[EEG of natives of the Congo and their racial differences].

P. Verhaegen

1956-12-01

Abstract:

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Reporting quality in preclinical animal experimental research in 2009 and 2018: A nationwide systematic investigation

Birgitte S. Kousholt,Kirstine F. Præstegaard,Jennifer C. Stone,Anders Fick Thomsen,Thea Thougaard Johansen,Merel Ritskes-Hoitinga,Gregers Wegener

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0275962

IF: 3.7

2022-11-03

PLoS ONE

Abstract:Lack of translation and irreproducibility challenge preclinical animal research. Insufficient reporting methodologies to safeguard study quality is part of the reason. This nationwide study investigates the reporting prevalence of these methodologies and scrutinizes the reported information’s level of detail. Publications were from two time periods to convey any reporting progress and had at least one author affiliated to a Danish University. We retrieved all relevant animal experimental studies using a predefined research protocol and a systematic search. A random sampling of 250 studies from 2009 and 2018 led to 500 publications in total. Reporting of measures known to impact study results estimates were assessed. Part I discloses a simplified two-level scoring “yes/no” to identify the presence of reporting. Part II demonstrates an additional three-level scoring to analyze the reported information’s level of detail. Overall reporting prevalence is low, although minor improvements are noted. Reporting of randomization increased from 24.0% in 2009 to 40.8% in 2018, blinded experiment conduct from 2.4% to 4.4%, blinded outcome assessment from 23.6% to 38.0%, and sample size calculation from 3.2% to 14.0%. Poor reporting of details is striking with reporting of the random allocation method to groups being only 1.2% in 2009 and 6.0% in 2018. Reporting of sample size calculation method was 2.4% in 2009 and 7.6% in 2018. Only conflict-of-interest statements reporting increased from 37.6% in 2009 to 90.4%. Measures safeguarding study quality are poorly reported in publications affiliated with Danish research institutions. Only a modest improvement was noted during the period 2009–2018, and the lack of details urgently prompts institutional strategies to accelerate this. We suggest thorough teaching in designing, conducting and reporting animal studies. Education in systematic review methodology should be implemented in this training and will increase motivation and behavior working towards quality improvements in science.

multidisciplinary sciences
Impact of quality and transparency in scientific writing on the reduction of animal usage in experimental protocols: a review based in pertinent literature

Matheus M. Neves,Sandra G. Klein,Ray C. Silva,Lucas M. M. Bernardes,Serena M. Malta,Thiago N. Vieira,Rafael B. Rosa,Isabela L. Lima,Flávia B. Ferreira,Murilo V. Silva

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2024.1394113

IF: 3.471

2024-05-30

Frontiers in Veterinary Science

Abstract:The irreproducibility in scientific research has become a critical issue. Despite the essential role of rigorous methodology in constructing a scientific article, more than half of publications, on average, are considered non-reproducible. The implications of this irreproducibility extend to reliability problems, hindering progress in technological production and resulting in substantial financial losses. In the context of laboratory animal research, this work emphasizes the importance of choosing an appropriate experimental model within the 3R's principle (Refine, Reduce, Replace). This study specifically addresses a deficiency in data specification in scientific articles, revealing inadequacies in the description of crucial details, such as environmental conditions, diet, and experimental procedures. For this purpose, 124 articles from journals with relevant impact factors were analyzed, conducting a survey of data considered important for the reproducibility of studies. Important flaws in the presentation of data were identified in most of the articles evaluated. The results of this study highlight the need to improve the description of essential information, standardizing studies, and ensuring the reproducibility of experiments in areas such as metabolism, immunity, hormones, stress, among others, to enhance the reliability and reproduction of experimental results, aligning with international guidelines such as ARRIVE and PREPARE.

veterinary sciences
Impact of a short version of the CONSORT checklist for peer reviewers to improve the reporting of randomised controlled trials published in biomedical journals: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

Benjamin Speich,Sara Schroter,Matthias Briel,David Moher,Iratxe Puebla,Alejandra Clark,Michael Maia Schlüssel,Philippe Ravaud,Isabelle Boutron,Sally Hopewell

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-035114

IF: 3.006

2020-03-01

BMJ Open

Abstract:Introduction Transparent and accurate reporting is essential for readers to adequately interpret the results of a study. Journals can play a vital role in improving the reporting of published randomised controlled trials (RCTs). We describe an RCT to evaluate our hypothesis that asking peer reviewers to check whether the most important and poorly reported CONsolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) items are adequately reported will result in higher adherence to CONSORT guidelines in published RCTs. Methods and analysis Manuscripts presenting the primary results of RCTs submitted to participating journals will be randomised to either the intervention group (peer reviewers will receive a reminder and short explanation of the 10 most important and poorly reported CONSORT items; they will be asked to check if these items are reported in the submitted manuscript) or a control group (usual journal practice). The primary outcome will be the mean proportion of the 10 items that are adequately reported in the published articles. Peer reviewers and manuscript authors will not be informed of the study hypothesis, design or intervention. Outcomes will be assessed in duplicate from published articles by two data extractors (at least one blinded to the intervention). We will enrol eligible manuscripts until a minimum of 83 articles per group (166 in total) are published. Ethics and dissemination This pragmatic RCT was approved by the Medical Sciences Interdivisional Research Ethics Committee of the University of Oxford (R62779/RE001). If this intervention is effective, it could be implemented by all medical journals without requiring large additional resources at journal level. Findings will be disseminated through presentations in relevant conferences and peer-reviewed publications. This trial is registered on the Open Science Framework ( https://osf.io/c4hn8 ).

