Does information from ClinicalTrials.gov increase transparency and reduce bias? Results from a five-report case series

Background We investigated whether information in ClinicalTrials.gov would impact the conclusions of five ongoing systematic reviews. Method We considered five reviews that included 495 studies total. Each review team conducted a search of ClinicalTrials.gov up to the date of the review’s last literature search, screened the records using the review’s eligibility criteria, extracted information, and assessed risk of bias and applicability. Each team then evaluated the impact of the evidence found in ClinicalTrials.gov on the conclusions in the review. Results Across the five reviews, the number of studies that had both a registry record and a publication varied widely, from none in one review to 43% of all studies identified in another. Among the studies with both a record and publication, there was also wide variability in the match between published outcomes and those listed in ClinicalTrials.gov. Of the 173 total ClinicalTrials.gov records identified across the five projects, between 11 and 43% did not have an associated publication. In the 14% of records that contained results, the new data provided in the ClinicalTrials.gov records did not change the results or conclusions of the reviews. Finally, a large number of published studies were not registered in ClinicalTrials.gov, but many of these were published before ClinicalTrials.gov’s inception date of 2000. Conclusion Improved prospective registration of trials and consistent reporting of results in ClinicalTrials.gov would help make ClinicalTrials.gov records more useful in finding unpublished information and identifying potential biases. In addition, consistent indexing in databases, such as MEDLINE, would allow for better matching of records and publications, leading to increased utility of these searches for systematic review projects

Proceedings of the 3rd Biennial Conference of the Society for Implementation Research Collaboration (SIRC) 2015: advancing efficient methodologies through community partnerships and team science

It is well documented that the majority of adults, children and families in need of evidence-based behavioral health interventionsi do not receive them [1, 2] and that few robust empirically supported methods for implementing evidence-based practices (EBPs) exist. The Society for Implementation Research Collaboration (SIRC) represents a burgeoning effort to advance the innovation and rigor of implementation research and is uniquely focused on bringing together researchers and stakeholders committed to evaluating the implementation of complex evidence-based behavioral health interventions. Through its diverse activities and membership, SIRC aims to foster the promise of implementation research to better serve the behavioral health needs of the population by identifying rigorous, relevant, and efficient strategies that successfully transfer scientific evidence to clinical knowledge for use in real world settings [3]. SIRC began as a National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH)-funded conference series in 2010 (previously titled the “Seattle Implementation Research Conference”; $150,000 USD for 3 conferences in 2011, 2013, and 2015) with the recognition that there were multiple researchers and stakeholdersi working in parallel on innovative implementation science projects in behavioral health, but that formal channels for communicating and collaborating with one another were relatively unavailable. There was a significant need for a forum within which implementation researchers and stakeholders could learn from one another, refine approaches to science and practice, and develop an implementation research agenda using common measures, methods, and research principles to improve both the frequency and quality with which behavioral health treatment implementation is evaluated. SIRC’s membership growth is a testament to this identified need with more than 1000 members from 2011 to the present.ii SIRC’s primary objectives are to: (1) foster communication and collaboration across diverse groups, including implementation researchers, intermediariesi, as well as community stakeholders (SIRC uses the term “EBP champions” for these groups) – and to do so across multiple career levels (e.g., students, early career faculty, established investigators); and (2) enhance and disseminate rigorous measures and methodologies for implementing EBPs and evaluating EBP implementation efforts. These objectives are well aligned with Glasgow and colleagues’ [4] five core tenets deemed critical for advancing implementation science: collaboration, efficiency and speed, rigor and relevance, improved capacity, and cumulative knowledge. SIRC advances these objectives and tenets through in-person conferences, which bring together multidisciplinary implementation researchers and those implementing evidence-based behavioral health interventions in the community to share their work and create professional connections and collaborations

Delivering Wheeled Mobility and Seating Services

Presented at the Rehabilitation Engineering and Assistive Technology Society of North America (RESNA) Annual Conference, 2012, Baltimore, MD

