Clinicians were oblivious to incorrect logging of test dates and the associated risks in an online pathology application: a case study

Background UK primary care physicians receive their laboratory test results electronically. This study reports a computerised physician order entry (CPOE) system error in the pathology test request date that went unnoticed in family practices.Method We conducted a case study using a causation of risk theoretical framework; comprising interviews with clinicians and the manufacturer to explore the identification of and reaction to the error. The primary outcome was the evolution and  recognition of and response to the problem. The secondary outcome was to identify other issues with this system noted by users.Results The problem was defined as the incorrect logging of test dates ordered through a CPOE system. The system assigned the test request date to the results, hence a blood test taken after a therapeutic intervention (e.g. an increase in cholesterol-lowering therapy) would appear in the computerised medical record as though it had been tested prior to the increase in treatment. This case demonstrates that: the manufacturers failed to understand family physician workflow; regulation of medical software did not prevent the error; and inherent user trust in technology exacerbated this problem. It took three months before users in two practices independently noted the date errors.Conclusion This case illustrates how users take software on trust and suppliers fail to make provision for risks associated with new software. Resulting errors led to inappropriate prescribing, follow-up, costs and risk. The evaluation of such devices should include utilising risk management processes (RMP) to minimise and manage potential risk

Contribution of a Common Variant in the Promoter of the 1-α-Hydroxylase Gene (CYP27B1) to Fracture Risk in the Elderly

CYP27B1 encodes mitochondrial 1α-hydroxylase, which converts 25-hydroxyvitamin D to its active 1,25-dihydroxylated metabolite. We tested the hypothesis that common variants in the CYP27B1 promoter are associated with fracture risk. The study was designed as a population-based genetic association study, which involved 153 men and 596 women aged 65–101 years, who had been followed for 2.2 years (range 0.1–5.5) between 1999 and 2006. During the follow-up period, the incidence of fragility fractures was ascertained. Bone ultrasound attenuation (BUA) was measured in all individuals, as were serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D and PTH concentrations; 86% subjects had vitamin D insufficiency. Genotypes were determined for the –1260C>A (rs10877012) and +2838T>C (rs4646536) CYP27B1 polymorphisms. A reporter gene assay was used to assess functional expression of the –1260C>A CYP27B1 variants. The association between genotypes and fracture risk was analyzed by Cox’s proportional hazards model. We found that genotypic distribution of CYP27B1 –1260 and CYP27B1 +2838 polymorphisms was consistent with the Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium law. The two polymorphisms were in high linkage disequilibrium, with D′ = 0.96 and r2 = 0.94. Each C allele of the CYP27B1 –1260 polymorphism was associated with increased risk of fracture (hazard ratio = 1.34, 95% CI 1.03–1.73), after adjustment for age, sex, number of falls, and BUA. In transient transfection studies, a reporter gene downstream of the –1260(A)-containing promoter was more highly expressed than that containing the C allele. These data suggest that a common but functional variation within the CYP27B1 promoter gene is associated with fracture risk in the elderly

Crowdsourcing hypothesis tests: Making transparent how design choices shape research results

To what extent are research results influenced by subjective decisions that scientists make as they design studies? Fifteen research teams independently designed studies to answer fiveoriginal research questions related to moral judgments, negotiations, and implicit cognition. Participants from two separate large samples (total N > 15,000) were then randomly assigned to complete one version of each study. Effect sizes varied dramatically across different sets of materials designed to test the same hypothesis: materials from different teams renderedstatistically significant effects in opposite directions for four out of five hypotheses, with the narrowest range in estimates being d = -0.37 to +0.26. Meta-analysis and a Bayesian perspective on the results revealed overall support for two hypotheses, and a lack of support for three hypotheses. Overall, practically none of the variability in effect sizes was attributable to the skill of the research team in designing materials, while considerable variability was attributable to the hypothesis being tested. In a forecasting survey, predictions of other scientists were significantly correlated with study results, both across and within hypotheses. Crowdsourced testing of research hypotheses helps reveal the true consistency of empirical support for a scientific claim.</div

Examining the generalizability of research findings from archival data

This initiative examined systematically the extent to which a large set of archival research findings generalizes across contexts. We repeated the key analyses for 29 original strategic management effects in the same context (direct reproduction) as well as in 52 novel time periods and geographies; 45% of the reproductions returned results matching the original reports together with 55% of tests in different spans of years and 40% of tests in novel geographies. Some original findings were associated with multiple new tests. Reproducibility was the best predictor of generalizability—for the findings that proved directly reproducible, 84% emerged in other available time periods and 57% emerged in other geographies. Overall, only limited empirical evidence emerged for context sensitivity. In a forecasting survey, independent scientists were able to anticipate which effects would find support in tests in new samples

The impact of surgical delay on resectability of colorectal cancer: An international prospective cohort study