medicine, general & internal
Improving research transparency with individualized report cards: A feasibility study in clinical trials at a large university medical center

Delwen L. Franzen,Maia Salholz-Hillel,Stephanie Müller-Ohlraun,Daniel Strech

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.02.10.24302619

2024-02-23

Abstract:Research transparency is crucial for ensuring the relevance, integrity, and reliability of scientific findings. However, previous work indicates room for improvement across transparency practices. The primary objective of this study was to develop an extensible tool to provide individualized feedback and guidance for improved transparency across phases of a study. Our secondary objective was to assess the feasibility of implementing this tool to improve transparency in clinical trials. We developed study-level “report cards” that combine tailored feedback and guidance to investigators across several transparency practices, including prospective registration, availability of summary results, and open access publication. The report cards were generated through an automated pipeline for scalability. We also developed an infosheet to summarize relevant laws, guidelines, and resources relating to transparency. To assess the feasibility of using these tools to improve transparency, we conducted a single-arm intervention study at Berlin’s university medical center, the Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin. Investigators (n = 92) of 155 clinical trials were sent individualized report cards and the infosheet, and surveyed to assess their perceived usefulness. We also evaluated included trials for improvements in transparency following the intervention. Survey responses indicated general appreciation for the report cards and infosheet, with a majority of participants finding them helpful to build awareness of the transparency of their trial and transparency requirements. However, improvement on transparency practices was minimal and largely limited to linking publications in registries. Investigators also commented on various challenges associated with implementing transparency, including a lack of clarity around best practices and institutional hurdles. This study demonstrates the potential of developing and using tools, such as report cards, to provide individualized feedback at scale to investigators on the transparency of their study. While these tools were positively received by investigators, the limited improvement in transparency practices suggests that awareness alone is likely not sufficient to drive improvement. Future research and implementation efforts may adapt the tools to further practices or research areas, and explore integrated approaches that combine the report cards with incentives and institutional support to effectively strengthen transparency in research.

Medical Ethics
Clinical research projects at a German medical faculty: follow-up from ethical approval to publication and citation by others

A Blümle,G Antes,M Schumacher,H Just,E von Elm,A Blumle

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/jme.2008.024521

2008-09-01

Journal of Medical Ethics

Abstract:BACKGROUND: Only data of published study results are available to the scientific community for further use such as informing future research and synthesis of available evidence. If study results are reported selectively, reporting bias and distortion of summarised estimates of effect or harm of treatments can occur. The publication and citation of results of clinical research conducted in Germany was studied.METHODS: The protocols of clinical research projects submitted to the research ethics committee of the University of Freiburg (Germany) in 2000 were analysed. Published full articles in several databases were searched and investigators contacted. Data on study and publication characteristics were extracted from protocols and corresponding publications.RESULTS: 299 study protocols were included. The most frequent study design was randomised controlled trial (141; 47%), followed by uncontrolled studies (61; 20%), laboratory studies (30; 10%) and non-randomised studies (29; 10%). 182 (61%) were multicentre studies including 97 (53%) international collaborations. 152 of 299 (51%) had commercial (co-)funding and 46 (15%) non-commercial funding. 109 of the 225 completed protocols corresponded to at least one full publication (total 210 articles); the publication rate was 48%. 168 of 210 identified publications (80%) were cited in articles indexed in the ISI Web of Science. The median was 11 citations per publication (range 0-1151).CONCLUSIONS: Results of German clinical research projects conducted are largely underreported. Barriers to successful publication need to be identified and appropriate measures taken. Close monitoring of projects until publication and adequate support provided to investigators may help remedy the prevailing underreporting of research.

ethics,medical ethics,social issues,social sciences, biomedical
Self-audits as alternatives to travel-audits for improving data quality in the Caribbean, Central and South America network for HIV epidemiology

Sarah C Lotspeich,Mark J Giganti,Marcelle Maia,Renalice Vieira,Daisy Maria Machado,Regina Célia Succi,Sayonara Ribeiro,Mario Sergio Pereira,Maria Fernanda Rodriguez,Gaetane Julmiste,Marco Tulio Luque,Yanink Caro-Vega,Fernando Mejia,Bryan E Shepherd,Catherine C McGowan,Stephany N Duda

