Integration of evidence across human and model organism studies: A meeting report.

The National Institute on Drug Abuse and Joint Institute for Biological Sciences at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory hosted a meeting attended by a diverse group of scientists with expertise in substance use disorders (SUDs), computational biology, and FAIR (Findability, Accessibility, Interoperability, and Reusability) data sharing. The meeting\u27s objective was to discuss and evaluate better strategies to integrate genetic, epigenetic, and \u27omics data across human and model organisms to achieve deeper mechanistic insight into SUDs. Specific topics were to (a) evaluate the current state of substance use genetics and genomics research and fundamental gaps, (b) identify opportunities and challenges of integration and sharing across species and data types, (c) identify current tools and resources for integration of genetic, epigenetic, and phenotypic data, (d) discuss steps and impediment related to data integration, and (e) outline future steps to support more effective collaboration-particularly between animal model research communities and human genetics and clinical research teams. This review summarizes key facets of this catalytic discussion with a focus on new opportunities and gaps in resources and knowledge on SUDs

Integration of evidence across human and model organism studies: A meeting report

The National Institute on Drug Abuse and Joint Institute for Biological Sciences at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory hosted a meeting attended by a diverse group of scientists with expertise in substance use disorders (SUDs), computational biology, and FAIR (Findability, Accessibility, Interoperability, and Reusability) data sharing. The meeting's objective was to discuss and evaluate better strategies to integrate genetic, epigenetic, and 'omics data across human and model organisms to achieve deeper mechanistic insight into SUDs. Specific topics were to (a) evaluate the current state of substance use genetics and genomics research and fundamental gaps, (b) identify opportunities and challenges of integration and sharing across species and data types, (c) identify current tools and resources for integration of genetic, epigenetic, and phenotypic data, (d) discuss steps and impediment related to data integration, and (e) outline future steps to support more effective collaboration-particularly between animal model research communities and human genetics and clinical research teams. This review summarizes key facets of this catalytic discussion with a focus on new opportunities and gaps in resources and knowledge on SUDs

The development and validation of a scoring tool to predict the operative duration of elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy

Background: The ability to accurately predict operative duration has the potential to optimise theatre efficiency and utilisation, thus reducing costs and increasing staff and patient satisfaction. With laparoscopic cholecystectomy being one of the most commonly performed procedures worldwide, a tool to predict operative duration could be extremely beneficial to healthcare organisations. Methods: Data collected from the CholeS study on patients undergoing cholecystectomy in UK and Irish hospitals between 04/2014 and 05/2014 were used to study operative duration. A multivariable binary logistic regression model was produced in order to identify significant independent predictors of long (> 90 min) operations. The resulting model was converted to a risk score, which was subsequently validated on second cohort of patients using ROC curves. Results: After exclusions, data were available for 7227 patients in the derivation (CholeS) cohort. The median operative duration was 60 min (interquartile range 45–85), with 17.7% of operations lasting longer than 90 min. Ten factors were found to be significant independent predictors of operative durations > 90 min, including ASA, age, previous surgical admissions, BMI, gallbladder wall thickness and CBD diameter. A risk score was then produced from these factors, and applied to a cohort of 2405 patients from a tertiary centre for external validation. This returned an area under the ROC curve of 0.708 (SE = 0.013, p  90 min increasing more than eightfold from 5.1 to 41.8% in the extremes of the score. Conclusion: The scoring tool produced in this study was found to be significantly predictive of long operative durations on validation in an external cohort. As such, the tool may have the potential to enable organisations to better organise theatre lists and deliver greater efficiencies in care

Effectiveness of a national quality improvement programme to improve survival after emergency abdominal surgery (EPOCH): a stepped-wedge cluster-randomised trial

