Preliminary Competencies for Comparative Effectiveness Research

The Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) Workgroup for Comparative Effectiveness Research (CER) Education, Training, and Workforce Development identified a need to delineate the competencies that practitioners and users of CER for patient centered outcomes research, should acquire. With input from CTSA representatives and collaborators, we began by describing the workforce. We recognize the workforce that conduct CER and the end users who use CER to improve the health of individuals and communities. We generated a preliminary set of competencies and solicited feedback from the CER representatives at each member site of the CTSA consortium. We distinguished applied competencies (i.e., skills needed by individuals who conduct CER) from foundational competencies that are needed by the entire CER workforce, including end users of CER. Key competency categories of relevance to both practitioners and users of CER were: 1) Asking relevant research questions; 2) Recognizing or designing ideal CER studies; 3) Executing or using CER studies; 4) Using appropriate statistical analyses for CER; and 5) Communicating and disseminating CER study results to improve health. While CER is particularly broad concept, we anticipate that these preliminary, relatively generic competencies will be used in tailoring curricula to individual learners from a variety of programmatic perspectives

Funding Mechanisms for Gender-Specific Research: Proceedings from a Panel Discussion at the 2014 Academic Emergency Medicine Consensus Conference.

As part of the 2014 Academic Emergency Medicine (AEM) consensus conference Gender-Specific Research in Emergency Care: Investigate, Understand, and Translate How Gender Affects Patient Outcomes, we assembled a diverse panel of representatives from federal and nonfederal funding agencies to discuss future opportunities for sex- and gender-specific research. The discussion revolved around the mission and priorities of each organization, as well as its interest in promoting sex- and gender-specific research. The panelists were asked to provide specific examples of funding lines generated or planned for as pertinent to emergency care. Training opportunities for future researchers in this area were also discussed

A Comprehensive Treatment Protocol for Endometriosis Patients Decreases Pain and Improves Function.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this paper is to evaluate the efficacy of a multimodal, outpatient neuromuscular protocol in treating remaining sensitization and myofascial pain in endometriosis patients post-surgical excision. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A retrospective longitudinal study was conducted for women aged 22 to 78 with a history of surgically excised endometriosis. 60 women with an average duration of pain of 8.63 ± 7.65 years underwent a treatment protocol consisting of ultrasound guided trigger point injections, peripheral nerve blocks, and pelvic floor physical therapy for 6 weeks. Concomitant cognitive behavioral therapy once weekly for a total of 12 weeks was also undertaken. Pain intensity and pelvic functionality were assessed at new patient consults and 3-month follow ups using Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) and Functional Pelvic Pain Scale (FPPS). RESULTS: At new patient consults, average VAS and FPPS were 7.45 ± 2.11 (CI 6.92-7.98) and 14.35 ± 6.62 (CI 12.68 -16.02), respectively. At 3-month follow ups, average VAS and FPPS decreased to 4.12 ± 2.44 (CI 3.50-4.73; p \u3c 0.001) and 10.3 ± 6.55 (CI 8.64-11.96; p \u3c 0.001), respectively. Among FPPS categories, sleeping, intercourse, and working showed the highest statistical significance. CONCLUSION: Data suggests the multimodal protocol was effective in treating the remaining underlying sensitization and myofascial pain seen in Endometriosis patients post-surgical excision, particularly in decreasing pain and improving function during work and intercourse

NIH roundtable on emergency trauma research

Study objective: The National Institutes of Health (NIH) formed an NIH Task Force on Research in Emergency Medicine to enhance NIH support for emergency care research. The NIH Trauma Research Roundtable was convened on June 22 to 23, 2009. The objectives of the roundtable are to identify key research questions essential to advancing the scientific underpinnings of emergency trauma care and to discuss the barriers and best means to advance research by exploring the role of trauma research networks and collaboration between NIH and the emergency trauma care community. Methods: Before the roundtable, the emergency care domains to be discussed were selected and experts in each of the fields were invited to participate in the roundtable. Domain experts were asked to identify research priorities and challenges and separate them into mechanistic, translational, and clinical categories. During and after the conference, the lists were circulated among the participants and revised to reach a consensus. Results: Emergency trauma care research is characterized by focus on the timing, sequence, and time sensitivity of disease processes and treatment effects. Rapidly identifying the phenotype of patients on the time spectrum of acuity and severity after injury and the mechanistic reasons for heterogeneity in outcome are important challenges in emergency trauma research. Other research priorities include the need to elucidate the timing, sequence, and duration of causal molecular and cellular events involved in time-critical injuries, and the development of treatments capable of halting or reversing them; the need for novel experimental models of acute injury; the need to assess the effect of development and aging on the postinjury response; and the need to understand why there are regional differences in outcomes after injury. Important barriers to emergency care research include a limited number of trained investigators and experienced mentors, limited research infrastructure and support, and regulatory hurdles. Conclusion: The science of emergency trauma care may be advanced by facilitating the following: (1) development of an acute injury template for clinical research; (2) developing emergency trauma clinical research networks; (3) integrating emergency trauma research into Clinical and Translational Science Awards; (4) developing emergency carespecific initiatives within the existing structure of NIH institutes and centers; (5) involving acute trauma and emergency specialists in grant review and research advisory processes; (6) supporting learn-phase or small, clinical trials; (7) performing research to address ethical and regulatory issues; and (8) training emergency care investigators with research training programs. © 2010 American College of Emergency Physicians