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/cts.2019.442

2019-12-26

Abstract:Introduction: Audits play a critical role in maintaining the integrity of observational cohort data. While previous work has validated the audit process, sending trained auditors to sites ("travel-audits") can be costly. We investigate the efficacy of training sites to conduct "self-audits." Methods: In 2017, eight research groups in the Caribbean, Central, and South America network for HIV Epidemiology each audited a subset of their patient records randomly selected by the data coordinating center at Vanderbilt. Designated investigators at each site compared abstracted research data to the original clinical source documents and captured audit findings electronically. Additionally, two Vanderbilt investigators performed on-site travel-audits at three randomly selected sites (one adult and two pediatric) in late summer 2017. Results: Self- and travel-auditors, respectively, reported that 93% and 92% of 8919 data entries, captured across 28 unique clinical variables on 65 patients, were entered correctly. Across all entries, 8409 (94%) received the same assessment from self- and travel-auditors (7988 correct and 421 incorrect). Of 421 entries mutually assessed as "incorrect," 304 (82%) were corrected by both self- and travel-auditors and 250 of these (72%) received the same corrections. Reason for changing antiretroviral therapy (ART) regimen, ART end date, viral load value, CD4%, and HIV diagnosis date had the most mismatched corrections. Conclusions: With similar overall error rates, findings suggest that data audits conducted by trained local investigators could provide an alternative to on-site audits by external auditors to ensure continued data quality. However, discrepancies observed between corrections illustrate challenges in determining correct values even with audits.
A survey of experts to identify methods to detect problematic studies: Stage 1 of the INSPECT-SR Project

Jack Wilkinson,Calvin Heal,George A Antoniou,Ella Flemyng,Alison Avenell,Virginia Barbour,Esmee M Bordewijk,Nicholas J L Brown,Mike Clarke,Jo Dumville,Steph Grohmann,Lyle C Gurrin,Jill A Hayden,Kylie E Hunter,Emily Lam,Toby Lasserson,Tianjing Li,Sarah Lensen,Jianping Liu,Andreas Lundh,Gideon Meyerowitz-Katz,Ben W Mol,Neil E O'Connell,Lisa Parker,Barbara Redman,Anna Lene Seidler,Kyle Sheldrick,Emma Sydenham,Darren L Dahly,Madelon van Wely,Lisa Bero,Jamie J Kirkham

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2024.111512

2024-08-31

Abstract:Background: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) inform healthcare decisions. Unfortunately, some published RCTs contain false data, and some appear to have been entirely fabricated. Systematic reviews are performed to identify and synthesise all RCTs which have been conducted on a given topic. This means that any of these 'problematic studies' are likely to be included, but there are no agreed methods for identifying them. The INSPECT-SR project is developing a tool to identify problematic RCTs in systematic reviews of healthcare-related interventions. The tool will guide the user through a series of 'checks' to determine a study's authenticity. The first objective in the development process is to assemble a comprehensive list of checks to consider for inclusion. Methods: We assembled an initial list of checks for assessing the authenticity of research studies, with no restriction to RCTs, and categorised these into five domains: Inspecting results in the paper; Inspecting the research team; Inspecting conduct, governance, and transparency; Inspecting text and publication details; Inspecting the individual participant data. We implemented this list as an online survey, and invited people with expertise and experience of assessing potentially problematic studies to participate through professional networks and online forums. Participants were invited to provide feedback on the checks on the list, and were asked to describe any additional checks they knew of, which were not featured in the list. Results: Extensive feedback on an initial list of 102 checks was provided by 71 participants based in 16 countries across five continents. Fourteen new checks were proposed across the five domains, and suggestions were made to reword checks on the initial list. An updated list of checks was constructed, comprising 116 checks. Many participants expressed a lack of familiarity with statistical checks, and emphasized the importance of feasibility of the tool. Conclusions: A comprehensive list of trustworthiness checks has been produced. The checks will be evaluated to determine which should be included in the INSPECT-SR tool.
SCYL1BP1 has tumor-suppressive functions in human lung squamous carcinoma cells by regulating degradation of MDM2.

Zhi-Ping Yang,Yonghong Xie,D. Ling,Jin-Rui Li,Jin Jiang,Yaohua Fan,Jia-Lian Zheng,Wan-xin Wu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.7314/APJCP.2014.15.17.7467

2014-09-15

Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention

Abstract:SCY1-like 1-binding protein 1 (SCYL1BP1) is a newly identified transcriptional activator domain containing protein with many unknown biological functions. Recently emerging evidence has revealed that it is a novel regulator of the p53 pathway, which is very important for the development of human cancer. However, the effects of SCYL1BP1 on human lung squamous carcinoma cell biological behavior remain poorly understood. In this study, we present evidence that SCYL1BP1 can promote the degradation of MDM2 protein and further inhibit the G1/S transition of lung squamous carcinoma cell lines. Functional assays found that reintroduction of SCYL1BP1 into lung squamous carcinoma cell lines significantly inhibited cell proliferation, migration, invasion and tumor formation in nude mice, suggesting strong tumor suppressive function of SCYL1BP1 in lung squamous carcinoma. Taken together, our data suggest that the interaction of SCYL1BP1/MDM2 could accelerate MDM2 degradation, and may function as an important tumor suppressor in lung squamous carcinomas.
Statistical Review of Animal trials -- A Guideline