AIM: The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has provided a unique opportunity to explore the impact of surgical delays on cancer resectability. This study aimed to compare resectability for colorectal cancer patients undergoing delayed versus non-delayed surgery. METHODS: This was an international prospective cohort study of consecutive colorectal cancer patients with a decision for curative surgery (January-April 2020). Surgical delay was defined as an operation taking place more than 4 weeks after treatment decision, in a patient who did not receive neoadjuvant therapy. A subgroup analysis explored the effects of delay in elective patients only. The impact of longer delays was explored in a sensitivity analysis. The primary outcome was complete resection, defined as curative resection with an R0 margin. RESULTS: Overall, 5453 patients from 304 hospitals in 47 countries were included, of whom 6.6% (358/5453) did not receive their planned operation. Of the 4304 operated patients without neoadjuvant therapy, 40.5% (1744/4304) were delayed beyond 4 weeks. Delayed patients were more likely to be older, men, more comorbid, have higher body mass index and have rectal cancer and early stage disease. Delayed patients had higher unadjusted rates of complete resection (93.7% vs. 91.9%, P = 0.032) and lower rates of emergency surgery (4.5% vs. 22.5%, P < 0.001). After adjustment, delay was not associated with a lower rate of complete resection (OR 1.18, 95% CI 0.90-1.55, P = 0.224), which was consistent in elective patients only (OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.69-1.27, P = 0.672). Longer delays were not associated with poorer outcomes. CONCLUSION: One in 15 colorectal cancer patients did not receive their planned operation during the first wave of COVID-19. Surgical delay did not appear to compromise resectability, raising the hypothesis that any reduction in long-term survival attributable to delays is likely to be due to micro-metastatic disease

Competition and moral behavior: a meta-analysis of forty-five crowd-sourced experimental designs

Does competition affect moral behavior? This fundamental question has been debated among leading scholars for centuries, and more recently, it has been tested in experimental studies yielding a body of rather inconclusive empirical evidence. A potential source of ambivalent empirical results on the same hypothesis is design heterogeneity-variation in true effect sizes across various reasonable experimental research protocols. To provide further evidence on whether competition affects moral behavior and to examine whether the generalizability of a single experimental study is jeopardized by design heterogeneity, we invited independent research teams to contribute experimental designs to a crowd-sourced project. In a large-scale online data collection, 18,123 experimental participants were randomly allocated to 45 randomly selected experimental designs out of 95 submitted designs. We find a small adverse effect of competition on moral behavior in a meta-analysis of the pooled data. The crowd-sourced design of our study allows for a clean identification and estimation of the variation in effect sizes above and beyond what could be expected due to sampling variance. We find substantial design heterogeneity-estimated to be about 1.6 times as large as the average standard error of effect size estimates of the 45 research designs-indicating that the informativeness and generalizability of results based on a single experimental design are limited. Drawing strong conclusions about the underlying hypotheses in the presence of substantive design heterogeneity requires moving toward much larger data collections on various experimental designs testing the same hypothesis.For financial support, we thank the Austrian National Bank (grant 17788 to M. Kirchler), Austrian Science Fund (grants SFB F6307 to A.D.; SFB F6309 to J.H.; and SFB F6310 to M. Kirchler), Jan Wallander and Tom Hedelius Foundation (grant P21-0091 to A.D.), Knut and Alice Wallenberg Foundation (grant KAW 2018.0134 to A.D.), Marianne and Marcus Wallenberg Foundation (grant KAW 2019.0434; to A.D.), Radboud University Nijmegen (grant 2701437 to U.W.), and Riksbankens Jubileumsfond (grant P21-0168 to M. Johannesson)

Crowdsourcing hypothesis tests: making transparent how design choices shape research results

To what extent are research results influenced by subjective decisions that scientists make as they design studies? Fifteen research teams independently designed studies to answer five original research questions related to moral judgments, negotiations, and implicit cognition. Participants from two separate large samples (total N > 15,000) were then randomly assigned to complete one version of each study. Effect sizes varied dramatically across different sets of materials designed to test the same hypothesis: materials from different teams rendered statistically significant effects in opposite directions for four out of five hypotheses, with the narrowest range in estimates being d = -0.37 to +0.26. Meta-analysis and a Bayesian perspective on the results revealed overall support for two hypotheses, and a lack of support for three hypotheses. Overall, practically none of the variability in effect sizes was attributable to the skill of the research team in designing materials, while considerable variability was attributable to the hypothesis being tested. In a forecasting survey, predictions of other scientists were significantly correlated with study results, both across and within hypotheses. Crowdsourced testing of research hypotheses helps reveal the true consistency of empirical support for a scientific claim

The impact of surgical delay on resectability of colorectal cancer: An international prospective cohort study

AimThe SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has provided a unique opportunity to explore the impact of surgical delays on cancer resectability. This study aimed to compare resectability for colorectal cancer patients undergoing delayed versus non-delayed surgery.MethodsThis was an international prospective cohort study of consecutive colorectal cancer patients with a decision for curative surgery (January-April 2020). Surgical delay was defined as an operation taking place more than 4 weeks after treatment decision, in a patient who did not receive neoadjuvant therapy. A subgroup analysis explored the effects of delay in elective patients only. The impact of longer delays was explored in a sensitivity analysis. The primary outcome was complete resection, defined as curative resection with an R0 margin.ResultsOverall, 5453 patients from 304 hospitals in 47 countries were included, of whom 6.6% (358/5453) did not receive their planned operation. Of the 4304 operated patients without neoadjuvant therapy, 40.5% (1744/4304) were delayed beyond 4 weeks. Delayed patients were more likely to be older, men, more comorbid, have higher body mass index and have rectal cancer and early stage disease. Delayed patients had higher unadjusted rates of complete resection (93.7% vs. 91.9%, P = 0.032) and lower rates of emergency surgery (4.5% vs. 22.5%, P ConclusionOne in 15 colorectal cancer patients did not receive their planned operation during the first wave of COVID-19. Surgical delay did not appear to compromise resectability, raising the hypothesis that any reduction in long-term survival attributable to delays is likely to be due to micro-metastatic disease