledge, skills, and behavior. Based on 13 trials with adequate data, health professionals in intervention group improved empathic behavior when compared to control group (SMD 0.8, 95 % CI 0.4, 1.2; P value <0.001). None of the trials assessed patients’ health care outcomes. There are interventions, which may contribute to a significant improvement in empathic behavior among health professionals. However, the type of intervention that would be effective needs to be supported by future studies. Whether empathic behavior may last, or whether it may affect patients’ outcomes is yet to be defined.

Funding is important for scientists’ work and may contribute to exceptional research outcomes. We analyzed the funding sources reported in the landmark scientific papers of Nobel Prize winners. Between 2000 and 2008, 70 Nobel laureates won recognition in medicine, physics, and chemistry. Sixty five (70%) of the 93 selected papers related to the Nobel‐awarded work reported some funding source including U.S. government sources in 53 (82%), non‐U.S. government sources in 19 (29%), and nongovernment sources in 33 (51%). A substantial portion of this exceptional work was unfunded. We contacted Nobel laureates whose landmark papers reported no funding. Thirteen Nobel laureates responded and offered their insights about the funding process and difficulties inherent in funding. Overall, very diverse sources amounting to a total of 64 different listed sponsors supported Nobel‐related work. A few public institutions, in particular the U.S. National Institutes of Health (with n =26 funded papers) and the National Science Foundation (with n =17 papers), stood out for their successful record for funding exceptional research. However, Nobel‐level work arose even from completely unfunded research, especially when institutions offered a protected environment for dedicated scientists.—Tatsioni, A, Vavva, E., Ioannidis, J.P.A Sources of funding for Nobel Prize‐winning work: public or private? FASEB J. 24, 1335–1339 (2010). www.fasebj.org

The COVID-19 pandemic has had a large and varying impact on primary care. This paper studies changes in the tasks of general practitioners (GPs) and associated staff during the COVID-19 pandemic. Data from the PRICOV-19 study of 5093 GPs in 38 countries were used. We constructed a scale for task changes and performed multilevel analyses. The scale was reliable at both GP and country level. Clustering of task changes at country level was considerable (25%). During the pandemic, staff members were more involved in giving information and recommendations to patients contacting the practice by phone, and they were more involved in triage. GPs took on additional responsibilities and were more involved in reaching out to patients. Problems due to staff absence, when dealt with internally, were related to more task changes. Task changes were larger in practices employing a wider range of professional groups. Whilst GPs were happy with the task changes in practices with more changes, they also felt the need for further training. A higher-than-average proportion of elderly people and people with a chronic condition in the practice were related to task changes. The number of infections in a country during the first wave of the pandemic was related to task changes. Other characteristics at country level were not associated with task changes. Future research on the sustainability of task changes after the pandemic is needed.