Release of isolated single kinesin molecules from microtubules

ABSTRACT: Previous studies on the motor enzyme kinesin suggesting that the enzyme molecule tightly binds to a microtubule by only one of its two mechanochemical head domains were performed with multiple kinesin molecules on each microtubule, raising the possibility that interactions between adjacent bound molecules may interfere with the binding of the second head. To characterize the microtubulebound state of isolated single kinesin molecules, we have measured the rates of nucleotide-induced dissociation of the complex between microtubules and bead-labeled single molecules of the dimeric kinesin derivative K448-BIO using novel single-molecule kinetic methods. Complex dissociation by <2 µM ADP displays an apparent second-order rate constant of 1.2 × 10 4 M -1 s -1 . The data suggest that only one of the two heads is bound to the microtubule in the absence of ATP, that binding of a single ADP to the complex is sufficient to induce dissociation, and that even lengthy exposure of kinesin to the microtubule fails to produce significant amounts of a two-head-bound state under the conditions used. The inhibitor adenylyl imidodiphosphate (AMP-PNP) induces stochastic pauses in the movement of beadlabeled enzyme molecules in 1 mM ATP. Exit from pauses occurs at 2 s -1 independent of AMP-PNP concentration. The same rate constant is obtained for dissociation of the transient kinesin-microtubule complexes formed in 1 mM ADP, 0.5 mM AMP-PNP, suggesting that release of a single AMP-PNP molecule from the enzyme is the common rate-limiting step of the two processes. The results are consistent with alternating-sites movement mechanisms in which two-head-bound states do not occur in the enzyme catalytic cycle until after ATP binding. Kinesin and its homologs are motor enzymes that use the free energy derived from ATP hydrolysis to drive the movement of membrane-bounded organelles, chromosomes, and other subcellular structures along cytoplasmic microtubules (1). Kinesin is a heterotetramer of two heavy chains and two light chains (2-4). The N-terminal ∼340 amino acids of each heavy chain form a compact globular "head" domain with dimensions 7 × 4.5 × 4.5 nm (5). Studies of truncated heavy chain derivatives demonstrated that the head contains a single ATPase catalytic site (6) and is sufficient to generate movement of the enzyme along microtubules A variety of experimental results demonstrate that kinesin and its two-headed derivatives are "processive" motors that maintain a continuous association with the microtubule for multiple catalytic turnovers and multiple mechanical steps: (i) the ability of kinesin molecules to follow the tracks of microtubule protofilaments during movement (13-16), (ii) the ability of single kinesin molecules to move continuously for hundreds of nanometers along the microtubule without dissociation (17-20), (iii) measurements demonstrating that the ATPase k cat /K 1/2,microtubule is larger than either the measured rate constant for the kinesin-microtubule association reaction or the calculated maximum diffusion-limited rate constant of that reaction (21-23), and (iv) demonstration that nucleotide-stimulated release of kinesin from the microtubule is slower than k cat and thus cannot be a step in the turnover cycle Movement of kinesin along the microtubule is thought to involve repeated microtubule binding and dissociation by individual kinesin heads, with the binding and dissociation reactions induced by changes in the chemical species bound at the catalytic sites. Heads bind tightly to the microtubule in the absence of nucleotide or in the presence of the substrate analog andenylyl imidodiphosphate (AMP-PNP

Impact of heat treatment on Dirofilaria immitis antigen detection in shelter dogs

Abstract Background The diagnosis and management of canine heartworm disease is a growing concern for shelter veterinarians. Although the accuracy of commercial antigen test kits has been widely studied, recent reports have renewed interest in antigen blocking as a causative factor for false “no antigen detected” results. The objectives of this study were to determine the prevalence of false “no antigen detected” results in adult dogs entering shelters in northern, southern, and western regions of the country and to identify historical and clinical risk factors for such results. Methods Serum samples were evaluated for Dirofilaria immitis antigen using a commercially available point-of-care ELISA; samples in which no antigen was detected underwent a heat treatment protocol and repeat antigen testing. Whole blood samples underwent Knott testing to identify the presence of microfilariae. Historical and clinical findings were analyzed using exact logistic regression. Results A total of 616 samples were analyzed. Overall prevalence of positive antigen test results (prior to heat treatment) was 7.3% and frequency of false “no antigen detected” results due to antigen blocking (ie, samples with no antigen detected prior to heat treatment and positive after heat treatment) was 5.2%. Among dogs that had no detectable antigen on the initial tests, dogs that had microfilariae detected via modified Knott testing (OR = 32.30, p-value = 0.013) and dogs that previously received a heartworm preventive (OR = 3.81, p-value = 0.016) had greater odds of antigen blocking than dogs without these factors. Among dogs that were heartworm positive, those without microfilariae detected had greater odds of antigen blocking than dogs with this factor (OR = 11.84, p-value = 0.0005). Geographic region of origin was significantly associated with occurrence of antigen blocking (p = 0.0036); however, blocking occurred in all regions sizably contributing to heartworm diagnoses. Of the 74 dogs found to be infected with heartworms in this study, 39.2% (29) had no detectable antigen prior to heat treatment. Conclusions Heat treatment of serum samples should be considered to improve diagnostic test accuracy, particularly in dogs that reportedly received a heartworm preventive prior to antigen testing regardless of region of origin

GRADE guidelines: 11. Making an overall rating of confidence in effect estimates for a single outcome and for all outcomes

GRADE requires guideline developers to make an overall rating of confidence in estimates of effect (quality of evidence-high, moderate, low, or very low) for each important or critical outcome. GRADE suggests, for each outcome, the initial separate consideration of five domains of reasons for rating down the confidence in effect estimates, thereby allowing systematic review authors and guideline developers to arrive at an outcome-specific rating of confidence. Although this rating system represents discrete steps on an ordinal scale, it is helpful to view confidence in estimates as a continuum, and the final rating of confidence may differ from that suggested by separate consideration of each domain. An overall rating of confidence in estimates of effect is only relevant in settings when recommendations are being made. In general, it is based on the critical outcome that provides the lowest confidenc