Sophie K. Piper,Dario Zocholl,Ulf Toelch,Robert Roehle,Andrea Stroux,Johanna Hößler,Anne Kujawa,Frank Konietschke

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2110.15795

2021-11-21

Abstract:Examinations of any experiment involving living organisms require justifications of the need and moral defensibleness of the study. Statistical planning, design and sample size calculation of the experiment are no less important review criteria than general medical and ethical points to consider. Errors made in the statistical planning and data evaluation phase can have severe consequences on both results and conclusions. They might proliferate and thus impact future trials-an unintended outcome of fundamental research with profound ethical consequences. Therefore, any trial must be efficient in both a medical and statistical way in answering the questions of interests to be considered as approvable. Unified statistical standards are currently missing for animal review boards in Germany. In order to accompany, we developed a biometric form to be filled and handed in with the proposal at the local authority on animal welfare. It addresses relevant points to consider for biostatistical planning of animal experiments and can help both the applicants and the reviewers in overseeing the entire experiment(s) planned. Furthermore, the form might also aid in meeting the current standards set by the 3+3R's principle of animal experimentation Replacement, Reduction, Refinement as well as Robustness, Registration and Reporting. The form has already been in use by the local authority of animal welfare in Berlin, Germany. In addition, we provide reference to our user guide giving more detailed explanation and examples for each section of the biometric form. Unifying the set of biostatistical aspects will help both the applicants and the reviewers to equal standards and increase quality of preclinical research projects, also for translational, multicenter, or international studies.

Applications
Opportunities to improve the impact of two national clinical audit programmes: a theory-guided analysis

T. A. Willis,S. Wood,J. Brehaut,H. Colquhoun,B. Brown,F. Lorencatto,R. Foy

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s43058-022-00275-5

2022-03-21

Implementation Science Communications

Abstract:Abstract Background Audit and feedback is widely used in healthcare improvement, with evidence of modest yet potentially important effects upon professional practice. There are approximately 60 national clinical audit programmes in the UK. These programmes often develop and adapt new ways of delivering feedback to optimise impacts on clinical practice. Two such programmes, the National Diabetes Audit (NDA) and the Trauma Audit Research Network (TARN), recently introduced changes to their delivery of feedback. We assessed the extent to which the design of these audit programmes and their recent changes were consistent with best practice according to the Clinical Performance Feedback Intervention Theory (CP-FIT). This comprehensive framework specifies how variables related to the feedback itself, the recipient, and the context operate via explanatory mechanisms to influence feedback success. Methods We interviewed 19 individuals with interests in audit and feedback, including researchers, audit managers, healthcare staff, and patient and public representatives. This range of expert perspectives enabled a detailed exploration of feedback from the audit programmes. We structured interviews around the CP-FIT feedback cycle and its component processes (e.g. Data collection and analysis, Interaction). Our rapid analytic approach explored the extent to which both audits applied features consistent with CP-FIT. Results Changes introduced by the audit programmes were consistent with CP-FIT. Specifically, the NDA’s increased frequency of feedback augmented existing strengths, such as automated processes (CP-FIT component: Data collection and analysis) and being a credible source of feedback (Acceptance). TARN’s new analytic tool allowed greater interactivity, enabling recipients to interrogate their data (Verification; Acceptance). We also identified scope for improvement in feedback cycles, such as targeting of feedback recipients (Interaction) and feedback complexity (Perception) for the NDA and specifying recommendations (Intention) and demonstrating impact (Clinical performance improvement) for TARN. Conclusions The changes made by the two audit programmes appear consistent with suggested best practice, making clinical improvement more likely. However, observed weaknesses in the feedback cycle may limit the benefits of these changes. Applying CP-FIT via a rapid analysis approach helps identify strengths and remediable weaknesses in the design of audit programmes that can be shared with them in a timely manner.
A quality improvement programme in radiotherapy using workflow audits

