Proposals to make the T20 a more impactful, effective, and continuous think tank process

The T20 process has been put on a new footing during the German T20 process in 2017 by establishing issue-specific task forces as the key organisational structure. Task forces have evolved throughout the years, and other elements have been added, such as inviting think tanks from the region of the hosting nation and from Africa, and issuing calls for papers. After 4 years, we believe, it is time to reflect on the T20's achievements as well as areas for improvement. In this concept note, we focus mainly on process-related and structural issues as a prerequisite to advance specific recommendations to the G20 on pressing global challenges. As longstanding participants of the T20, we describe in the following our view on the purpose and current shortcomings of the T20 process and make suggestions on how the process could be reformed to allow the group to realise its full potential to become more impactful, effective and continuous while maintaining the T20's diversity, inclusiveness and dialogue-orientation. In particular, we propose a number of reforms of the governance of the T20

Inter-professional Service Learning to Increase Students\u27 Understanding of Migrant Latino Health

Learning Objectives At the end of this seminar participants will be able to: 1.Explain the relevance of inter-professional, cultural competent, global health approaches to health assessment and interventions at home and abroad. 2.Identify evidence-based programs to improve target population health, utilizing the CLAS standards to advance health equity, improve quality and help eliminate health disparities. 3.Design a service learning inter-professional health education course with teaching strategies for cultural competency training that utilizes academic and clinical partnerships

Research response to coronavirus disease 2019 needed better coordination and collaboration: a living mapping of registered trials

Objectives: Researchers worldwide are actively engaging in research activities to search for preventive and therapeutic interventions against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Our aim was to describe the planning of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in terms of timing related to the course of the COVID-19 epidemic and research question evaluated. Study Design and Setting: We performed a living mapping of RCTs registered in the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. We systematically search the platform every week for all RCTs evaluating preventive interventions and treatments for COVID-19 and created a publicly available interactive mapping tool at https://covid-nma.com to visualize all trials registered. Results: By August 12, 2020, 1,568 trials for COVID-19 were registered worldwide. Overall, the median ([Q1–Q3]; range) delay between the first case recorded in each country and the first RCT registered was 47 days ([33–67]; 15–163). For the 9 countries with the highest number of trials registered, most trials were registered after the peak of the epidemic (from 100% trials in Italy to 38% in the United States). Most trials evaluated treatments (1,333 trials; 85%); only 223 (14%) evaluated preventive strategies and 12 postacute period intervention. A total of 254 trials were planned to assess different regimens of hydroxychloroquine with an expected sample size of 110,883 patients. Conclusion: This living mapping analysis showed that COVID-19 trials have relatively small sample size with certain redundancy in research questions. Most trials were registered when the first peak of the pandemic has passed

Correlation of Measures From the OCULUS Keratograph and Clinical Assessments of Dry Eye Disease in the Dry Eye Assessment and Management Study.

PurposeThe purpose of this study was to compare objective, noninvasive assessments of tear function using the OCULUS Keratograph with the corresponding clinical assessments [tear break-up time (TBUT), Schirmer test, and bulbar erythema] among patients with moderate-to-severe dry eye disease.MethodsParticipants in the Dry Eye Assessment and Management study at centers having an OCULUS Keratograph were assessed using standardized procedures. Associations between the assessments from the Keratograph [noninvasive keratograph break-up time (NIKBUT), tear meniscus height (TMH), and bulbar redness (BR)] and clinical examination (TBUT, Schirmer test, and bulbar erythema) and between these test results and Ocular Surface Disease Index (OSDI) scores were summarized with Spearman correlation coefficients (r s ); 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) accounted for intereye correlation.ResultsAmong 288 patients (576 eyes), the mean (standard deviation) age was 56.6 (13.8) years, 78.1% were female, and the mean baseline OSDI score was 44.3 (14.0). The mean was 2.9 (1.5) seconds for TBUT and 8.2 (5.7) seconds for NIKBUT (their correlation r s = 0.18, 95% CI = 0.09-0.28). The mean was 10.6 (7.6) mm for the Schirmer test and 0.3 (0.2) mm for TMH (r s = 0.15, 95% CI = 0.04-0.25). The median clinical grade redness was mild, and the mean BR score was 1.1 (0.5) (r s = 0.25, 95% CI = 0.15-0.35). Correlation between results of each of the 6 tests and OSDI scores was low (r s from -0.07 to 0.05).ConclusionsIn the Dry Eye Assessment and Management study, NIKBUT, TMH, and BR were weakly correlated with their clinical counterparts. No measurements were correlated with the OSDI score

Bias in dissemination of clinical research findings : Structured OPEN framework of what, who and why, based on literature review and expert consensus

The aim of this study is to review highly cited articles that focus on non-publication of studies, and to develop a consistent and comprehensive approach to defining (non-) dissemination of research findings. Setting: We performed a scoping review of definitions of the term 'publication bias' in highly cited publications. Ideas and experiences of a core group of authors were collected in a draft document, which was complemented by the findings from our literature search. The draft document including findings from the literature search was circulated to an international group of experts and revised until no additional ideas emerged and consensus was reached. We propose a new approach to the comprehensive conceptualisation of (non-) dissemination of research. Secondary outcomes: Our 'What, Who and Why?' approach includes issues that need to be considered when disseminating research findings (What?), the different players who should assume responsibility during the various stages of conducting a clinical trial and disseminating clinical trial documents (Who?), and motivations that might lead the various players to disseminate findings selectively, thereby introducing bias in the dissemination process (Why?). Our comprehensive framework of (non-) dissemination of research findings, based on the results of a scoping literature search and expert consensus will facilitate the development of future policies and guidelines regarding the multifaceted issue of selective publication, historically referred to as 'publication bias'