Background: Emergency abdominal surgery is associated with poor patient outcomes. We studied the effectiveness of a national quality improvement (QI) programme to implement a care pathway to improve survival for these patients. Methods: We did a stepped-wedge cluster-randomised trial of patients aged 40 years or older undergoing emergency open major abdominal surgery. Eligible UK National Health Service (NHS) hospitals (those that had an emergency general surgical service, a substantial volume of emergency abdominal surgery cases, and contributed data to the National Emergency Laparotomy Audit) were organised into 15 geographical clusters and commenced the QI programme in a random order, based on a computer-generated random sequence, over an 85-week period with one geographical cluster commencing the intervention every 5 weeks from the second to the 16th time period. Patients were masked to the study group, but it was not possible to mask hospital staff or investigators. The primary outcome measure was mortality within 90 days of surgery. Analyses were done on an intention-to-treat basis. This study is registered with the ISRCTN registry, number ISRCTN80682973. Findings: Treatment took place between March 3, 2014, and Oct 19, 2015. 22 754 patients were assessed for elegibility. Of 15 873 eligible patients from 93 NHS hospitals, primary outcome data were analysed for 8482 patients in the usual care group and 7374 in the QI group. Eight patients in the usual care group and nine patients in the QI group were not included in the analysis because of missing primary outcome data. The primary outcome of 90-day mortality occurred in 1210 (16%) patients in the QI group compared with 1393 (16%) patients in the usual care group (HR 1·11, 0·96–1·28). Interpretation: No survival benefit was observed from this QI programme to implement a care pathway for patients undergoing emergency abdominal surgery. Future QI programmes should ensure that teams have both the time and resources needed to improve patient care. Funding: National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research Programme

Effectiveness of a national quality improvement programme to improve survival after emergency abdominal surgery (EPOCH): a stepped-wedge cluster-randomised trial

BACKGROUND: Emergency abdominal surgery is associated with poor patient outcomes. We studied the effectiveness of a national quality improvement (QI) programme to implement a care pathway to improve survival for these patients. METHODS: We did a stepped-wedge cluster-randomised trial of patients aged 40 years or older undergoing emergency open major abdominal surgery. Eligible UK National Health Service (NHS) hospitals (those that had an emergency general surgical service, a substantial volume of emergency abdominal surgery cases, and contributed data to the National Emergency Laparotomy Audit) were organised into 15 geographical clusters and commenced the QI programme in a random order, based on a computer-generated random sequence, over an 85-week period with one geographical cluster commencing the intervention every 5 weeks from the second to the 16th time period. Patients were masked to the study group, but it was not possible to mask hospital staff or investigators. The primary outcome measure was mortality within 90 days of surgery. Analyses were done on an intention-to-treat basis. This study is registered with the ISRCTN registry, number ISRCTN80682973. FINDINGS: Treatment took place between March 3, 2014, and Oct 19, 2015. 22 754 patients were assessed for elegibility. Of 15 873 eligible patients from 93 NHS hospitals, primary outcome data were analysed for 8482 patients in the usual care group and 7374 in the QI group. Eight patients in the usual care group and nine patients in the QI group were not included in the analysis because of missing primary outcome data. The primary outcome of 90-day mortality occurred in 1210 (16%) patients in the QI group compared with 1393 (16%) patients in the usual care group (HR 1·11, 0·96-1·28). INTERPRETATION: No survival benefit was observed from this QI programme to implement a care pathway for patients undergoing emergency abdominal surgery. Future QI programmes should ensure that teams have both the time and resources needed to improve patient care. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research Programme

Integration of evidence across human and model organism studies: A meeting report.

The National Institute on Drug Abuse and Joint Institute for Biological Sciences at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory hosted a meeting attended by a diverse group of scientists with expertise in substance use disorders (SUDs), computational biology, and FAIR (Findability, Accessibility, Interoperability, and Reusability) data sharing. The meeting's objective was to discuss and evaluate better strategies to integrate genetic, epigenetic, and 'omics data across human and model organisms to achieve deeper mechanistic insight into SUDs. Specific topics were to (a) evaluate the current state of substance use genetics and genomics research and fundamental gaps, (b) identify opportunities and challenges of integration and sharing across species and data types, (c) identify current tools and resources for integration of genetic, epigenetic, and phenotypic data, (d) discuss steps and impediment related to data integration, and (e) outline future steps to support more effective collaboration-particularly between animal model research communities and human genetics and clinical research teams. This review summarizes key facets of this catalytic discussion with a focus on new opportunities and gaps in resources and knowledge on SUDs