R P Abratt,M Rautenbach,Y Govender,I Oelofse

DOI: https://doi.org/10.7196/SAMJ.2021.v111i2.15310

2021-02-01

Abstract:Background: Evaluation of the quality of healthcare depends on measures of structures, processes and outcomes. Progress in recording data allows for better measures of processes, such as the completeness of clinical data, the performance of professional tasks and the use of checklists. Objectives: To report the results of a radiotherapy (RT) workflow audit and a subsequent online survey of user experience. Methods: The RT workflow audit was developed in 2016 and has been undertaken twice a year at 28 facilities or units, with a total of 32 linear accelerators. Electronic patient folders were reviewed to assess the documentation of 90 task items, of which 64 were scored. The auditor came from another facility. The online survey took place in July 2020. It contained questions on the audit's process, professional value and future use. Invitations were sent by email to the 151 radiotherapist staff at the 28 units where the audit had been implemented. Responses were anonymous. Results: For the RT workflow audit, scores improved from 60% in some units in 2016 to >90% in all units for at least 2 years since 2018. The number of responders to the online survey was 58, giving a responder rate of 38%. The margin of error of the results was 10%. The audit's task items were considered appropriate by 77% of responders, and feedback was reported by 78% of them. The audit was considered very or extremely valuable to their unit's service delivery by 58% of responders. Changes in the unit as a result of the audit were reported by 77% of responders. The audit was very useful or extremely useful to 75% of responders in maintaining personal professional standards. The proportion of responders who were very or extremely supportive of continuing with the audit was 77%. The comments in the online survey will be helpful for ongoing review of the RT workflow audit. Conclusions: The RT workflow audit extends the scope of accreditation audits by including measures of processes. Users of the audit evaluate its processes favourably and report that it has value both in their unit's clinical service and for their personal professional standards. The audit is effective in developing quality improvement programmes.
Development of ARCADIA: a tool for assessing the quality of peer-review reports in biomedical research

Cecilia Superchi,Darko Hren,David Blanco,Roser Rius,Alessandro Recchioni,Isabelle Boutron,José Antonio González

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-035604

IF: 3.006

2020-06-08

BMJ Open

Abstract:Objective: To develop a tool to assess the quality of peer-review reports in biomedical research. Methods: We conducted an online survey intended for biomedical editors and authors. The survey aimed to (1) determine if participants endorse the proposed definition of peer-review report quality; (2) identify the most important items to include in the final version of the tool and (3) identify any missing items. Participants rated on a 5-point scale whether an item should be included in the tool and they were also invited to comment on the importance and wording of each item. Principal component analysis was performed to examine items redundancy and a general inductive approach was used for qualitative data analysis. Results: A total of 446 biomedical editors and authors participated in the survey. Participants were mainly male (65.9%), middle-aged (mean=50.3, SD=13) and with PhD degrees (56.4%). The majority of participants (84%) agreed on the definition of peer-review report quality we proposed. The 20 initial items included in the survey questionnaire were generally highly rated with a mean score ranging from 3.38 (SD=1.13) to 4.60 (SD=0.69) (scale 1-5). Participants suggested 13 items that were not included in the initial list of items. A steering committee composed of five members with different expertise discussed the selection of items to include in the final version of the tool. The final checklist includes 14 items encompassed in five domains (Importance of the study, Robustness of the study methods, Interpretation and discussion of the study results, Reporting and transparency of the manuscript, Characteristics of peer reviewer's comments). Conclusion: Assessment of Review reports with a Checklist Available to eDItors and Authors tool could be used regularly by editors to evaluate the reviewers' work, and also as an outcome when evaluating interventions to improve the peer-review process.
Repetition and reproduction of preclinical medical studies: taking a leaf from the plant sciences with consideration of generalised systematic errors

Jeremy S. C. Clark,Anna Salacka,Agnieszka Boron,Thierry van de Wetering,Konrad Podsiadlo,Kamila Rydzewska,Krzysztof Safranow,Kazimierz Ciechanowski,Leszek Domanski,Andrzej Ciechanowicz

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2201.10960

2022-01-26

Abstract:Reproduction of pre-clinical results has a high failure rate. The fundamental methodology including replication ("protocol") for hypothesis testing/validation to a state allowing inference, varies within medical and plant sciences with little justification. Here, five protocols are distinguished which deal differently with systematic/random errors and vary considerably in result veracity. Aim: to compare prevalence of protocols (defined in text). Medical/plant science articles from 2017/2019 were surveyed: 713 random articles assessed for eligibility for counts: first (with p-values): 1) non-replicated; 2) global; 3) triple-result protocols; second: 4) replication-error protocol; 5) meta-analyses. Inclusion criteria: human/plant/fungal studies with categorical groups. Exclusion criteria: phased clinical trials, pilot studies, cases, reviews, technology, rare subjects, -omic studies. Abbreviated PICOS question: which protocol was evident for a main result with categorically distinct group difference(s) ? Electronic sources: Journal Citation Reports 2017/2019, Google. Triplication prevalence differed dramatically between sciences (both years p<10-16; cluster-adjusted chi-squared tests): From 320 studies (80/science/year): in 2017, 53 (66%, 95% confidence interval (C.I.) 56%:77%) and in 2019, 48 (60%, C.I. 49%:71%) plant studies had triple-result or triplicated global protocols, compared with, in both years, 4 (5%, C.I. 0.19%:9.8%) medical studies. Plant sciences had a higher prevalence of protocols more likely to counter generalised systematic errors (the most likely cause of false positives) and random error than non-replicated protocols, without suffering from serious flaws found with random-Institutes protocols. It is suggested that a triple-result (organised-reproduction) protocol, with Institute consortia, is likely to solve most problems connected with the replicability crisis.

