1,147 research outputs found

    The high costs of getting ethical and site-specific approvals for multi-centre research.

    Full text link
    BACKGROUND: Multi-centre studies generally cost more than single-centre studies because of larger sample sizes and the need for multiple ethical approvals. Multi-centre studies include clinical trials, clinical quality registries, observational studies and implementation studies. We examined the costs of two large Australian multi-centre studies in obtaining ethical and site-specific approvals. METHODS: We collected data on staff time spent on approvals and expressed the overall cost as a percent of the total budget. RESULTS: The total costs of gaining approval were 38 % of the budget for a study of 50 centres (mean cost AUD 6960persite)and26960 per site) and 2 % for a study of 11 centres (mean cost AUD 2300 per site). Seventy-five and 90 % of time was spent on repeated tasks, respectively, and many time-consuming tasks, such as reformatting documents, did nothing to improve the study design or participant safety. CONCLUSIONS: Improvements have been made to the ethical approval application system, but more gains could be made without increasing risks of harm to research participants. We propose that ethical review bodies and individual sites publish statistics on how long they take to process approvals which could then be nationally benchmarked

    Dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI of synovitis in knee osteoarthritis: repeatability, discrimination and sensitivity to change in a prospective experimental study

    Get PDF
    OBJECTIVES: Evaluate test-retest repeatability, ability to discriminate between osteoarthritic and healthy participants, and sensitivity to change over 6 months, of dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (DCE-MRI) biomarkers in knee OA. METHODS: Fourteen individuals aged 40-60 with mild-moderate knee OA and 6 age-matched healthy volunteers (HV) underwent DCE-MRI at 3 T at baseline, 1 month and 6 months. Voxelwise pharmacokinetic modelling of dynamic data was used to calculate DCE-MRI biomarkers including Ktrans and IAUC60. Median DCE-MRI biomarker values were extracted for each participant at each study visit. Synovial segmentation was performed using both manual and semiautomatic methods with calculation of an additional biomarker, the volume of enhancing pannus (VEP). Test-retest repeatability was assessed using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC). Smallest detectable differences (SDDs) were calculated from test-retest data. Discrimination between OA and HV was assessed via calculation of between-group standardised mean differences (SMD). Responsiveness was assessed via the number of OA participants with changes greater than the SDD at 6 months. RESULTS: Ktrans demonstrated the best test-retest repeatability (Ktrans/IAUC60/VEP ICCs 0.90/0.84/0.40, SDDs as % of OA mean 33/71/76%), discrimination between OA and HV (SMDs 0.94/0.54/0.50) and responsiveness (5/1/1 out of 12 OA participants with 6-month change > SDD) when compared to IAUC60 and VEP. Biomarkers derived from semiautomatic segmentation outperformed those derived from manual segmentation across all domains. CONCLUSIONS: Ktrans demonstrated the best repeatability, discrimination and sensitivity to change suggesting that it is the optimal DCE-MRI biomarker for use in experimental medicine studies. KEY POINTS: • Dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI (DCE-MRI) provides quantitative measures of synovitis in knee osteoarthritis which may permit early assessment of efficacy in experimental medicine studies. • This prospective observational study compared DCE-MRI biomarkers across domains relevant to experimental medicine: test-retest repeatability, discriminative validity and sensitivity to change. • The DCE-MRI biomarker Ktrans demonstrated the best performance across all three domains, suggesting that it is the optimal biomarker for use in future interventional studies

    Activation of Ventral Tegmental Area 5-HT2C Receptors Reduces Incentive Motivation

    Get PDF
    FUNDING AND DISCLOSURE The research was funded by Wellcome Trust (WT098012) to LKH; and National Institute of Health (DK056731) and the Marilyn H. Vincent Foundation to MGM. The University of Michigan Transgenic Core facility is partially supported by the NIH-funded University of Michigan Center for Gastrointestinal Research (DK034933). The remaining authors declare no conflict of interest. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We thank Dr Celine Cansell, Ms Raffaella Chianese and the staff of the Medical Research Facility for technical assistance. We thank Dr Vladimir Orduña for the scientific advice and technical assistance.Peer reviewedPublisher PD
    corecore