NIH roundtable on emergency trauma research

Study objective: The National Institutes of Health (NIH) formed an NIH Task Force on Research in Emergency Medicine to enhance NIH support for emergency care research. The NIH Trauma Research Roundtable was convened on June 22 to 23, 2009. The objectives of the roundtable are to identify key research questions essential to advancing the scientific underpinnings of emergency trauma care and to discuss the barriers and best means to advance research by exploring the role of trauma research networks and collaboration between NIH and the emergency trauma care community. Methods: Before the roundtable, the emergency care domains to be discussed were selected and experts in each of the fields were invited to participate in the roundtable. Domain experts were asked to identify research priorities and challenges and separate them into mechanistic, translational, and clinical categories. During and after the conference, the lists were circulated among the participants and revised to reach a consensus. Results: Emergency trauma care research is characterized by focus on the timing, sequence, and time sensitivity of disease processes and treatment effects. Rapidly identifying the phenotype of patients on the time spectrum of acuity and severity after injury and the mechanistic reasons for heterogeneity in outcome are important challenges in emergency trauma research. Other research priorities include the need to elucidate the timing, sequence, and duration of causal molecular and cellular events involved in time-critical injuries, and the development of treatments capable of halting or reversing them; the need for novel experimental models of acute injury; the need to assess the effect of development and aging on the postinjury response; and the need to understand why there are regional differences in outcomes after injury. Important barriers to emergency care research include a limited number of trained investigators and experienced mentors, limited research infrastructure and support, and regulatory hurdles. Conclusion: The science of emergency trauma care may be advanced by facilitating the following: (1) development of an acute injury template for clinical research; (2) developing emergency trauma clinical research networks; (3) integrating emergency trauma research into Clinical and Translational Science Awards; (4) developing emergency carespecific initiatives within the existing structure of NIH institutes and centers; (5) involving acute trauma and emergency specialists in grant review and research advisory processes; (6) supporting learn-phase or small, clinical trials; (7) performing research to address ethical and regulatory issues; and (8) training emergency care investigators with research training programs. © 2010 American College of Emergency Physicians

Harnessing neuroplasticity for clinical applications

Neuroplasticity can be defined as the ability of the nervous system to respond to intrinsic or extrinsic stimuli by reorganizing its structure, function and connections. Major advances in the understanding of neuroplasticity have to date yielded few established interventions. To advance the translation of neuroplasticity research towards clinical applications, the National Institutes of Health Blueprint for Neuroscience Research sponsored a workshop in 2009. Basic and clinical researchers in disciplines from central nervous system injury/stroke, mental/addictive disorders, paediatric/developmental disorders and neurodegeneration/ageing identified cardinal examples of neuroplasticity, underlying mechanisms, therapeutic implications and common denominators. Promising therapies that may enhance training-induced cognitive and motor learning, such as brain stimulation and neuropharmacological interventions, were identified, along with questions of how best to use this body of information to reduce human disability. Improved understanding of adaptive mechanisms at every level, from molecules to synapses, to networks, to behaviour, can be gained from iterative collaborations between basic and clinical researchers. Lessons can be gleaned from studying fields related to plasticity, such as development, critical periods, learning and response to disease. Improved means of assessing neuroplasticity in humans, including biomarkers for predicting and monitoring treatment response, are needed. Neuroplasticity occurs with many variations, in many forms, and in many contexts. However, common themes in plasticity that emerge across diverse central nervous system conditions include experience dependence, time sensitivity and the importance of motivation and attention. Integration of information across disciplines should enhance opportunities for the translation of neuroplasticity and circuit retraining research into effective clinical therapies. Keywords: neuroplasticity; retraining; therapeutics; clinical assessmen

Harnessing neuroplasticity for clinical applications.

Neuroplasticity can be defined as the ability of the nervous system to respond to intrinsic or extrinsic stimuli by reorganizing its structure, function and connections. Major advances in the understanding of neuroplasticity have to date yielded few established interventions. To advance the translation of neuroplasticity research towards clinical applications, the National Institutes of Health Blueprint for Neuroscience Research sponsored a workshop in 2009. Basic and clinical researchers in disciplines from central nervous system injury/stroke, mental/addictive disorders, paediatric/developmental disorders and neurodegeneration/ageing identified cardinal examples of neuroplasticity, underlying mechanisms, therapeutic implications and common denominators. Promising therapies that may enhance training-induced cognitive and motor learning, such as brain stimulation and neuropharmacological interventions, were identified, along with questions of how best to use this body of information to reduce human disability. Improved understanding of adaptive mechanisms at every level, from molecules to synapses, to networks, to behaviour, can be gained from iterative collaborations between basic and clinical researchers. Lessons can be gleaned from studying fields related to plasticity, such as development, critical periods, learning and response to disease. Improved means of assessing neuroplasticity in humans, including biomarkers for predicting and monitoring treatment response, are needed. Neuroplasticity occurs with many variations, in many forms, and in many contexts. However, common themes in plasticity that emerge across diverse central nervous system conditions include experience dependence, time sensitivity and the importance of motivation and attention. Integration of information across disciplines should enhance opportunities for the translation of neuroplasticity and circuit retraining research into effective clinical therapies