Quantitative Methods
A Scalable Service to Improve Health Care Quality Through Precision Audit and Feedback: Proposal for a Randomized Controlled Trial

Zach Landis-Lewis,Allen Flynn,Allison Janda,Nirav Shah

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2196/34990

2022-05-10

Abstract:Background: Health care delivery organizations lack evidence-based strategies for using quality measurement data to improve performance. Audit and feedback (A&F), the delivery of clinical performance summaries to providers, demonstrates the potential for large effects on clinical practice but is currently implemented as a blunt one size fits most intervention. Each provider in a care setting typically receives a performance summary of identical metrics in a common format despite the growing recognition that precisionizing interventions hold significant promise in improving their impact. A precision approach to A&F prioritizes the display of information in a single metric that, for each recipient, carries the highest value for performance improvement, such as when the metric's level drops below a peer benchmark or minimum standard for the first time, thereby revealing an actionable performance gap. Furthermore, precision A&F uses an optimal message format (including framing and visual displays) based on what is known about the recipient and the intended gist meaning being communicated to improve message interpretation while reducing the cognitive processing burden. Well-established psychological principles, frameworks, and theories form a feedback intervention knowledge base to achieve precision A&F. From an informatics perspective, precision A&F requires a knowledge-based system that enables mass customization by representing knowledge configurable at the group and individual levels. Objective: This study aims to implement and evaluate a demonstration system for precision A&F in anesthesia care and to assess the effect of precision feedback emails on care quality and outcomes in a national quality improvement consortium. Methods: We propose to achieve our aims by conducting 3 studies: a requirements analysis and preferences elicitation study using human-centered design and conjoint analysis methods, a software service development and implementation study, and a cluster randomized controlled trial of a precision A&F service with a concurrent process evaluation. This study will be conducted with the Multicenter Perioperative Outcomes Group, a national anesthesia quality improvement consortium with >60 member hospitals in >20 US states. This study will extend the Multicenter Perioperative Outcomes Group quality improvement infrastructure by using existing data and performance measurement processes. Results: The proposal was funded in September 2021 with a 4-year timeline. Data collection for Aim 1 began in March 2022. We plan for a 24-month trial timeline, with the intervention period of the trial beginning in March 2024. Conclusions: The proposed aims will collectively demonstrate a precision feedback service developed using an open-source technical infrastructure for computable knowledge management. By implementing and evaluating a demonstration system for precision feedback, we create the potential to observe the conditions under which feedback interventions are effective. International registered report identifier (irrid): PRR1-10.2196/34990.
Balancing best practice and reality in behavioral intervention development: A survey of principal investigators funded by the National Institutes of Health

Lauren von Klinggraeff,Sarah Burkart,Christopher D Pfledderer,Alexander McLain,Bridget Armstrong,R Glenn Weaver,Michael W Beets

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/tbm/ibae009

2024-03-16

Translational Behavioral Medicine

Abstract:Abstract Preliminary studies play a prominent role in the development of large-scale behavioral interventions. Though recommendations exist to guide the execution and interpretation of preliminary studies, these assume optimal scenarios which may clash with realities faced by researchers. The purpose of this study was to explore how principal investigators (PIs) balance expectations when conducting preliminary studies. We surveyed PIs funded by the National Institutes of Health to conduct preliminary behavioral interventions between 2000 and 2020. Four hundred thirty-one PIs (19% response rate) completed the survey (November 2021 to January 2022, 72% female, mean 21 years post-terminal degree). Most PIs were aware of translational models and believed preliminary studies should precede larger trials but also believed a single preliminary study provided sufficient evidence to scale. When asked about the relative importance of preliminary efficacy (i.e. changes in outcomes) and feasibility (i.e. recruitment, acceptance/adherence) responses varied. Preliminary studies were perceived as necessary to successfully compete for research funding, but among PIs who had peer-reviewed federal-level grants applications (n = 343 [80%]), responses varied about what should be presented to secure funding. Confusion surrounding the definition of a successful, informative preliminary study poses a significant challenge when developing behavior interventions. This may be due to a mismatch between expectations surrounding preliminary studies and the realities of the research enterprise in which they are conducted. To improve the quality of preliminary studies and advance the field of behavioral interventions, additional funding opportunities, more transparent criteria in grant reviews, and additional training for grant reviewers are suggested.

public, environmental & occupational health
Assessing the feasibility and impact of clinical trial trustworthiness checks via an application to Cochrane Reviews: Stage 2 of the INSPECT-SR project

