'Supportive Parenting’, Responsibility and Regulation: The Welfare Assessment under the Reformed Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act (1990)

Section 13(5) of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 requires fertility clinics, before offering regulated treatment services, to take account of the welfare of any child who may be born as a result of the treatment and any other child affected by that birth. This paper presents the findings of an empirical study examining the impact on practice of the controversial reform of this section in 2008. While the broad values underpinning section 13(5) appear well embedded in clinic staff's engagement with ethical issues, there is little evidence that practice has been influenced by the 2008 amendments. A complex picture emerged regarding the implementation of section 13(5), particularly in its interaction with other factors, such as funding criteria and professional norms around counselling, implying a higher level of ongoing attention to likely parenting ability – particularly that of single women – than might be expected from a reading of the statute and guidance alone

Systematic review on citation classics in minimally invasive gastrointestinal surgery

Background: The impact an article has on a specific field is manifested by its number of citations. The aim of this systematic review was to perform a citation analysis and identify the 100 most-cited articles in the field of minimally invasive (MI) gastrointestinal (GI) surgery. Methods: The Institute for Scientific Information Web of Knowledge (1945–2017) was utilised to identify the top 100 most-cited articles in the field of MI GI surgery, using 19 distinct keywords. The data extracted were number of citations, time of publication, research topic, level of evidence, authorship and country of origin. Results: Of the 100 most-cited articles, the number of citations ranged from 3331 to 317 citations. Most publications reported on bariatric surgery (n = 36), followed by oncology (n = 26) and hepatobiliary surgery (n = 15). The studies were published in 26 different journals with the top three journals being Annals of Surgery (n = 30), New England Journal of Medicine (n = 10) and Obesity Surgery (n = 9). The studies were conducted in 17 different countries led by the USA (n = 51), the UK (n = 9) and France (n = 6). Articles were published on all levels of evidence: level I (n = 20), Level II (n = 29), Level III (n = 8), Level IV (n = 29) and Level V (n = 14). Conclusion: The study revealed citation classics in the field of MI surgery. Interestingly, a high level of evidence was not significantly associated with an increased citation number

Citation classics in general medical journals: assessing the quality of evidence; a systematic review.

Aim This review provides a comprehensive overview of more than 100 of the most cited studies in general medical journals and evaluates whether citations predict the quality of a scientific article. Background The number of citations is commonly used as a measure of the quality and impact of a scientific article. However, it is often criticised that the number of citations is in fact a poor indicator of the true quality, as it can be influenced by different factors such as current trends. Methods This review was conducted in line with the PRISMA guidelines. The Journal Citation Report (JCR) within Incites allowed the evaluation and comparison of articles, published in general medical journals, using far-reaching citation data drawn from scholarly and technical journals and conference proceedings. All steps of the review were performed in duplicate and conflicts were resolved through consensus. Results The 100 most cited articles published from 1963 until the end of 2018 were identified. The number of citations ranged from 4012 to 31853. Most of the articles were published in the 2000's, followed by the 1990's, 1980's, 1970's and 1960's, respectively. All of the articles were published in five journals. There were 50 studies at level II, 28 at level V, 10 at level IV, 7 at level III, and 5 at Level I. Conclusion This systematic review provides an overview of the most cited articles, published in general medical journals. The number of citations provides an indication of the quality of evidence. However, researchers and clinicians should use standardized assessment tools rather than solely rely on the number of citations in order to judge the quality of published articles

Mix and Match: Mono-substituted Hydrocarbon Diastereomer Combinations Reveal Stapled Peptides with High Structural Fidelity

Modified peptides such as stapled peptides, which replicate the structure of α-helical protein segments, represent a potential therapeutic advance. However, the 3D solution structure of these stapled peptides is rarely explored beyond the acquisition of CD data to quantify bulk peptide helicity; the detailed backbone structure which underlies this is typically undefined. Diastereomeric stapled peptides based on helical sections of three proteins (αSyn, Cks1 and CK1α) were generated; their overall helicity was quantified by CD; and the most helical peptide from each series was selected for structural analysis. Solution-phase models for the optimised peptides were generated using NMR-derived restraints and a modified CHARMM22 force field. Comparing these models with PDB structures allowed deviation between the stapled peptides and critical helical regions to be evaluated. These studies demonstrate that CD alone is not sufficient to assess the structural fidelity of a stapled peptide.McWhinnie, Fergus; Sepp, Kristel; Wilson, Charlotte; Kunath, Tilo; Houston, Douglas; Baker, Terry; Hupp, Ted; Hulme, Alison. (2017). Mix and Match: Mono-substituted Hydrocarbon Diastereomer Combinations Reveal Stapled Peptides with High Structural Fidelity, [dataset]. University of Edinburgh. School of Chemistry. http://dx.doi.org/10.7488/ds/2276