Jack D Wilkinson,Calvin Heal,Georgios Antoniou,Ella Flemyng,Love Ahnström,Alessandra Alteri,Alison Avenell,Timothy Hugh Barker,David N Borg,Nicholas J. L. Brown,Rob Buhmann,Jose A. Calvache,Rickard Carlsson,Lesley-Anne Carter,Aidan G Cashin,Sarah Cotterill,Kenneth Färnqvist,Michael C Ferraro,Steph Grohmann,Lyle C Gurrin,Jill A Hayden,Kylie E Hunter,Natalie Hyltse,Lukas Jung,Ashma Krishan,Silvy Laporte,Toby J Lasserson,David RT Laursen,Sarah Lensen,Wentao Li,Tianjing Li,Jianping Liu,Clara Locher,Zewen Lu,Andreas Lundh,Antonia Marsden,Gideon Meyerowitz-Katz,Ben W Mol,Zachary Munn,Florian Naudet,David Nunan,Neil E O'Connell,Natasha Olsson,Lisa Parker,Eleftheria Patetsini,Barbara Redman,Sarah Rhodes,Rachel Richardson,Martin Ringsten,Ewelina Rogozińska,Anna Lene Seidler,Kyle Sheldrick,Katie Stocking,Emma Sydenham,Hugh Thomas,Sofia Tsokani,Constant Vinatier,Colby J Vorland,Rui Wang,Bassel H. Al Wattar,Florencia Weber,Stephanie Weibel,Madelon van Wely,Chang Xu,Lisa Bero,Jamie J Kirkham

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.11.25.24316905

2024-11-26

Abstract:Background The aim of the INSPECT-SR project is to develop a tool to identify problematic RCTs in systematic reviews. In Stage 1 of the project, a list of potential trustworthiness checks was created. The checks on this list must be evaluated to determine which should be included in the INSPECT-SR tool. Methods We attempted to apply 72 trustworthiness checks to RCTs in 50 Cochrane Reviews. For each, we recorded whether the check was passed, failed or possibly failed, or whether it was not feasible to complete the check. Following application of the checks, we recorded whether we had concerns about the authenticity of each RCT. We repeated each meta-analysis after removing RCTs flagged by each check, and again after removing RCTs where we had concerns about authenticity, to estimate the impact of trustworthiness assessment. Trustworthiness assessments were compared to Risk of Bias and GRADE assessments in the reviews. Results 95 RCTs were assessed. Following application of the checks, assessors had some or serious concerns about the authenticity of 25% and 6% of the RCTs, respectively. Removing RCTs with either some or serious concerns resulted in 22% of meta-analyses having no remaining RCTs. However, many checks proved difficult to understand or implement, which may have led to unwarranted scepticism in some instances. Furthermore, we restricted assessment to meta-analyses with no more than 5 RCTs, which will distort the impact on results. No relationship was identified between trustworthiness assessment and Risk of Bias or GRADE. Conclusions This study supports the case for routine trustworthiness assessment in systematic reviews, as problematic studies do not appear to be flagged by Risk of Bias assessment. The study produced evidence on the feasibility and impact of trustworthiness checks. These results will be used, in conjunction with those from a subsequent Delphi process, to determine which checks should be included in the INSPECT-SR tool.

Health Systems and Quality Improvement
Development of a data entry auditing protocol and quality assurance for a tissue bank database

Matloob Khushi,Jane E. Carpenter,Rosemary L. Balleine,Christine L. Clarke

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10561-011-9240-x

2011-02-18

Cell and Tissue Banking

Abstract:Human transcription error is an acknowledged risk when extracting information from paper records for entry into a database. For a tissue bank, it is critical that accurate data are provided to researchers with approved access to tissue bank material. The challenges of tissue bank data collection include manual extraction of data from complex medical reports that are accessed from a number of sources and that differ in style and layout. As a quality assurance measure, the Breast Cancer Tissue Bank (http:\\www.abctb.org.au) has implemented an auditing protocol and in order to efficiently execute the process, has developed an open source database plug-in tool (eAuditor) to assist in auditing of data held in our tissue bank database. Using eAuditor, we have identified that human entry errors range from 0.01% when entering donor’s clinical follow-up details, to 0.53% when entering pathological details, highlighting the importance of an audit protocol tool such as eAuditor in a tissue bank database. eAuditor was developed and tested on the Caisis open source clinical-research database; however, it can be integrated in other databases where similar functionality is required.

engineering, biomedical,cell biology
[Functional inhibition of isolated pancreatic cells, new technic for the detection of macrophage cytotoxicity].

M. Debray-Sachs,R. Assan,D. Bailey,J. Hamburger

1978-11-06

Abstract:It is usually accepted that macrophages "activated" by lymphokines may be found cytotoxic against tumoral target cells but show no detectable cytotoxicity in in vitro tests using normal non tumoral cells as target cells. These data have been obtained mainly with the chromium-release test. The present paper describes a new test using normal isolated pancreatic cells as target cells and evaluating the effect of activated or non-activated macrophages on the insulin secretion response to glucose stimulation. The results show a striking decrease in this response following an 18-hr incubation of pancreatic islet cells with activated macrophages, as compared to that of the same cells incubated with control macrophages. This is clear evidence that activated macrophages may alter normal cells and suggests that their cytotoxic properties are not restricted to tumoral target cells.
Is reporting quality in medical publications associated with biostatisticians as co-authors? A registered report protocol

Ulrike Held,Klaus Steigmiller,Michael Hediger,Martina Gosteli,Kelly A. Reeve,Stefanie von Felten,Eva Furrer

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0241897

IF: 3.7

2020-11-06

PLoS ONE

Abstract:Background Quality in medical research has recently been criticized for being low, especially in observational research. Methodology is increasingly difficult, but collaboration between clinical researchers and biostatisticians may improve research and reporting quality. The aim of this study is to quantify the value of a biostatistician in the team of authors. Methods Single-center, retrospective observational study following the STROBE reporting guidelines. We will systematically review all medical publications with biostatisticians from our center as co-authors or authors and review corresponding papers without biostatisticians from our center during the same time range. We will compare aspects of reporting quality, overall and for the three study types observational, randomized trial, and prognostic separately. Discussion We anticipate that the results of the study will raise awareness of the importance of high methodological quality, as well as appropriate reporting quality in clinical research. Conclusion Our study will have a direct impact on our center by making each of us more aware of the reporting guidelines for various research designs. This in turn will enhance reporting quality in future research with our involvement. Our study will also raise awareness of the important role that biostatisticians play in the design and analysis of health research projects.

multidisciplinary sciences
Risk of bias reporting in the recent animal focal cerebral ischaemia literature

Zsanett Bahor,Jing Liao,Malcolm R Macleod,Alexandra Bannach-Brown,Sarah K McCann,Kimberley E Wever,James Thomas,Thomas Ottavi,David W Howells,Andrew Rice,Sophia Ananiadou,Emily Sena

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1042/CS20160722

2017-10-12

Abstract:Background: Findings from in vivo research may be less reliable where studies do not report measures to reduce risks of bias. The experimental stroke community has been at the forefront of implementing changes to improve reporting, but it is not known whether these efforts are associated with continuous improvements. Our aims here were firstly to validate an automated tool to assess risks of bias in published works, and secondly to assess the reporting of measures taken to reduce the risk of bias within recent literature for two experimental models of stroke. Methods: We developed and used text analytic approaches to automatically ascertain reporting of measures to reduce risk of bias from full-text articles describing animal experiments inducing middle cerebral artery occlusion (MCAO) or modelling lacunar stroke. Results: Compared with previous assessments, there were improvements in the reporting of measures taken to reduce risks of bias in the MCAO literature but not in the lacunar stroke literature. Accuracy of automated annotation of risk of bias in the MCAO literature was 86% (randomization), 94% (blinding) and 100% (sample size calculation); and in the lacunar stroke literature accuracy was 67% (randomization), 91% (blinding) and 96% (sample size calculation). Discussion: There remains substantial opportunity for improvement in the reporting of animal research modelling stroke, particularly in the lacunar stroke literature. Further, automated tools perform sufficiently well to identify whether studies report blinded assessment of outcome, but improvements are required in the tools to ascertain whether randomization and a sample size calculation were reported.

[EEG of natives of the Congo and their racial differences].

Reporting quality in preclinical animal experimental research in 2009 and 2018: A nationwide systematic investigation

Impact of quality and transparency in scientific writing on the reduction of animal usage in experimental protocols: a review based in pertinent literature

Impact of a short version of the CONSORT checklist for peer reviewers to improve the reporting of randomised controlled trials published in biomedical journals: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

Improving research transparency with individualized report cards: A feasibility study in clinical trials at a large university medical center

Clinical research projects at a German medical faculty: follow-up from ethical approval to publication and citation by others

Self-audits as alternatives to travel-audits for improving data quality in the Caribbean, Central and South America network for HIV epidemiology

A survey of experts to identify methods to detect problematic studies: Stage 1 of the INSPECT-SR Project

SCYL1BP1 has tumor-suppressive functions in human lung squamous carcinoma cells by regulating degradation of MDM2.

Statistical Review of Animal trials -- A Guideline

Opportunities to improve the impact of two national clinical audit programmes: a theory-guided analysis

A quality improvement programme in radiotherapy using workflow audits

Development of ARCADIA: a tool for assessing the quality of peer-review reports in biomedical research

Repetition and reproduction of preclinical medical studies: taking a leaf from the plant sciences with consideration of generalised systematic errors

A Scalable Service to Improve Health Care Quality Through Precision Audit and Feedback: Proposal for a Randomized Controlled Trial

Balancing best practice and reality in behavioral intervention development: A survey of principal investigators funded by the National Institutes of Health

Assessing the feasibility and impact of clinical trial trustworthiness checks via an application to Cochrane Reviews: Stage 2 of the INSPECT-SR project

Development of a data entry auditing protocol and quality assurance for a tissue bank database

[Functional inhibition of isolated pancreatic cells, new technic for the detection of macrophage cytotoxicity].

Is reporting quality in medical publications associated with biostatisticians as co-authors? A registered report protocol

Risk of bias reporting in the recent animal focal cerebral ischaemia literature